[Lungo-Koehn]: Hi.
[Kreatz]: Sorry.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Okay.
[Graham]: Is member Ruseau coming? No, he said he couldn't come. Before it was scheduled.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Okay. We have committee of the whole meeting on Wednesday, June 29th, 4 p.m. to be held remotely on Zoom. You can also call in by dialing 1-929-205-6099. Meeting ID 979-6586-0364. The meeting can be viewed through YouTube as well as Medford Community Media, Comcast Channel 15 and Verizon Channel 45 at 4 p.m. Additionally, questions or comments can be submitted during the meeting by emailing medfordsc at medford.k12.ma.us. Those submitting must include the following information, your first and last name, your Medford Street address, your question or comment. The agenda will be as follows. Number one, the school committee will vote on whether or not to accept changes made by a member to the 2021-2022 evaluation of our superintendent, Dr. Marice Edouard-Vincent, due to an error. If we could, I guess if member Oso's not here, I could call the roll first. In no particular order. Member Kreatz?
[Kreatz]: Here.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Hays? Here. Member Graham? Here. Member McLaughlin?
[Mustone]: Here.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Mustone?
[Mustone]: Here.
[Lungo-Koehn]: And myself here, and Member Ruseau is absent. We have six present, one absent. I will turn it over to number one, which I think Member McLaughlin, per your request.
[McLaughlin]: Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, colleagues. My apologies for having everyone reconvene, especially during the summer. The superintendent evaluation that occurred last week, I noticed after doing some comparison to my evaluation that the Google Sheets form that I had used had been incorrect and some of the numbers were incorrect and actually added some comments as well that I thought were necessary, particularly after the meeting. And the primary reason I think that the numbers were incorrect, again, was the Google Sheets, which automatically populates the form. And this is a process that's fairly new. This is the second time we've done this. Last year, I was a secretary, so I orchestrated the process last year. So it's very different when you're sort of behind the scenes doing it as opposed to when you're submitting. So I think that that was part of the problem and part of what was lost in translation. So I wanted to apologize to Dr. Edouard-Vincent as well for my mistake and my error. And I'm asking my colleagues to consider the errors and allow me to resubmit my evaluation for the superintendent based on that error.
[Mustone]: On the calendar, does it say July 3rd, when?
[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Mustone, I'm just gonna mute you.
[Mustone]: Oh, sorry. That's okay.
[Lungo-Koehn]: So is there a motion on the floor to accept member McLaughlin's corrections?
[McLaughlin]: I think member Graham has her hand raised.
[Graham]: Sorry, member Graham. Yeah, I wanted to make a motion to rescind the approval of the superintendent's evaluation. We really shouldn't be discussing this at all until we agree that we are rescinding the evaluation. Second.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to rescind the evaluation. Seconded by Member McLaughlin. I will call the roll. Member Graham? Yes. Member Kreatz? Yes. Member Hays? Yes. Member Mustone? Yes. Member McLaughlin? Yes. Mayor Brianna, yes. Member Ruseau, absent. That's 16 affirmative, one absent to rescind the initial approval of the evaluation.
[McLaughlin]: And thank you for the chair, thank you for that process aspect. I had forgotten that, so it's really important. So I'm making a motion, if I can, to ask that my colleagues accept my apologies and my mistake in the evaluation and allow me to resubmit the evaluation.
[Kreatz]: Motion to accept the revisions from Ms. McLaughlin for the superintendent's evaluation.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to accept by member Kreatz, seconded by- Second. Member McLaughlin, I can do the roll.
[Graham]: Can I offer a friendly amendment? Yes. Given that we all sat through substantive conversation about this, I would like to ask that we all are afforded the same opportunity to resubmit a review or comments or whatever we may deem appropriate or not, but that the entire committee is afforded the same opportunity.
[McLaughlin]: Member McLaughlin. I guess my point to that would be if there were mistakes on the previous evaluations that other folks did that they should, you know, be able to submit their evaluation. I certainly had mistakes and I'm owning those. And my concern is that if everybody's going to resubmit the evaluation, then we would, that potentially that would require another meeting to discuss the resubmissions of everyone on the evaluation. And if folks had errors on them, then obviously I think they should be resubmitted. If folks didn't have errors on them, then I would, I guess, ask what that purpose is.
[Graham]: Well, we don't have an approved evaluation at this point, right? We just rescinded it. So we have to meet again to approve the superintendent's evaluation regardless.
[Lungo-Koehn]: We could take a vote tonight to accept the changes by Member McLaughlin and approve.
[Graham]: We don't even know what the changes are. We would be blindly approving a review that we've never seen.
[Lungo-Koehn]: It would just be her additions and then you do the calculations. Member McLaughlin?
[McLaughlin]: Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, it's just the calculations because none of us saw the individual member reviews, which was part of The issue in terms of the process frankly as I was reviewing the process from last year as well we had a calculation sheet that allowed us to see each other's reviews as we were doing our own which sort of informs the process without us working in silos. I think that's a discussion for another meeting and so I don't want to overstep the open meeting laws around that but the whole purpose is that it would recalculate in terms of that process, not necessarily affect the member reviews per se. So I leave it up to my colleagues as well, I believe Member Kreatz and Member Mustone have their hands up.
[Lungo-Koehn]: member, I think it's a member of stone for us and members.
[Mustone]: Yes. I'm happy with my evaluation and I haven't heard anyone else. I'm just going by the emails that were sent to us. So I also just thought we were, it was Melanie who felt like that they are Melanie didn't feel like she, um, fills out the evaluation correctly. And so that's why we're meeting. And then it was just to make her changes to be put in for the average score, I guess, because we didn't, I didn't see anyone else's. So thank you.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, I didn't make any corrections or changes myself. I didn't make any mistakes. So I expected this meeting to just be accept her changes and approval as changed. There are new comments in there and just the recalculation. Member Kreatz?
[Kreatz]: Yes, I was going to say the same thing that I didn't have any revisions to my end. Mr. Russo, before he went on vacation, he already updated my comments and the mayor's comments and shared it with everybody. Everything else was fine. I do think this year it was a little bit different. I know that we're not allowed to see each other's evaluations, but this time we weren't given the opportunity to even see our own evaluations. in the final version so I think you know maybe in the future if we can be shared okay this is what I have for your evaluation can you review it and let me know if it's okay whoever's doing it or everything could be sent in maybe to the superintendent secretary and she could review it you know everybody's individually so that we're not looking at them so that there's another set of eyes on them because I was reading some of the instructions and When you look at the instructions for one, two, three, and four, in order for somebody to get a one or a two or a three, something has to be, so to speak, like broken in the prior evaluation. So I was thinking there has to be a cross-examination between the prior evaluation and the current evaluation. for individual evaluations to ensure that the numbers are recorded correctly. It's very complicated. I find the whole process to be very complicated and confusing. I really do. And I really wish it was easier. I just, I don't like the current process. I know that Mr. Russo said some of us didn't follow the instructions. I tried my best. It's a confusing form, so I just did it myself on Excel and sent it in that way because I didn't like the Google Sheets, the way that I don't like how they're filled in. So I did it the alternative way and sent it in that way. but I'm just sharing my thoughts, but I don't have any changes. And I'm just, I thought the meeting was just to hear the, receive the updates. And then once Mr. Russo gets back, the averages can be redone and then it can be sent off.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, member Graham and member McLaughlin.
[Graham]: I guess I'm asking my colleagues to acknowledge that we all sat through a substantive discussion and we may all feel like a mistake was made in one way, shape or form. And I don't understand what the harm is in affording the opportunity for anybody who feels like they made a mistake to review. And I think it's great if you don't feel that way, but I also think there's at least one member of the committee that's not even here to weigh in. So all I'm asking is that everyone be afforded the same opportunity to correct any mistakes they feel like they made and that we have a meeting to review the superintendent's revised evaluation accordingly.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Member McLaughlin?
[McLaughlin]: Yes, thank you. Again, through the chair, I can understand that concern. I do believe that before Member Ruseau left and he sent an email, said that he was not interested in changing his evaluation. You know, I do believe that, you know, anyone can make mistakes and that it's appropriate to correct them. I also believe to member pretz's point, and I believe that we're going to make it, you know, that we've discussed looking at the process come September, that there was also there's some confusion in the process. I know Member Pex just said, and I would agree to disagree on this point with Member Pex, that we're not allowed to see each other's member reviews. I thought that was super informative last time. And we actually had a sheet that was created, a Google sheet that was created, and certainly not by me, but we can see from the last reviews on the tabs, there was the current review, and then there was an additional tab that was member reviews, and then it had sections of each member and how We had all reviewed and what our comments were and that was super informative because this is not one member evaluating the superintendent, this is, you know, all of us as collective evaluating the superintendent so we should be able to see and share. information on an evaluation. And I don't know why this year we weren't able to, it didn't make any sense to me. And I guess, you know, maybe in retrospect, you know, I could have asked for the meeting to be rescheduled or something. But, you know, in addition to that, finding the errors on my part just made it even more obvious that, you know, the process was flawed. And so really the purpose I thought of the meeting today based on what was posted publicly and for the agenda was that we would review the resubmitted evaluation process and vote to see if that would be approved, that I made a mistake and wanted the process approved. So what was actually posted on the agenda, may I ask, because I didn't open it early. Does Susie or Maurice have it? Yeah.
[Lungo-Koehn]: I'm sorry, I did have it. The school committee will vote on whether or not to accept changes made by a member to the 2021-2022 evaluation of Dr. Marice Edouard-Vincent due to an error. So I think we can motion. I think there's a motion on the floor to accept member McLaughlin's changes and approve it as newly calculated, but I think member Hays would like to speak.
[Hays]: Thank you. Yeah, no, I just wanted to say the same as some of my other school committee members have said. I likewise don't feel like I made any errors. There's nothing I want to change. I do hope and plan to meet with the superintendent over the summer just to go over some of my comments and some areas that I didn't get to make any comments because of other things going on in my life. But I think that the major thing that I'm finding from this being my first time and just the general kind of confusion that I'm hearing is that we really do need to meet to talk about the process. I think, you know, it would be great if we had someone from outside to come in and talk with us about the process because it seems like we ourselves are not clear on it. So I don't know that just an internal discussion is going to yield satisfying results for everyone. So, you know, it's, I think it's, I think it's good. I'm just gonna say, I think it's good that we're all taking this so seriously that we are having some major discussions and finding it confusing. I think that means that we're all taking it very seriously and trying to figure out the best way to make this work both for the school system, but also for the superintendent, because she's ultimately the one who's being evaluated. And if we're lacking clarity in it, then it's, you know, it's a tough, tough to be the one who's being evaluated if the people doing the evaluation are expressing confusion. So I'm all set with my evaluation though, personally.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. So there's a motion on the floor. I think member Kreatz, did you put that motion forward? Okay.
[Kreatz]: Yes, I did.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, motion to accept member McLaughlin's changes and approve it as it will be newly calculated. Seconded by Member McLaughlin. Roll call. Member McLaughlin. Yes. Member Kreatz. Yes. Member Hays. Yes. Member Mustone.
[Mustone]: Yes.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Graham. No. Mayor Brianna, yes. Member Ruseau, absent. So we have a five, one, and one. Motion passes. Number two, we have it be resolved, the initial meeting to discuss the superintendent's goals be moved to the fall of 2022, offered by myself. I just ask for a motion for approval on that.
[Kreatz]: Motion to approve.
[Lungo-Koehn]: By member Kreatz, seconded by member McLaughlin. Would anybody like to speak?
[Graham]: I would. Member Graham. You know, when we unanimously approve this motion back in May. I believe we talked about this but I, you know, the summer is the time when the administration has an opportunity to. really do the work that is required to make meaningful progress in the district. And so by not letting the superintendent know what our goals are for her before the school year starts, we're also not being fair to her to then expect her to meet goals that we didn't outline for her proactively enough for her to be able to meet them and I think, you know, we're here talking about a review and I think everyone is exceedingly trying to be fair. And I think it's wildly unfair to set goals at a point in the school year, where they potentially cannot be met. And so that's unfair to the superintendent. And I think the flip side of that is we as a committee don't put forward the goals that our students need, and that's unfair to students. So I do think this is a conversation worth having. We passed a unanimous resolution about this, and I would like to see us get this done before too much of summer goes by.
[Lungo-Koehn]: If I may, from the chair, I just also think it's time to show a little respect to our superintendent. And she did ask that she take the summer to review data and to really be able to help us outline those goals. And I want to give her that opportunity. So I put this motion forward. I think we can do it in the early fall, but I think she deserves that. Member McLaughlin.
[McLaughlin]: I was just going to ask the superintendent her position on this, which I believe is to have time to be able to put these together and for us to meet early in the year so that we can all be on board. And I think there was a little misunderstanding. It sounded through the chair, like there was a discussion about our goals and, you know, we have, we voted to have goals for the school committee as well for next year. But I believe, or I thought we were talking about the superintendent's goals, which of course, you know, should be aligned with our goals, but we haven't set the school committee goals either for the year. I guess I'd like to hear from Dr. Evey if we could.
[Edouard-Vincent]: Good afternoon. When we had our meeting where we discussed my goals specifically, I requested of the committee to present my goals in the fall, to take the summer, to have time to take a step back, reflect on what happened this previous year, strategize and plan for the following year. and present the proposed goals to you at the start of the school year. I also want the committee to know that I have spoken with many superintendents, all of them that I have spoken with present their goals at the beginning of the school year between September, October, the first quarter of the school year. I also spoke with MASS just to get additional guidance, although it can happen at different points.
[McLaughlin]: Point of information, sorry, I'm sorry, excuse me, Superintendent, I apologize. Can you just share what MASS is?
[Edouard-Vincent]: Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents to receive some additional guidance and Normally, the majority of districts goals are presented at the start of the school year. And yes, during the summer, a lot of work does take place. But as a team, a district team, we need to have the opportunity to work collaboratively and come up with a plan that we present to the entire committee. So I again am in support of the mayor's resolution to wait until the fall. I personally am very exhausted and would just like a little bit of time to recharge and regroup. It's been a very long year and just to feel refreshed and be able to come and present potential goals, knowing that the school committee makes the final decision. So I'm prepared for whatever decision the committee will make regarding the goals, but I am requesting that the goals be presented at the start of the school year.
[Graham]: Mayor, Member Graham. I just want to read the motion that we unanimously passed because I think there is some conflation of two things going on. So be it resolved that the school committee will meet in a committee of the whole to discuss the superintendent goals for the 2022-2023 school year no later than 6-17. Be it further resolved that the school committee will finalize and approve the superintendent's goals in a regular school committee meeting or a special school committee meeting no later than 9-30-2022. So the whole point of this meeting was not for the superintendent to present her goals, it was for us to have a collaborative discussion that could help inform the work she's going to do this summer in anticipation of her bringing her goals to us in September, which was the timeline she requested so. That's what we unanimously approved. And again, like I'm not talking, no one is suggesting that the superintendent needs to put anything together for that meeting, but I thought we were all in agreement that hearing from us about the things that are on our mind would help be informative and rather than being a detraction, but that is where we unanimously agreed not too long ago.
[Lungo-Koehn]: And I think what we're doing tonight today is pushing that timeline. So I can amend my resolution to read, be it resolved the initial meeting to discuss the superintendent's goals, be moved to the fall of 2022 with the finalization early winter.
[Kreatz]: I motion with the reward, the way it was rewarded by the mayor.
[Graham]: Are you suggesting we won't approve the superintendent's goals until the winter when the school year is almost over?
[Lungo-Koehn]: I'm pushing the timeline. So if it was broken up in two parts in the last resolution, I thought that's what you had asked. You wanted to outline of how we should, because the first resolution says initial meeting. So I think we should outline when the final, you know, we can outline when the final meeting will be, or I just don't want it to be, we need to make sure it's changed from that September 30 date, because that doesn't meet, the nature of the resolution number two, which we're gonna be voting on. So it can be late fall or it can be early winter. I think we just need to change that September 30th date, because based on how the committee votes, I don't think we're gonna meet that September 30th date. Member McLaughlin.
[McLaughlin]: Thank you. So thank you through the chair to member Graham for the clarification on The process, I think that clearly the year, June 17 was pretty packed with the budget stuff that was happening as we all know and other things that have been going on. So I think that it is important for us to have a meeting in the fall. to discuss how we feel about the goals that have been proposed and early, you know, sooner than later. And then potentially the superintendent either revise or revisit those goals by 930, September 30th. So if possible, if we could, you know, have a meeting early, you know, one of our first meetings be to address the goals that had been proposed and where we are as a school committee, but also in setting our own goals, as we said, we also passed a resolution that we would have goals for the school committee where we would also evaluate ourselves in our process or have some sort, either whether we evaluated ourselves or had someone else evaluate us, it's unclear, but that we would have an evaluation process for school committee as well. So I guess with that understanding that I'm hearing the process and purpose of that resolution that had been previously passed was so that we might have some discussion around the goals that had been proposed before they're in play. And obviously there's work over the summer, but I think there's plenty of work to be done over the summer and that will align with the goals as well, that we can afford to have that meeting early September to discuss the goals, the meeting that member Graham is mentioning for that was supposed to happen on the 17th, which again, I mean, I feel like June's a blur. I can't believe July 1st is tomorrow or the next day. It's all gone by so quickly. And again, all the budget stuff that was happening. So I think it's unfortunate that that calendar item wasn't met, but I think if we can make it one of the first items of the new year, I think that could be helpful. So I guess I, I would make a motion or ask for an amendment that we make one of our first meetings be a goal review. And then if that's okay with Dr. Edouard-Vincent, and then the response to that goal review by Dr. Edouard-Vincent could be potentially the September 30th, if my colleagues agree. So I would make that friendly amendment.
[Edouard-Vincent]: That is definitely doable. I could present draft at the beginning of September. I think it might be the week right after Labor Day, I believe. I could present it at the first meeting, the draft goals, so that we could still meet the deadline of the 30th to present back to the committee.
[Lungo-Koehn]: I second the motion. Motion on the floor as amended, seconded by Member McLaughlin, seconded by Member Kreatz. Roll call. Member McLaughlin? Yes. Member Mustone? Yes. Member Hays? Yes. Member Graham? No. Member Kreatz? Yes. May Brianna? Yes. Member Ruseau, absent as 5-1-1, the motion passes. Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn by Member Graham, seconded by? Second. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
|
total time: 6.05 minutes total words: 872  |
total time: 2.58 minutes total words: 409  |
total time: 4.39 minutes total words: 708  |
total time: 0.51 minutes total words: 102  |
|
total time: 8.18 minutes total words: 1436  |
total time: 1.35 minutes total words: 286  |
total time: 2.32 minutes total words: 336  |
|