A Message fo the Bridgeport Education Community From the Interim Superintendent Intorim Superintendent's Evaluation, 2015-16 understand that a minority of the members of the Board of Education have proposed ‘that the Board conduct an evaluation of my performance in public. I have no problem with an evaluation done In good faith, ut | ask those Board members to respect my contractual rights. The employment contract between the Bridgeport Board of Education and myself, as interim Superintendent of the Bridgeport Schoo! District, states (page 2, tern #6: Performance Evaluation): “The Board of Educotion shail evaluate the performance of the Interim Superintendent at six month Intervals in accordance with guidelines and criteria mutually determined and agreed to by such Board and such Interim Superintendent.” | belleve that the Board's evaluation of the superintendent is ‘one of the most important functions it performs and, as such, a thoughtful, constructive ‘evaluation is vitally necessary to provide feedback to both the community and superintendent on whether the goals of the distict are being achieved. Driven by this belief, | have sought to work cooperatively with the Board to expeditiously determine ‘and agree upon the criteria and guidelines for the superintendent's evaluation, so that the evaluation willbe constructive and helpful fo me, the Board, and the community, Previously, the Board ond | agreed to the performance criteria, In regard to the: “guidelines.” a term that refers to the specific evaluation process, to date, a mutual ‘agreement has not been reached. However, some members of the Board have ‘expressed the intention to conduct the formal evaluation of my performance at a public meeting. | have raised an objection fo this procedure, as inconsstent with professional practice, ond requested that the formal evaluation be conducted in ‘executive session. The Connecticut Association of Board of Education attorney (Attorney Patrice McCarthy) has advised the Board of Education on this point, stating, “I have reviewed the Superintendent's contract and state statute pertaining to the ‘evaluation of the Superintendent. item 5 of the contract provides that the Board of Education evuiuutes the performance of the Intorim Superintendent in accordance With guidelines and criteria mutually determined and aareed to by the Board and theInterim Superintendent (emphasis added) This mirrors the language contained in Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 10-157, Guidelines refer to the process by which the evaluation is conducted, and would include whether or not the evaluation Is conducted in executive session, as permitted by statute. The Success Strategies for Leadership Team Evaluation recently developed and adopted by CABE and CAPSS recommends that the evaluation be conducted in executive session to allow for a collaborative and candi approach to evaluation. Both the contract and Sec. 10-187 clearly require mutual agreement on this process.” Furthermore, the individual scores {rom individual Board members are considered by the entire Board in making the final collective jucigment on the sunerintancient’s performance, but these individual scores ‘are not subject to oubiic disclosure and, therefore, should be discussed in executive ‘session only. It is my hope that the Board and | will reach an agreement soon on ‘conducting the evaluation process in executive session, The outcome of the evaluation, the final summative rating and summative comments, ‘pproved by the entire Board, will then be presented to the public at a public meeting. | recognize the significence of the Bcard’s evaluation of the Superintendent as an essenticl_mechanism ‘0 Inform the public about the effectiveness of the ‘superintendent's leadership in advancing the goals of the district. In this spirit, | Jook ‘forward to the completion of the summative evaluation and subsequently, to the public meeting, when | wil have the opportunity to discuss the progress made and future: ‘directions to attain our goals for student achievement. Frances Rabinowitz Interim SuperintendentFrom: “Rabinowitz, Fron’ <(rabin‘ wortedu.net> Date: Apri 29, 2016 at 1:36:06 PM EDT To: * BOE Board Members <*BOEBoarcMer unet>, Maria Pereira 00067 cn ‘Subject: Special Meeting 4-4-16.docx Hello everyone, In the minutes (attached) from your special meeting on April 4%, you asked that CABE be contacted about the “process and weighting" in reference to the Interim Superintendent's evaluation, CABE was contacted and responded. See response below. Please know that | have no issue at all with being evaluated but | clearly asked that my evaluation be done in executive session and have not received assurance from the Board that this would happen. The only response that | received from my e-mall was from Ms, Pereira who Indicated that t should be done publicly. The presentation of accomplishments and questions and enswers on the evaluation criteria clearly constitutes an evaluation process. Every superintendent in the state is afforded the opportunity fo have the evaluative process completed in executive session, The final evaluation document, however, is public. In my Contract it states that both the criteria and guidelines must be agreed upon by both the Board. and the interim superintendent. | have agreed with the Board on criteria but not on "guidelines". | want fo be clear that being evaluated is not a negative for me, nor has it ever been, | am only asking that it be done in executive session as is the case for every superintendent. Thank you. Fronlay, April 4, 2016 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BRIDGEPORT BOARD OF EDUCATION, April 4, 2016, at Geraldine W. Johnson School, 475 Lexington Avenue, Bridgeport, Connecticut. The meeting was called to order at 5:43 p.m. Present were Chair Dennis Bradlay, Sauda Baraka, Andre Baker, Matia Pereira, Kevin ‘MeSpirit, Ben Walker, Joe Larcheveque, and Howard Gardner. Mr. Bradley asked for a motion to go into executive session because of the need to discuss the superintendent's evaluation ard the parameters to be used. Ms. Pereira said deliberating the evaluation would be eligble for executive session, but the presentation and all reports and the information to be discussed would be public information. Ms. Baraka said in this particular phase there are not deliberations on the merit of the superintendent's work, but merely a discussion of the evaluation tool. She added the superintendent would present to the board in public session as part of her evaluation. Ms. Pereira said the normal procedure is for the superintendent to make a presentation to the board about things she thinks she’s ascomplished ‘or is continuing to develop, followed by the board asking questions or for data and factual information. It was noted that the evaluation tool had already been voted on and approved. ‘Ms. Pereira asked that two dates be established tor the superintendest's evaluation, She noted that each individual board member writes their own evaluation. Mr. Larcheveque suggested two special meetings be scheduled. There was a discussion of possible dates for this purpose. April 18th from 5:30 to 8:30 was agreed to as the first meeting. Ms. Pereira asked that Ms. Rabinowitz come to that meeting with as much documentaticn as she has to support what she believes she’s donewell. She asked that the items be given to the board ahead of the meeting to save time, May 3rd was agreed as the second date. It was agreed the meetings would take place in City Hall, Room 305. Ms. Baraka asked the superintendent have available her Distict Improvement Plan and where she is at with it as well as any new projects or programs that are going on, and data to support those things. Mr. Gardner said he would like to see the raw data supporting the AIMSweb improvements between 2014-15 to 2015-16. He asked the data be presented as granular as possible. ‘There was a discussion for the deadline for the members to submit the evaluations. Ms. Pereira noted when she wrote Supt. Vallas's evaluation she spent 27 hours writing and researching it. ‘There was a discussion of the scoring model used when Dr. Kelleher was on the board. Mr. Gardner asked if the evaluation would be a statistical evaluation. Ms. Pereira said she would try to find the minutes of the discussion with Dr. Kelleher in reference to weighti as Mr. Walker said it was important to determine how the scoring would be weighted. He noted there may be some categories that he will not be providing a rating on, and if other board members do the same it will reduce the amount of responses. He said eliminating the high and low scores would not make sense if only three members rated a particular category, ‘Ms. Pereira said five of the board members have served the entire time Ms. Rabinowitz has been here. After discussion, Mr. Larcheveque said he would distribute an electronic version of the evaluation document so members could ‘expand the comments section if necessary.3 Ms. Pereira said in the past that once adjustments were made for the high and low scores, then an average was calculated of all scores. Mr. Walker described the use of Olympic scoring which removes the highest and lowest scores, which he said he could support. Mr. Gardner said he did not understand why everyone would not fill out every category. Mr. Bradley sald some members might not have a sufficient amount of time to really to see the superintendent's performance in some categories, so it might be only a grading of presentation, Mr. Gardner said what Dr. Kelleher suggested be used was some type of statistical trending, which could be determined from the minutes. Ms. Pereira said she would research the minutes and perhaps call Dr. Kelleher. ‘After discussion, Mr. Bradley said a hard deadline for the submission of the evaluations would be set after the last meeting on May 3. There is currently a meeting on May 16th with a soft deadline. ‘Mr. Gardner asked if the agenda is so obvious for the April 18th meeting or should it be specified. Mr. Bradley said the agenda should be made clear. Ms. Pereira said she believed a very general description was adequate for the agenda because the board did not want hinder the superintendent or the board from asking questions. twas noted that an agenda needed to be prepared for the special meeting on April 8th, at 5:30, on Lyon Terrace. Mr. Walker said he would submit the dates and agendas for three dates with the permission of Mr. Bradley. Mr. McSpirit moved the meeting be adjourned. The motion was seconded by Ms. Baraka and unanimously approved The meeting was adjourned at 6:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, John McLeodApproved by the board an April 25, 2016EEE rom: Paice McCay ‘Sent: Thursday, Apri 28,2016 330 PM To: Rabinowitz, Fran ‘cbradley@ridgeportedunt” ‘Subject: Evaluation ofthe Superintendent ‘As you requested, | have reviewed the Superintendent's contract and state statute pertaining to the evaluation of the Superintendent. Item 5 of the contract provides that the Board of Education evaluate the performance of the Interim Superintendent “in accordance with guidelines and criteria mutually determined and agreed to” by the Board and the Interim Superintendent. This mirrors the language contained in Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 10-157. “Guidelines” refers to the process by which the evaluation is conducted, and would include whether or not the evaluation is conducted in executive session, as permitted by statute. The “Success Strategies for Leadership Team Evaluation” recently developed and adopted by CABE and CAPSS recommends that the evaluation be conducted in executive session to allow for a collaborative and candid approach to evaluation. Both the contract and Sec. 10-157 clearly require mutual agreement on this process. | hope this information is helpful to you and the members of the Board. Patrice McCarthy Deputy Director and Seneral Counsel Connecticut Association of Boards of Education Past Chairman, NSBACouncil of School Attorneys (860) 571-7446From: Maria Perera Sent: Friday, Apr 29, 2016 6:42 PM To Rabinowitz, Fran; * BOE Board Members Subject: Re: Speco Meeting 44-16 docx Ms. Rabinowitz, ‘The “process” the Board chooses to implement in beginning an evaluation that should have fst started in September 2014 is determined by the BOE exclusively ‘The “rteri’is the specific items that we agree you wil be evaluated on. The “gldelines” would be the rating system eles. The Sard aready determined and you Bored, tary rain thas Below or oboe the averoe ety HUST be supported with specie dato or exomolea to quarty the retin. ‘The “process the BOE ules Is solely the Board's decision. You cannet possibly speak to how ver how anther over 160 school dlstrets conduct their evaluation "process." This was Ue same process used fr Or. Ramos and Paul Valias, The “evaluation Is when te nine vidual BOE members actualy verbally or In wring "rtque" Your Devformance ving you make a public presentation about wt your accomplishments are and allowing individual BOE members ta ‘28k daring questions oF request speci Information to support your pesto i net an “evaluate” because none of {he BOE members mil be vocalizing whether you dd something well r poor We are nat moving ito “executive session” unt the nine BOE members bring thelr inivdual evaluations to a ‘meeting to clscuss and tabulate our cumulative ratings. Ad, when the Board meets wit you to deliver your evaluation. “The FOIA doesnot REQUIRE entering Into an executive session for any reason, therefore no law wil be volte. Entering an executive session Is an option. You need 6 votes to enter executive session which you are not gong to receive, {Atthis pain, 1am going to request two of my colleagues signa request for a special meeting, we wil work algentiy ‘tm pack the resting wth parents and residents of dgepor, and ifthe Chair and the majority, or yourself donot fatend; we are going to make sure eis wel publicized wl submit a witten request by erty next week. Thank you, aria Pererai Maria Pecera emperera0667@yshoo.com> ‘Seturday, Api 30, 2026 1:00 AM Rabinowits, Fran * BOE Board Members Re, Special Meeting 4-4-16.doox es, Rabinowits, “ris Board employs you notte other wey around, therefore I can honestly say that I don‘ care what you Yanree” to. This Board employs Yor iis and Behaving ike a Coward, You want your "besties' from BCAC, RVASAP, BPEF, et. to roe re your "evauatlon” but you seem to be periied of making a simple presentation I fron ofthe "real BB eEhoiderd whichis pubie schoo parents, residents, taxpayers, and staf. ‘nen dd the Board authorize you to contact 8 CABE attorney regarding what tis boerd has chosen or not chosen to ‘do? teow the answer, never. ot once dd we authorize you to contact on attorney wit the Connecticut Assocation fr Boards of Education ton np cxaziive session, We autherize you to contact CABE regarding a "bell cue! rating system of ene ert ur conversation around Or. Kelehe's recommendations ding Pu! Vallas' evaluation. \We pay an annual fee to CADE to assist the Board no to assist you. “he presentation you are meking in publics NOT an evaluation, Ie no diferent than the Mayr’ annual adress, Paneer ee cdg the sats of Endgeport where the Mayor highights avs! progress and discusses ongoing projects that are meant to move our cy forward. ‘You donot eictate to this body when we enter executive session. That our decsion solely. Your ONLY right that I Mo oat tact am exccdve cession to discuss 8 personnel matter regarding you, orto discuss your evaluation; wettne he night to request the dlscussion to beheld n public which we must comply ‘You have NO right to ditate that we MUST go Into executive session EVER. 1 am not responding to you agin. {wil be fling @ notice to call a special meeting in which our absentee Chor has 24 days to schedule i Mora PereiraWalker, Bon Saturday, Api 3, 2016 753 AM Rabinowitz, Far; Maia Perla c * BE Board Members, ‘Subject: fe: Spi Meeting 44-16 dey {must concur with Ms. Perelra's assessment ofthis mater. for ong, am exhausted {rem the stonewalling tactics of Ms. Rabinowitz and Mr Bradley. The collusion between these two to circumvent the directions and dedsions ofthe doard of Education has brought us toa grinding halt. We had a Special Vetingon Api ath ‘specfaly to dlscuss the interim Superintendent’ evaluation document, establish the process and set dates {or the evaluation. Ms. Rabinowitz was Invited, s she ist all Special Meetings, and choze not to come. Al of her concerns should have been addressed at that time. Had she been in attendance to that meetin, af this sould he behind ws. ean only conjectire who adveed her to skip this meeting, but now we find ourselves more than 5 months out from the affirmative vote to proceed with the evaluation with nathing to show for cour efforts. { support Ms. Pereira in her effort to calla Special Meeting. When there sa leadership vold, someone has to step up! In lieu ofa Special Meeting, recommend that we submit this whale mess to be added to the agenda of the next Regular Board Meeting. If that means we are there until 4:00am, s0 be it. This evaluation will be done, and twill be done as prescribed by the Bridgeport Board of Education, not team Fabinowit/Bradle. This stonewalling by the interim Superintendent andthe Chairman of the Board of Educction has cost the Board precious time, At this rate, | foresee that we will be unlikely to finish either the current Interim Superintendents Evaluation or the New Superintendent Search before the end of our current Interim Superintendent's contract! What ashame. As tls, have begun my evaluation and am considering this stonewalling as part oft. Yours, Ben Mi Walker Secretary Bridgeport Board OF Education