I read about the School Committee’s discussion of Tom Jefferson’s evaluation (Harvard Press, May 13) with increasing embarrassment. The fact that the topic was raised—and that the chairman had knowledge that it might be raised—makes me wonder what behind-the-scenes conversations might have taken place and why the issue hadn’t been put on the agenda. Once the subject came up, the chairman should have immediately stopped any discussion. Not to do so was a violation of Open Meeting Law. The ensuing arguments over the timing of the evaluation and whether or not the $4,000 bonus is based on merit or longevity should never have been held in public. My understanding is that personnel issues are to be discussed in executive session. The insinuation by the chairman that the bonus might be withheld pending evaluation was completely inappropriate.
I question the committee’s reasons for wanting to do an evaluation of someone who is moving on to a new job. For whose benefit would this be done? What purpose would it serve? The point of an evaluation is so the parties involved can set goals and determine assessment measures for future performance. That does not apply here. If the School Committee wants some sort of wrap-up, it can conduct an exit interview with Jefferson. What the School Committee “owes” the town at this point is honesty, civility, and appropriateness.
Carlene Phillips
Oak Hill Road
