Personnel Committee
Meeting Minutes and Agendas
2025
- March 10, 2025 Personnel Committee Meeting Minutes
- March 10, 2025 Personnel Committee Meeting Agenda
March 10, 2025 Personnel Committee Meeting Minutes
SPRING GROVE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
DATE/TIME of MEETING: March 10, 2025 @ 6:00 PM
LOCATION of MEETING: Spring Grove Area Middle School, 244 Old Hanover Rd., Spring Grove, PA
The following School Directors were in attendance: Doug Stein (Committee Chair), Eric Barshinger, Karen Baum, Ben Ramsay, Rachel Rohrbaugh, Rodney Shearer, Doug White, Nicole Wilson
The following Spring Grove Area School District personnel were in attendance: Dr. Joseph Bradley, Superintendent, Dr. Steve Guadagnino, Assistant Superintendent, Mark Czapp, Director of Business Operations / Board Secretary, Jen Leppo, Accounting Manager, Suzanne Sterner, Board Recording Secretary
A Personnel Committee meeting of the Spring Grove Area Board of School Directors was held on Monday, March 10, 2025. Doug Stein called the meeting to order at 6:02 PM and turned over the presentation to Dr. Guadagnino.
Dr. Bradley reminded all attendees that discussions taking place will be related to extracurricular positions in the school district. Should the board wish to discuss individuals holding positions, they will adjourn to a committee executive session.
Extracurricular Programs
Dr. Guadagnino stated that in 2019, the list of extracurricular positions previously included in the CBA was removed and has not been added back in since that time. Each year, a list of individuals is presented to board members to fill the positions with stipends included for approval. From the time the list was removed, several positions have been added to the list and are reflected as such on the attachment shared by Dr. Guadagnino. When positions were removed from the CBA, the salary matrix was separated into five groups, including minimum stipends established for the individual groups. Stipends assigned each year also consider the tenure of the individual in the position and their experience.
In August 2024, board members met in executive session and requested more information regarding current positions and appointed individuals to the positions. A survey was conducted, and data was collected from the individuals and their respective administrators, including time needed to fulfill each position’s responsibilities. The confidential data collected was shared with the Board.
Guadagnino then presented a memorandum with a list of pros and cons to suggested options for moving forward. He requested direction from committee members. Rohrbaugh stated that reviewing this information while the board considers the 2025-26 budget is timely.
Rohrbaugh questioned several positions, such as yearbook, that have a class associated with the extracurricular activity. Guadagnino confirmed that in the case of yearbook, a person is already being paid as a teacher for the assignment. Barshinger suggested having the amount of time required by the person outside of the regular school day added to the data file. To decide next steps, it may be beneficial to get more granular.
Guadagnino referred to the collected data and noted the minimums listed for the groups. Numbers reflected on the attachment for Groups 1 and 2 appear to make sense, with some of the figures increased based upon a person’s years in the position. Most of the items in Group 3 are linked to a class during the school day, as stated in the Example Description for the group.
Rohrbaugh questioned what differentiates the positions? What qualifies them to get a different stipend? Guadagnino gave examples of listed activities in Group 3 and noted the amount of in-class time vs. time outside of the school day according to survey results. There are instances where a person holding a position in Group 3 may not be a teacher. In Group 4, there is a greater chance that they are non-teaching.
Barshinger stated he is all for making sure that those instances for events and activities that do not take place during the school day are paid. But there seems to be a discrepancy among teachers who are putting in time for a regular school day as a teacher and doing extra work outside of the classroom for which they do not get paid, but a teacher in an extracurricular position does get paid for doing additional things outside of the classroom that is also linked to the class.
Stein stated that the genesis of the survey was because the board was concerned about a couple positions and asked the assistant superintendent to review all positions. He commended Guadagnino on a great job and noted that the board should not “cherry pick” positions as a means of moving forward. Rather, a next phase might be to filter the data according to what is a class, what is a club, and what is completely extra. Rohrbaugh agreed. Stein continued that there should be equity. Some positions require a level of expertise that may call for additional compensation. It is a balance of effort, expertise, and more than just the amount of time.
In advance of receiving direction from the board, Guadagnino presented four options with pros and cons for each listed on the memorandum. The total to be paid out for all stipends if everything remains the same is approximately $106,670. His recommendation is to start with option B, reducing the cost to approximately $94,389. Barshinger questioned if the board eliminates a program, does it kill the program and need to be re-introduced later? Guadagnino stated that when there is a vacancy, the position should be evaluated, and the compensation piece reevaluated.
Due to the current HR Director vacancy, Guadagnino reported having no explanation for some of the stipends and no backup to the amounts listed. Rohrbaugh stated documentation is key moving forward. Next steps should include filtering the comparison of the positions grouped by school to examine equity. Barshinger requested the administrative team also investigate if the amount of time that an advisor is bringing to the table is comparable to a regular teacher.
Rohrbaugh wants to make sure that the board is being equitable as some of the positions listed appear to be paying someone a part-time salary. She questioned what elevates a position to be making some of the higher amounts. Stein suggested that such considerations to positions could be subjective. Ramsay questioned what data about the position itself can be looked at without being partial to a person. The administration should look at the positions impartially – not just by department.
Wilson stated that currently, music programs are growing in the district. If the board wants to maintain great programs, willing and qualified people need to fill the positions. There are a lot more opportunities and festivals held over the weekend when a staff member is taking time away from their family. Moreover, almost everything on the list is what kids are passionate about. If there are major changes to the list, there may not be interested leaders. The last thing the board should do is take things away from students. Ramsay suggested grouping the positions into buckets to provide a clearer picture of the similarities and differences. It would not be designed for removing or lessening anything, to Wilson’s point.
White questioned if a calculation was ever done to determine an hourly rate for the positions. Dr. Bradley noted it is difficult to determine how much time a person is investing because for many, there is no specific hour to start and/or stop the clock.
Consensus of the board members was to move forward with Option B as recommended by Guadagnino to begin somewhere for the upcoming school year. The administration will continue to move forward with reorganizing the data for greater analysis and comparison of the positions as requested by board members, including reassessment of positions if/as vacancies arise. The administration will also create a general position description for each. To memorialize the board’s intentions, an action will be included with March 24th personnel items.
Stein adjourned the meeting at 6:55 PM.
Respectfully Submitted, Suzanne Sterner, Board Recording Secretary
March 10, 2025 Personnel Committee Meeting Agenda
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING
of the Spring Grove Area School District Board of School Directors
Monday, March 10, 2025 @ 6:00 PM
Spring Grove Area Middle School / LGI Room #241
100 East College Avenue, Spring Grove, PA
Agenda
I. Call Meeting to Order, Doug Stein
II. Extracurricular Programs, Dr. Guadagnino
A. How Did We Get Here?
- Review History/Timeline
B. Review Current Positions and Salary Matrix
C. Review Collected Data
- Questions?
D. Review/Discuss Options & Recommendations
E. Request(s) for Additional/New Positions
III. Next Steps
IV. Adjourn Meeting
2024
- September 18, 2024, Personnel Committee Meeting Minutes
- September 18, 2024, Personnel Committee Meeting Agenda
September 18, 2024, Personnel Committee Meeting Minutes
SPRING GROVE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
DATE/TIME of MEETING: September 18, 2024 @ 4:00 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 18, 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 14th 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 28th Regular Voting Meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:43 PM.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Suzanne E. Sterner, Board Recording Secretary
September 18, 2024, Personnel Committee Meeting Agenda
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
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