Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lowell City School Committee rejects three assistant superintendent contracts amid budget concerns
Summary
After heated debate over district finances and staffing priorities, the Lowell City School Committee voted down three assistant superintendent contracts in three separate roll calls, each splitting the board three‑to‑three with one member absent. Supporters argued the leaders brought grant revenue and progress; opponents said approval should wait for clearer budget figures.
The Lowell City School Committee declined to approve three assistant superintendent contracts during its March 4 meeting, voting 3–3 (one absent) on each measure after members expressed sharply different views about approving new personnel costs while state and local budget pressures were unresolved.
Supporters, including Superintendent Skinner, urged the committee to approve the contracts, saying the administrators have generated grant funding and helped lift district outcomes. "Each of these assistant superintendents has brought in more dollars and greater value by far than their contracts," Skinner said, citing grants and recent state results that drew media attention. He argued failing to approve the contracts could jeopardize progress the district has made.
Opponents, led by school committee member Mr. Conway, urged caution given uncertain finances. "We can't spend money that we don't have," Conway said, arguing it would be prudent to wait for clearer budget information before committing to multi‑year contracts. Other members raised concerns about potential classroom cuts if the district faces lower contributions from the city.
The first contract considered was for Wendy Crocker Roberge as assistant superintendent for school leadership. Committee members debated the merits of approving leadership contracts now and the superintendent said the proposed contracts include modest increases (roughly 3% in year one and 2% in subsequent years) compared with recent raises across staff. After discussion the roll call was three in favor, three opposed and one absent, and the motion failed.
Two subsequent contracts—for Onita Fox Roy (assistant superintendent for academics and instruction) and for Alice Brown Lrand (assistant superintendent for student support services)—received similar debate and identical roll‑call outcomes; each measure failed on a three‑to‑three vote with one member absent.
Members who opposed the contracts emphasized the need for a fuller understanding of how proposed leadership compensation would affect classroom positions and school‑level services. Member Del Rossi said he has received calls from constituents about schools facing cuts to core positions and asked for more detailed data on which roles would be reduced if the district must trim budgets.
Those voting to approve said leadership stability is important to sustain gains in graduation rates and attendance. The committee hear testimony that graduation rates have risen and chronic absenteeism has declined during the current administration, and several members cited those trends as reasons to retain leaders.
With the votes failed, the committee recessed to prepare for an executive session. The superintendent indicated the administration will return with further information if members request it. The district did not approve any of the three contracts at the March 4 meeting.
