Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Board Governance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board members clash over superintendent evaluation participation

Lebanon Community School District board of directors · April 11, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A dispute over board participation in the superintendent's evaluation surfaced when board member Melissa expressed disappointment that not all members completed the evaluation; Clyde said he did not participate because of recent events, prompting a sharp rebuke from other members who said completing evaluations is a board responsibility under policy BBA.

Tension surfaced at the Lebanon Community School District board meeting when board member Melissa raised concerns that not all board members completed the superintendent evaluation and cited board policy BBA, which says "the board will evaluate the superintendent's performance."

"As an elected board member, we have the responsibility—one of those is to complete the superintendent's evaluation," Melissa said, urging full participation so the superintendent can receive feedback and set goals.

Board member Clyde replied that his decision not to partake "was probably the best due to recent events that have happened with this board and with my engagement with the district." That statement drew immediate pushback from Melissa and other members, who said nonparticipation amounted to shirking a core responsibility. "If we're not willing to complete one of those, we need to consider, are we the right person to be sitting at this table representing our communities?" Melissa said.

Several board members stressed that policy BBA requires the board to evaluate the superintendent and noted that a quorum of three members can make decisions; members pressed for clearer expectations and full engagement in the evaluation process.

The exchange was a public airing of governance tensions; the board did not take a formal disciplinary action or change policy during the meeting, but members said the topic deserved further attention and more consistent participation going forward.