Everett School Committee refers draft response on superintendent credentials back to sponsor after debate

The Everett School Committee on Dec. 1, 2025 debated a draft statement intended to rebut public comments made at a Nov. 24 city council meeting that alleged Superintendent William Hart lacked the required licensure. After an extended discussion and legal advice, the committee voted unanimously to refer the draft back to its sponsor for revision.

The item was introduced by Chairperson Hurley, who read a prepared statement that said a public speaker had "continued to deliberate efforts to damage the reputation of the Everett School superintendent William Hart using lies and misleading information about his credentials" and described the superintendent’s provisional license and qualifications. Attorney Galvin, invited to advise the committee, said he had "reviewed this draft" and believed it "corrects some statements that were made that were false," while cautioning that the committee must weigh public-comment protections against correcting demonstrably false factual claims.

Several committee members urged a factual clarification rather than a personal rebuke. Miss Cristiano said statements that the superintendent "has no qualifications for the job" "malign us as well" and described the draft as a defense of their employee. Others, including Mister Barros and Miss Babcock, cited legal limits on restricting public speech and urged care in how the committee responds. Miss Garen suggested removing the speaker’s name and issuing a neutral explanation of what a provisional license means.

Superintendent Hart spoke during the discussion, saying he appreciated the committee’s support and disputing the characterization of his credentials: "The credentials that I hold are no different than many other superintendents," he said, adding that he has worked with DESE and holds the experience and degrees referenced by the committee.

Faced with competing concerns about defending their employee and respecting protected public speech, the committee ultimately made a procedural choice. Miss Cristiano moved and Mister Barros seconded a motion to "refer back to sponsor" so the statement could be revised; the motion passed on roll call, 8-0. The chair said she would consider a revised, factual response that clarifies licensure without needlessly naming individuals.

Next steps: the draft will be returned to its sponsor for revision and the committee may consider a revised factual clarification at a future meeting.