Superintendent of Schools Dr. Judy Palmer will hold that post for at least the next two weeks.
During a rare Friday evening special meeting, the Board of Education voted to continue Palmer’s employment until at least Aug. 13 to give the board time to review its evaluation of her performance and vote on her future with the district.
The board voided Palmer’s contract in May for what it said at the time was a legal problem with the wording of her contract. But since then the board has put off deciding whether to extend it past its June 30 expiration date and has now twice extended that deadline.
That has infuriated some residents, including former school board members who had worked with Palmer. They held a rally in June to show their support for the superintendent that attracted a large crowd.
Board member Michael Macchio made the motion to extend Palmer’s employment two weeks with “the understanding that the board may extend her employment beyond Aug. 13.”
Board chairman Rose McKinnon said that each board member has now filled out Palmer’s evaluation, and the board’s attorneys will compile those evaluations and release a summary for the board and Palmer to review.
Palmer was not at Friday’s meeting and is currently on vacation, McKinnon said.
“The law firm will synthesize the information,” she said. “We felt that is the best way to do it objectively.”
The full evaluations total more than 100 pages, McKinnon said, which is the reason for the distribution of summaries rather than the full evaluations. Some of the nine board members submitted evaluations of more than 20 pages, she said, but did not elaborate on what information the evaluations contain.
The summaries will be distributed next week, she said, to give Palmer and board members time to review them before the Aug. 13 meeting.
McKinnon also distributed Friday a letter from state Education Commissioner Mark K. McQuillan dismissing a complaint against the board filed by resident William Schmitt.
Schmitt’s complaint alleged that the board failed to schedule a public hearing on Palmer’s contract after a petition was submitted that triggered one. The board had three weeks from receipt of the petition to hold the hearing, but narrowly missed that deadline. But because it did ultimately hold the hearing on July 14, “it has rectified the matter,” McQuillan said.
Schmitt also claimed the board violated the state Freedom of Information Act and the Town Charter, but the state Department of Education has no authority in those areas, McQuillan ruled.
Finally, Schmitt charged that the school board “acted in a manner detrimental to its children” by extending Palmer’s contract temporarily while it performs the evaluation. That, McQuillan said, does not violate statutory requirements, and Schmidt’s complaint “does not rise to the level of a violation of the educational interests of the state” based on the information provided.
Schmitt did not attend Friday’s meeting but his wife Nancy — a former school board member — said he has filed a revised complaint with the state board.
