One notable matter at the meeting was the establishment of a Superintendent Search Committee. The committee proposed an 11-member structure, aiming to ensure broad representation by including three school committee members, three school staff members from various roles, three parents representing different demographics, and two community members. The composition was carefully designed to avoid voting ties while capturing various perspectives. There was debate over whether to expand the committee to twelve members for increased flexibility and to include a parent from the special needs community. Additionally, concerns were raised over the overlap of roles between parents and school staff, underscoring the importance of clear, distinct representation.

A notable suggestion was to use the term “caregivers” instead of “parents,” broadening the scope to include grandparents and other family members involved in students’ education. This change, supported by the Superintendent, aimed to foster inclusivity and has proven effective in other contexts. After thorough discussion, the committee voted to approve the proposed composition unanimously, with the Chair choosing not to vote to maintain impartiality.

Attention then turned to the salary range for the new superintendent. The committee acknowledged the inadequacy of the previous salary proposal and presented a revised range of $180,000 to $200,000, justified by research into comparable districts and the qualifications required for the role. The competitive nature of the superintendent market necessitated this adjustment to attract the best candidates. While there was consensus on the salary range, a member highlighted additional costs such as travel and professional development stipends, clarifying that these would not be part of the base salary. The committee unanimously supported the salary proposal, with the Chair again abstaining from voting.

In parallel, the committee addressed the Chapter 70 funding formula, a topic of significant concern. The formula, which determines financial contributions from the state and municipalities, has not been reviewed in 18 years, leading to widespread dissatisfaction. The committee discussed the need for a study of the municipal contribution aspect, which many argue is outdated and does not reflect current economic realities. Members emphasized that the formula disproportionately affects districts with higher needs populations, leading to budget shortfalls that challenge their ability to meet educational requirements.

Senator Commerford urged the committee to gather public input before any changes to the formula are made, prompting the organization of multiple public comment sessions. These include a session at Greenfield High School on November 6 and a virtual session on November 18. The committee expressed a desire to articulate their concerns collectively and designate a representative to speak at the hearings. They stressed the importance of collaboration with city officials, urging municipal leaders to participate in the public hearings to present a unified stance on the funding issues.

Highlighting past advocacy efforts, committee members noted their visits to Beacon Hill to raise awareness about the formula’s flaws. Despite some members facing conflicts that prevent their attendance at the upcoming sessions, the virtual format offers broader participation opportunities. The committee emphasized the formula’s inflation cap of 4.5%, which exacerbates budget challenges, affecting the ability to pay teachers and maintain educational services.

To prepare for the hearings, the committee agreed to form a one-time ad hoc working group to develop talking points and finalize their presentation. This group will meet before the November 6 hearing. The committee voted unanimously to proceed with this initiative.