Superintendent’s Contract Extension Denied

By Eliza Hallabeck

It was after midnight when the Board of Education returned from an executive session following its meeting on Tuesday, June 19, and voted to not extend a new contract agreement to Superintendent of Schools Janet Robinson.

The superintendent’s contract has been annually reviewed every June since Dr Robinson started in the district in 2008, and each year the three-year contract has been extended by another year. This year marks the first time in her tenure in Newtown the contract was not extended by one year, leaving two years on her contract.

Attorney Fred Dorsey acted as a consultant during the evaluation process, which began in May, between Dr Robinson and the school board. The evaluation process was conducted during executive sessions, and participants cannot speak about what happened during those sessions.

Board of Education Chair Debbie Leidlein estimates the accumulated time spent in executive sessions on the matter add up to roughly 10 to 15 hours.

Following the final executive session on the topic, the first motion, passed with BOE members William Hart and Richard Gaines voting against it, made was to finalize the evaluation, which was made available as a public document this week.

A motion to extend the superintendent’s three-year contract failed, 3-4, with Ms Leidlein, school board Vice Chair Laura Roche, Secretary Cody McCubbin, and board member John Vouros against the motion. The next motion to not extend a new agreement passed, 4-3, with board members Keith Alexander, Mr Gaines, and Mr Hart against the motion.

With the final motion of the meeting, Dr Robinson’s current salary and benefits were maintained for at least the next year of her contract in a 5-2 vote, with Mr Alexander and Mr Hart against the motion.

On Monday, Dr Robinson said, “I’m very grateful for the three board members who recognize and appreciate how complex this job is, and the efforts that I have put in.”

Dr Robinson also said she sent out a district-wide email saying the same standards and expected quality of work will be maintained over the next two years.

“Our staff has done such a great job,” said Dr Robinson, noting her appreciation. “...The school district is in great shape internally.”

Superintendent’s Evaluation

The district released Dr Robinson’s evaluation, created during the process, on Monday, June 25.

The document lists four areas of evaluation: educational leadership, organizational management, community and Board of Education relations, and personal and professional qualities and relationships. Each category lists both Dr Robinson’s strengths and weaknesses.

Dr Robinson, the evaluation states under the educational leadership category, promotes a positive school culture through leadership.

“The organization of rounds and organizing school leadership to work as a team has had a positive impact on students and teachers. New administrators have been strong and effective leaders,” the evaluation says, adding that the superintendent also brings new ideas forward to the district, and more.

Under the category of educational leadership weaknesses, the document reads, “The leadership in one school has been ineffective in building an optimal teaching environment for teachers and has led to an inequitable learning experience for students. Consultants have been hired to remedy scheduling issues, which to date, have not been solved. More must be done to ensure that the students are getting equitable instruction.”

During her time as superintendent, Dr Robinson has managed three union contract negotiations, each including a year of no salary increases, according to the evaluation.

“Dr Robinson has developed a system of school administrators who collaborate across the district on agendas and initiatives to move the district forward,” the evaluation states under the organizational management strengths. “The instructional rounds have been expanded and are now self-directed. Dr Robinson meets regularly with the Leadership Team to foster collaboration and improve continuity of instruction across the district.”

Under the category of organizational management weaknesses, the document asserts, “The budget prepared was lacking in detail and did not sell the educational program Dr Robinson and [the Board of Education] wished to continue or the initiation of new programs to advance the district. Questions asked by the board and by other boards were not answered in a timely manner, nor were they answered to the satisfaction of the recipients.”

Under the same category it says the superintendent does not constantly provide supervision of personnel, leading to some personnel to continue in positions for which they are not suited.

Dr Robinson, according to the evaluation, notifies the school board of current legislation and its possible impacts on Newtown, she also attends Parent Teacher Association meetings, and “has been involved with advisory boards where community members discuss educational issues.”

In the area of community and Board of Education relations, the evaluation notes, “There is a lack of trust in Dr Robinson by some community members, members of other boards, faculty and staff in the school system. Dr Robinson does not always effectively communicate information to allow the board to gain public trust and has communicated information to other groups and or agencies prior to supplying it to the board. This lack of trust adds to the difficulty of the passing of a budget.”

The evaluation continues by noting that Dr Robinson does not communicate effectively with administrators in other school districts, parents do not feel their voices are being heard, and the superintendent does not always foster communication between the school board and town administrators.

The final category of the evaluation points out that Dr Robinson “is composed in tense situations and defends her staff when difficulty arises. Dr Robinson holds strong beliefs about what is right for education in the district.”

The evaluation report also asserts, however, that “Dr Robinson is not consistent and at times causes board members or community members to question the veracity of her statements with regard to events that transpire within the district. It is hard to know the real story in some situations because details can vary from one board meeting to another.”