An undercurrent of tension pervaded the July 8 School Committee meeting as members attended to the business of appointing townspeople to the Special Education Audit Subcommittee, clarified roles and responsibilities of the school board, and presented the superintendent’s evaluation.
School and health boards acknowledge miscommunication
The first contentious moment occurred soon after the start of the meeting, when Chairman Stu Sklar said that the meeting was being held in the Bromfield School library because the Board of Health was using the Town Hall meeting room. Immediately Sean Doocey, member of the Board of Health, came to the front of the room to say that the Board of Health had sent Sklar an e-mail saying he could have the Town Hall room. Sklar responded that the message had come at 1 p.m. that day, too late to post a change of venue. Doocey countered that permission to use the room had been given at the time of Sklar’s request, two weeks prior. Sklar claimed that was not true, that he had been told the Board of Health had refused to give up the room. The argument reached an impasse, with both Sklar and Doocey claiming to have documentation to prove their positions. Later in the meeting Tom Philippou, chairman of the Board of Health, revived the argument by asserting that he had never refused to give up the room. Finally both he and Sklar conceded that there had been miscommunication in scheduling.
A call for more civility from the board
In light of recent controversies, Sklar made two clarifications of School Committee members’ roles and responsibilities. First, he declared that it is only the chairman of the committee who has the authority to call a lawyer; this policy exists in an effort to control costs, as every call to a lawyer comes with a price tag. Secondly, it is only that School Committee member who is the liaison to another town board who has the authority to discuss school business with that other board.
In the silence following these clarifications, Keith Cheveralls stated, “I consider myself admonished.”
Later in the meeting John Drummey of Withington Lane, who earlier had asked a number of questions about the policy for use of the Connect-Ed system, seemed to be alluding to this moment when he stated that certain matters should be brought up in executive session, rather than in public. He asked for more civility from the board, chastising members for not being respectful of one another and engaging in such behavior as eye-rolling at one another’s statements.
Superintendent’s evaluation stirs debate
Not unexpectedly, the superintendent’s evaluation elicited controversy. Early in the meeting Sklar had commented that in most towns, superintendent evaluations simply don’t get done because they are so contentious. He said he had received praise from two outside agencies on Harvard’s process. Before reading the five-page document (available at the superintendent’s office), Sklar restated Virginia Justicz’ earlier description of the evaluation process. According to Superintendent Tom Jefferson’s contract, the evaluation process has to be agreed upon by members of the School Committee and himself. Arriving at consensus on the process took several hours of School Committee time, but unanimous agreement on the process was finally reached. According to the agreement, Chairman Sklar and Vice-Chairman Justicz would conduct interviews and incorporate input into a composite review. No written statements would be taken so as to ensure candid responses. Those interviewed were members of the administrative council (school personnel who report directly to Jefferson), School Committee members, including past members, as well as Finance Director Lorraine Leonard. Governing the process were the objectives of the evaluation: to strengthen the superintendent’s performance, to improve the partnership between the superintendent and the School Committee, and ultimately to deliver the best possible education to all children in the Harvard Public School System.
Although all five members had voted to accept the process, Cheveralls and Patty Wenger later changed their minds and withdrew from participation. Cheveralls read a lengthy statement explaining his reversal, and Patty Wenger said that upon further reflection she had become uncomfortable with the process.
In open meeting following the reading of Jefferson’s evaluation, Ron Ricci repeatedly asked the rhetorical question, “So Stu and Virginia wrote the document?”
He also asked about the date on which the process had received unanimous approval. Cheveralls gave a date, but since that decision had been reached in executive session whose minutes had not yet been accepted, no official comment could be made. BJ Pessia called the review “bunk,” and declared, “You found 12 people to insulate the superintendent from criticism.”
She further claimed that the teachers are not happy.
Debbi Ricci said that the Finance Committee should have been involved, to which Sklar replied that he had input from Steve Colwell.
In response to Margo Holtzman’s comment that she didn’t hear “anything that wasn’t perfect,” Justicz stated that there are a number of places in the review that call for Jefferson to do things differently.
Sklar urged that the review be read with the objectives of the evaluation in mind.
Warren Avenue resident Bruce Leicher said that it was a disservice to Mr. Jefferson not to be focusing on the real issues that face our school and community: the structural deficit, morale, and a significant drop in MCAS scores in the fourth grade.
“Give him real goals,” said Leicher, who also commented that it was disappointing that two members of the committee were not involved in the evaluation process.
Harvard wins Devens education contract
Jefferson announced that Harvard had received the MassDevelopment contract to educate elementary-age children from Devens for three years, starting in ’09. Explaining that Harvard will receive reimbursement that is based on the actual cost of educating a student, not some hypothetical formula, he called the contract “a financial boon to the district.”
He thanked Victor Normand for his role in the negotiations and said Normand had been a pleasure to work with on the project.
School board supports solar project at Bromfield
Bill Blackwell discussed the solar panel project at Bromfield. Lorraine Leonard has a call in to town counsel to see whether or not such a project needs Town Meeting approval. Also, she said that according to Massachusetts General Laws, the project needs to go through a full RFP process. The committee voted unanimously to go forward with the process.
In other business:
- Leonard gave the fiscal year 2009 end-of-year budget report and commented that a new way of budgeting for special education placements had been key to a balanced budget.
- Bids are in for the new boiler at Bromfield and a decision is pending, following verification that the low bidder understands a specific requirement.
- Margo Holtzman and Wendy Fedderman were appointed to the Special Education Audit Subcommittee, with Virginia Justicz as the School Committee appointee.
- Margaret Grogan applauded Charles Horn for his years of service as director of Special Education. She said that Charles had always though about the children and their needs. Jefferson echoed her praise.
- In final commentary, Wenger and Justicz said they hoped to focus on the big picture and goal-setting.
- Sklar cited an education journal article calling for communities to start private fundraising for public education and said Harvard needs to start doing this.
Note: This From the Boards article did not appear in print. It was posted to the Press website during the Press‘s summer hiatus.
