The Springfield School Committee tabled consideration of a charitable contribution agreement that would place $8,000 at Brightwood School for staff-authorized classroom use, after members raised equity and policy concerns.

Superintendent (name provided in session) introduced the gift and said school attorneys reviewed the proposed agreement to ensure it complied with state and federal rules on charitable donations and with district policy. Principal Delgado joined the table to explain the origin: a dining-guest donor, moved by a special-education teacher’s work, offered funds to support that teacher’s classroom.

Why it matters: Several committee members said the proposed agreement, which designates two teachers at Brightwood to receive $2,000 each per semester, creates unfair disparities within a school. “It typically…sets up haves and have nots,” Committee Member Mister Collins said. Members asked whether the donor intended school-level support or an individual teacher, whether the gift should be targeted to special-education classrooms, and whether the school committee’s gift-acceptance policy requires additional specificity.

Committee discussion and concerns concentrated on three points: perceived inequity among staff when only two teachers receive designated funds; the donor’s intent (whether the gift must stay with Brightwood or follow a named teacher if they leave); and the need for itemized receipts and administrative oversight so funds are used for students and avoid ethical conflicts for staff. School counsel noted the district policy on gifts (1993 policy in committee materials) and said an agreement that routes funds through the school with principal oversight and itemized receipts reduces ethical risk compared with direct payments to a teacher.

Principal Delgado said the donor’s original preference was for funds at the Brightwood site tied to the teacher the donor met, and that the donor might not give the gift if the school changes the arrangement. Committee members suggested alternatives — for example, designating two comparable special-education classrooms or clarifying the donor’s exact intent — to reduce internal conflict and clarify use.

Action: Committee Member Mister Collins moved to table the item so attorneys could discuss donor intent and revise language; another committee member seconded. Roll call votes recorded: Vice Chair Monroe Naylor — yes; Miss Hurst — yes; Miss Gresham — yes; Mister Collins — yes. The motion passed and the item was tabled for revision and re-presentation.

Next steps: Attorneys were instructed to consult with Principal Delgado and the donor to craft a revised agreement that preserves donor intent while adding clearer purpose, spending restrictions, principal oversight and itemized receipts; the committee will revisit the revised agreement at a later meeting.

Ending: Committee members said they did not want to reject the donation but sought clearer contract terms to avoid inequity and ethical conflicts before final approval.