A primary topic of discussion was the evaluation process for the superintendent, which is governed by state regulations that require a standardized system. The committee examined the structure and requirements of this evaluation, acknowledging that the superintendent’s work isn’t directly observed like that of other educators. The committee discussed the importance of establishing a year-long agenda to facilitate continuous evaluation rather than waiting until the year ends. It was suggested that the committee set at least three defined goals: a district improvement goal, a professional practice goal, and a student learning goal, all adhering to SMART criteria. These goals should align with district objectives and be supported by indicators under the standards of instructional leadership, operations and management, family and community engagement, and professional culture.

The evaluation process was described as a collective responsibility of the committee rather than an individual one. It was noted that while individual evaluations are submitted, the committee compiles these into a composite evaluation presented at a public meeting. This composite evaluation must reflect all members’ voices and be a narrative, not just numerical averages. The timing of evaluations was also considered, with the need to balance these with election cycles and the new superintendent’s time to establish her goals.

In terms of communication protocols, the committee discussed the importance of not responding to questions on social media about voting intentions, as such actions could violate open meeting laws. There was also a discussion on the issue of reporters contacting members for voting intentions before meetings, which could lead to “serial deliberation,” another open meeting law violation. Members agreed that all relevant information should be communicated through the chair or the superintendent’s office to preserve the integrity of the district’s interests.

A workshop led by a member of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees focused on the roles and responsibilities of the school committee and the evaluation of the superintendent. The presenter emphasized the importance of understanding these roles with the school year approaching. The committee’s primary responsibility to students was underscored, and the collaborative nature of committee work was highlighted. It was stressed that individual members must not act independently in ways that undermine collective decisions and that maintaining clear communication channels and respecting the administration’s chain of command is essential.

Another event at the meeting was the introduction of Chris McNamera as the new business administrator for the Lunenburg schools. McNamera comes with experience as a fiscal director for a regional planning commission and has worked in schools and public accounting. His hiring was met with enthusiasm, and the committee expressed eagerness to work with him. Following this, the committee approved McNamera’s contract unanimously.

The committee also accepted a donation of $895 from the Kevin T. Zozek Memorial Scholarship for the athletics department at Lunenburg High School. This donation was given in memory of Kevin T. Zozek, a student-athlete who was a victim of the 9/11 attacks, and the committee unanimously approved the motion to accept the gift.

Lastly, the meeting covered broader discussions about the delineation of responsibilities between the school committee and the superintendent, particularly concerning facilities management. Questions were raised about the implications of potentially consolidating departments that handle facilities and how this would affect the committee’s budgetary authority. The need for clear delineations of responsibility was emphasized, with suggestions to ensure any agreements with the town are well-defined.