The Evaluation Subcommittee voted on Sept. 23 to refer the superintendent evaluation tool and its timeline to the full committee, after an extended discussion about whether the superintendent should have an opportunity to respond to individual evaluators and about the timing of the final report.

Subcommittee members said the goal is to complete the 2024–25 evaluation and present a cumulative report to the full committee Dec. 8. Members discussed a recently announced data release expected Sept. 29 that they plan to incorporate into evaluations and debated whether the district should move parts of the timeline earlier, such as holding some meetings in November rather than December.

During public comment, Dave Olivera urged drastic action, saying the superintendent and another district official “should resign” and calling for repayment of $80,000 from the superintendent’s salary. Olivera told the subcommittee: “If this superintendent gets anything more than not meet the standing, then those committee members are just useless,” and urged a vote of no confidence.

Committee members debated process and precedent. One member said the subcommittee had, unusually, evaluated the superintendent at six months in the previous cycle and that doing so again would feel duplicative. Another member said guidance from MASC (Massachusetts Association of School Committees) recommends waiting to evaluate until members have worked with a superintendent for more than a few months, especially when the committee will see incoming membership changes after elections.

Members discussed allowing the superintendent an opportunity to respond to individual assessments. One subcommittee member described the practice used in prior cycles where evaluators submit individual assessments to the chair, the chair prepares a cumulative report, and the superintendent is given an opportunity to respond; the subcommittee discussed whether adopting that step more formally would require shifting the schedule.

After discussion, a committee member moved to refer the superintendent’s evaluation tool to the full committee; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.

Why this matters: The evaluation and its timeline determine how the superintendent’s performance is summarized and reported to the full committee and shape whether and when corrective recommendations or goal adjustments are made. Members emphasized balancing a timely wrap-up of 2024–25 with sensible timing for the 2025–26 cycle, including proposals for mid-cycle formative check-ins to report progress on goals.

What’s next: The subcommittee referred the tool and timeline to the full committee for approval; members expect to incorporate the Sept. 29 data release into final evaluations and to present the cumulative report at the Dec. 8 meeting.