Personnel Committee

SPRING GROVE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

 

DATE/TIME of MEETING:   September 18, 2024 @ 5:30 PM

LOCATION of MEETING:    Spring Grove Area Middle School, LGI Room #241, 244 Old Hanover Road, Spring Grove, PA

The following School Directors were in attendance:  Doug Stein (chair), Eric Barshinger, Karen Baum, Rodney Shearer, and Nicole Wilson (via conference call)

The following Spring Grove Area School District personnel were in attendance:  Dr. Joseph Bradley, Superintendent, Dr. Steve Guadagnino, Assistant Superintendent, Suzanne Sterner, Board Recording Secretary

---

A Personnel Committee meeting of the Spring Grove Area Board of School Directors was held on Wednesday, September 23, 2024.  Doug Stein called the meeting to order at 4:04 PM.

Stein stated the purpose of the meeting was to create an evaluation tool for the superintendent and assistant superintendent positions as had been in place in previous years.  The purpose and intent was to not speak about the individuals currently or previously seated in those positions.

Policy #312 Review

At the request of Mr. Stein, Mrs. Sterner commented on Policy #312 and its stated requirements as part of the performance assessment of the superintendent and assistant superintendent:

a.      The employment contract for superintendent/assistant superintendent shall include objective performance standards mutually agreed to in writing by the Board and persons in the respective positions.

b.     No later than May 1, a Leadership Team survey is conducted for the superintendent, appraising each component of the agreed upon performance standards, with results being shared “anonymously” with the Board President and Vice President.

c.      The Superintendent prepares a list of accomplishments to be shared with the Board President and Vice President.

i.      This had previously included a District Operational Plan Summary, a list of Celebrations and Challenges, and a list of Superintendent Highlights categorized by the agreed upon (7) Objective Performance Standards.

Of note, Sterner stated that the agreed upon standards in existing contracts for seated superintendent and assistant superintendent match the performance standards and objectives outlined in a previous evaluation tool.  In recent years, the previous tool was not in place as part of the superintendent evaluation; it was used for the assistant superintendent. 

Barshinger shared a PASA evaluation model and a handout with performance ratings (1-4) defined.  There was a discrepancy between PASA’s proposed Leadership Standards and the existing, agreed upon Performance Standards in respective individual’s contractual language. 

Stein reiterated the need to either resume the previous tool or create a new tool in its place to ensure that the Board is meeting the requirements of Board Policy and is also in line with contractual language.  Mutually agreed upon language is language typically included in contracts.

Dr. Bradley commented on the definition of “consensus” if board members are using numbers in their ratings that could be skewed because of differing opinions and differing rating rubrics, rather than a rating of Distinguished, Proficient, Needs Improvement, and Failing.  There was a suggestion, if using numbers, removing the highest and lowest scores.  Stein said a clear explanation is needed to define consensus when presenting the performance assessment to persons in the positions.  How the Board comes to that consensus can be determined by board members.  Clearly defined ratings are also a need.

Board members agreed that a written, board-approved process, should be developed to include the following:

a.      Consensus of the Board should / will include the following:

i.      A description of how consensus is determined, with equal board input.

ii.     A list of final possible rating outcomes to be put in the final yearend written review.

iii.   A list of documentation to support the final yearend review to be placed in the HR file.

Wilson questioned how the Board will measure performance without having specific goals in place?  The Board should be stating what those goals are and have a rubric for measuring them (i.e., did the person visit every classroom in the district).  Some disagreed. 

Wilson commented on the ongoing input from Tom Templeton, independent consultant, related to the superintendent’s performance.  Stein stated that Templeton will continue with his evaluation model and practice of quarterly and regular check-ins with the seated superintendent as part of the first year of employment.  This process will not take the place of the consultant’s work; rather, it will become the tool moving forward for use with all superintendent and assistant superintendent yearend performance assessments.

Sterner noted that several York County School Districts are using PSBA’s evaluation model that a former Board Vice President presented to and was implemented by the full Board.  Stein recommended going back to that model in keeping with Board Policy and existing contractual language related to Performance Standards for the current 2024-2025 fiscal year as a starting point.  If the committee wants to consider a different model for future years, those changes can be considered at that time. 

Stein presented a tentative timeline for board members’ steps during the performance assessment and suggested adding an additional meeting with respective superintendents and assistant superintendents, face-to-face, prior to the Board completing the final evaluation.  Stein would like the evaluation template to be voted on by the entire Board at a future meeting to memorialize next steps.  If there is consideration to modifying the questions and evaluation template after 2024-2025, any change to the process should also be brought up for a vote by the full Board. 

In summary, the Board will use the previous evaluation tool to come to consensus.  Stein added the Board can establish goals for the superintendent and assistant superintendent in addition to the key performance standards, to be considered as part of the accomplishments separate from the evaluation model.  Barshinger cautioned on what those goals may look like.  

There was agreement among board members present that there is value to the superintendent and assistant superintendent sitting with the full board to provide periodic updates and end of year conversations as board members prepare to conduct the final yearend assessment.  Additionally, all members of the Board should receive the results of survey material and lists of accomplishments at the same time.  At the conclusion of the Board’s final assessment process, all board members should be asked to sign the evaluation rating form that will be presented to the Superintendent and Asst. Superintendent.

FUTURE PLANNING

Sterner will share the draft timeline with Stein and Barshinger for any necessary additions / modifications. 
Stein will work with Mrs. Sterner to draft information to present publicly at the October 14^th Directors’
Study Forum for consideration of adopting as the proposed evaluation tool and tentative performance assessment timeline, with the Board being asked to consider approval to memorialize the process at the October 28^th Regular Voting Meeting. 

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 5:43 PM.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Suzanne E. Sterner, Board Recording Secretary

PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING

of the Spring Grove Area School District Board of School Directors

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 @ 4:00-5:30 PM

Spring Grove Area Educational Services Center – Board Room

100 East College Avenue, Spring Grove, PA

 

Agenda 

I.               Call Meeting to Order                                                              

II.            Policy #312 Review

a.     No later than May 1 – Leadership Team Survey for Superintendent

b.     Superintendent-prepared Accomplishments

                                               i.     Formerly District Operational Plan Summary

                                             ii.     Highlights Categorized by Objective Performance Standards

III.          Board Evaluation Template (Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent)

IV.          Next Steps

a.     Mutually Agreed Upon Language – language typically included in contracts

b.     Consensus – written, board-approved process to include the following:

                                               i.     Description of how consensus is determined, with equal board input

                                             ii.     List of final possible rating outcomes to be put in the final yearend written review

                                           iii.     List of documentation to support final yearend review to be put in HR file

V.             Next Steps – Tentative Timeline

VI.          Adjourn Meeting