Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Superintendent topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chariho committee votes to send notice not to renew Superintendent Gina Picard’s contract after members debate evaluation process
Summary
After prolonged public comment and internal debate over whether an evaluation rubric had been completed, the Chariho Regional School Committee declined to extend Superintendent Gina Picard’s contract and voted to send formal notice not to extend it; members and residents disagreed over transparency and legal risk.
The Chariho Regional School Committee voted on April 14 to send formal notice that it will not extend Superintendent Gina Picard’s contract after earlier debate and public comment.
The item was moved to the top of the meeting and drew an extended floor discussion over whether the committee had completed a required annual evaluation before voting. Member Jess Purcell and others said written feedback tied to an approved rubric was missing; John Anderson, the district solicitor, warned that there is always potential for litigation but declined to predict outcomes and confirmed the committee could revisit the matter in the future.
Multiple speakers from the public urged transparency. Michael Calasante and other residents said the superintendent’s early attention to Rhode Island Department of Education proficiency data showed commitment; Jennifer Graham and Sharon Davis urged extension, arguing a search would be costly and that Picard’s institutional knowledge and advocacy benefited the district. Other residents, including Andrew McCoy and Gary Stoner, criticized the committee for voting without a documented evaluation.
On the floor, committee members argued over procedure and the role of a rubric that had been drafted but not formally approved. Diane and Linda pressed for written feedback and worried about legal exposure; board members who favored moving on emphasized that an up-or-down vote could be brought again later and that new members could revisit the issue.
A motion to approve a one-year extension was made and put to a roll-call vote; the chair declared that motion failed after a confused on-the-record count. Shortly afterward, a separate motion to send formal notice not to extend the superintendent’s contract was moved and seconded and the committee approved it. The precise roll-call tallies for the final notice motion are not completely recorded in the transcript.
Legal counsel explained that the district must provide a free appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and that administrative process and consent rules (for example, Medicaid consent) have separate implications for district operations, but he did not opine on likely legal outcomes of the committee’s decision.
The committee did not adopt a public evaluation in connection with this vote; members noted the item can be brought back, that the contract term itself does not expire immediately (the superintendent’s contract runs through June 30, 2027 as stated in the meeting), and that the committee retains the ability to act again later.
The committee’s decision came amid a busy meeting that also included awards and other business; the committee adjourned shortly before 10 p.m.
What’s next: Sending notice to the superintendent begins a formal personnel timeline under the district’s contract and relevant law; members repeatedly said the committee could reopen the matter later and that a more formalized evaluation rubric could be adopted in follow-up meetings. The transcript does not record any immediate administrative action beyond the vote to send notice.
