Commentary by Frank Schroth

Among the items of business the School Committee discussed last week was the Superintendent’s performance.  It was the second step in what is a three-step public process. The first step was the Superintendent, Mary Gormley, giving her “self-reflection.” The second consisted of feedback from the individual school committee members and the third, which is on the agenda for their next session, is a formal statement. Does this make sense?

The School Committee members were effusive. Here is a sample of the feedback the Superintendent received.

[I am] very, very impressed . . . [you] set a standard and have a work ethic that would kill most people.” — Leroy Walker

” [You have] done good hiring and integrating [those hires] into the leadership team . . . You care about the whole child.” – Lyda Lee Sheridan

“[You] have a balance between fiscal responsibility and education strengths. . . phenomenal job of fundraising.” – Kristen Bagley-Jones

“You are not perfect but you are close. . . no doubt about who’s boss . . .You make our job easy.” – Denis Keohane

“I echo everything I’ve heard.” – Mary Kelly

“You love what you do. I can’t imagine you doing anything else. It is why it works so well.” – Glenn Pavlicek

We agree with those statements.

However, as Gormley would be the first to admit, the bar can always be set higher. The only member to offer a suggestion on what Gormley might change is Keohane, who said, I’d like to see you say ‘no’ more often.”

Ms. Kelly questioned the process they were following when she mentioned in her remarks that she knew of no other job in town that requires the employee to sit and publicly listen to a critique. “I don’t necessarily agree with it.”

There may be merit in the superintendent outlining her professional goals for the coming year in a public session. There is also a public interest to be served in the School Committee publishing a final review and giving their reasons.  No other employee we are aware of is evaluated this way. Executive session exists for a reason. A candid assessment that makes room for constructive feedback is in the best interests of the superintendent, the committee, and the town. It is hard to see how such an assessment can occur in an exposed, televised environment. This is not to suggest that the evaluation would be different but it might be more balanced. Maybe it is time to rethink this process.