At the forefront of the meeting, speakers, including Junior Leite and Aaron Madas, voiced strong objections to the presence of mold in Lerno Elementary School and demanded that the committee prioritize the health and safety of the school community. A teacher from the school provided a detailed account of her attempts to get the mold issue addressed, including requests for air quality testing and the high levels of mold found in classrooms. The teacher’s testimony emphasized frustration with the delayed response to the problem. Likewise, Heather Smith, a former teacher at Green School, shared her personal experiences with mold at the facility, criticizing the administration’s handling of the issue and the repercussions on her health.

The committee engaged in a debate about the procedural process to address the mold concerns raised during citizens’ input. Discussions included whether to include the topic in the meeting’s agenda and the potential legal implications of voting on actions not originally scheduled for discussion. While some members were uncomfortable with the idea of starting summer school in the potentially unsafe environment, others pushed for a subcommittee meeting to tackle the issue promptly.

In parallel to the mold discussion, the committee deliberated on the need for a new principal position at the Early Learning Center. Kristen Barias outlined the unique aspects of the Early Childhood Program, emphasizing the necessary understanding of special education laws for the role. Members of the committee questioned the overlap of duties with the current Director of Early Childhood, the organizational structure, and the financial implications of the proposed position.

Despite concerns raised about the budget impact of adding a $110,000 principal position, the superintendent justified the need due to the expansion and changing demographics of the early childhood program. The discussion culminated in a motion to approve the position, which passed, although not without reservations from some members.

The meeting also included considerations for the superintendent’s contract, with some members expressing unease about a clause that could limit the committee’s future ability to remove the superintendent with a 2/3 vote. After deliberation, the contract was approved, but not unanimously, as the contentious provision led to dissenting votes.