Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board to use state evaluation rubric; members and superintendent discuss goals and contract language
Summary
The board agreed to use the state Department of Education evaluation rubric and to set mutually agreed goals with the superintendent by the March 31 deadline; members also raised questions about non-reemployment language in the superintendent contract and explored whether administrators should be able to provide evaluative feedback to the board.
Board members moved to use the Department of Education's evaluation standards and discussed whether to alter their locally adopted form. The presenter explained the state rubric remains the district's baseline and that the board may add specific, mutually agreed goals without changing the core evaluation form.
The presenter told the board the state superintendent's standards align evaluation across districts and that the district can customize individual goals within the rubric's "specific work objectives" area. One trustee said she would not favor wholesale changes to the state form but supported tailoring goals collaboratively with the superintendent. The board set a target to complete evaluations and goals by March 31.
Members also raised personnel-policy concerns. The transcript shows discussion about a "non-reemployment" clause that previously appeared in policy but not in the superintendent's contract; members asked staff to confirm current contract language and to report back to avoid any inconsistency between policy and contract. The board deferred to legal counsel (Megan and the attorney, Kevin Lock, were referenced) for formal clarification.
The superintendent, speaking during the discussion, described his leadership approach as collaborative and urged board members to contact him directly with concerns. He asked whether administrators could evaluate the board or provide feedback on whether the board gives the superintendent tools to succeed; members said they believed the superintendent felt comfortable communicating his needs.
The board did not in this excerpt adopt a new evaluation form or change contract language; instead, members affirmed use of the state rubric, agreed to finalize mutually set goals for staff evaluations, and asked administrators to check policy-contract consistency and return with clarifications.
The meeting then recorded a motion and a voice approval for the day's business; the transcript does not provide the exact motion wording in the excerpt.
