Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter urges clarity on superintendent evaluation as committee reviews policies; board flags staff feedback and R2 procedural questions
Summary
A public commenter asked the committee to add transparency and specific assessment measures to superintendent evaluation policies; the committee reviewed five policies and recommended legal and policy‑committee review, including clarifying R2 procedures for staff feedback and whether evaluations are public.
A parent and former district consultant, identified in the meeting as Tracy, used the public comment period at the Dec. 8 finance committee meeting to urge clearer transparency and process around superintendent evaluation policies. Tracy told the committee she could find no published cadence or rubric for superintendent evaluations and urged the board to post an evaluation schedule and clarify measurement methods so the public can understand how board members assess standards such as collective efficacy.
"CBI says that the board will evaluate the superintendent on a schedule determined by the board, but I can find neither any suggested cadence, the current schedule, nor results of evaluations anywhere in board docs," Tracy said during her allotted public comment. She also flagged out‑of‑date organizational charts and suggested the board include specific assessment techniques in policy to guide members.
Staff then led the committee through five policies: EBAA (chemical hazards), EBCA (comprehensive emergency management plan), ACAF (workplace bullying), CB (superintendent position) and CBI (superintendent evaluation). For EBAA staff recommended designating a chemical hazard safety officer who would complete reporting and training; Board member Opperman, a former chemistry teacher, supported the recommendation and urged operational attention to Material Safety Data Sheets and training custodial and art staff.
On CBI, staff recommended three possible revisions for committee consideration: add a timeline for goal‑setting and evaluation, clarify how the R2 procedural policy is used for staff feedback and specify whether evaluation materials (in whole or in part) should be public or part of personnel files. Dr. Scanlon said R2 currently provides only limited procedural detail and that, in practice, board members complete individual evaluations and the chair compiles a summary. Board members asked legal counsel (Drummond Woodson) to advise on privacy, transparency and labor‑law tradeoffs, and several members urged a systematic staff feedback instrument (for example, a survey) to make input less anecdotal.
Committee members did not vote to change policy language at the meeting but signaled support for forwarding the recommendations to legal counsel and the policy committee for next steps. The committee asked staff to return with implementation details, examples of systematic staff feedback methods and any recommended edits from legal counsel.
