School Committee members wrestled with the question of whether they should vote on Schools Superintendent Dr. Thomas Jefferson’s performance evaluation, and ultimately dropped the issue, at their May 11 meeting. The evaluation was written by member Stu Sklar, who was the chairman at the time of its presentation to Jefferson at the committee’s April 27 meeting. Sklar compiled evaluations written by each committee member to create a composite document. Sklar alone signed the evaluation, which stated that Jefferson “met expectations.” No committee member voiced broad objections to the evaluation at the April meeting.
—Stu Sklar, School Committee member
Newly elected member Piali De moved at the May meeting to vote on the performance evaluation, then withdrew the motion after committee members voiced concerns that they would not be complying with the Massachusetts Association of School Committee (MASC) guidelines they had voted to accept in March. Sklar said, “We agreed to do the evaluation following MASC guidelines, and the guidelines are quite clear; they don’t say anything about voting on the evaluation.”
De responded, “Nothing is the voice of the board unless it’s been voted in at a board meeting.”
New Chairman Keith Cheveralls agreed with De and said he had received e-mail messages from residents questioning why the evaluation was only signed by the chairman. He said, “Going forward, we would benefit as a committee and a community if we voted on the chair’s composite evaluation.”
Member Patricia Wenger suggested that the committee draft a policy for future evaluations stipulating that the composite evaluation be voted on by the committee. She added, “It would show the whole committee agrees with it, and stands for it.”
De reminded committee members that previous performance reviews were voted on before they were given to the superintendent as the composite evaluation. She added, “Two of the four years that I was on the committee we used the MASC guidelines and we voted on the evaluation.”
Virginia Justicz, vice chairman, supported the decision to draft a policy in time for next year’s evaluation process. She also said, “We don’t have the same board [that evaluated Jefferson] and I don’t know how we would go back [to vote now].”
De assured the members that she would not vote on the motion because she was not a part of the committee that wrote the evaluation. She said, “If the motion is going to wreck this board then I’ll withdraw it, but this is the most important thing we do [evaluate the superintendent], and if it does not get voted in by the board, it is not the voice of the board.”
Cheveralls asked Jefferson to weigh in on the discussion, and Jefferson suggested that in the future the committee give the superintendent his evaluation in an executive session. He said, “The superintendent is probably the only position in a community where the evaluation is a public document. I have to question if this is beneficial and I wonder if this should continue.”
