Jennifer Shiao's School Committee Blog

It is crucial that the Search Committee and the Regional and Union 26 School Committees hear from members of the community about what YOU are looking for in our next superintendent. To that end, McPherson & Jacobson (M&J), the executive search firm for the superintendent search, will be holding a series of community input sessions between Jan 16 and 27, at which participants will be asked to address the following four topics:

1. Tell us the good things about your community.
2. Tell us the good things about your school district.
3. What are the issues in the district that the incoming superintendent should be aware of?
4. What characteristics should the new superintendent have to be successful?

M&J will summarize the input from all of the sessions into a report for the 20-member Search Committee, and for the Regional and Union 26 School Committees.

There will be six sessions open to the public, including a Spanish language session, and sessions which focus on Special Education, BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) students and families, and LGBTQIA+ students and families. Community members are invited to join any of the public sessions. Most sessions will be virtual, with one in-person session. Visit arps.org/suptsearch for a schedule of the sessions, as well as updated info about the search.

To provide another way of giving input, an online survey will be launched near the end of January with the same four questions.

Q: What’s going on with the superintendent search?
A: The Regional School Committee and the Union 26 Committee (“the joint committees”) have decision making authority, jointly, on the superintendent position. (See my previous blog post for a primer on the various committees.) We are currently in the process of conducting a nation-wide search for a new superintendent. Our goal is to have the new person in place starting on July 1, 2024.

Q: Who is going to decide who the new superintendent is?
A: By state law, the joint committees make hiring decisions for the superintendent position. That said, this search process will include a 20-member Search Committee that will recommend finalists to the joint committees.
The Search Committee will be made up of parents/guardians, community members, ARPS employees, ARHS students, and School Committee members. The Search Committee will review all applicants to the position, select candidates to interview, conduct interviews of those candidates, and decide on a number of finalists to recommend to the joint committees. The joint committees have the ultimate decision-making authority for the superintendent position.
The Search Committee will be composed of a diverse group of people from all backgrounds, walks of life, and identities, including race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, socio-economic background and more!

Q: How do I get on the Search Committee?
A: Those interested in serving on the Search Committee should fill out the interest form. You can access the online forms, and other information about the search process, on the  Superintendent Search page of the ARPS website.

Q: Who will decide the Search Committee membership?
A: Membership on the Search Committee will ultimately be voted on by the joint committees. We have room for 20 people on the Search Committee, and if more than 20 people fill out the interest form, then the Subcommittee for a New Superintendent will review the applications and make a recommendation to the joint committees as to who the members will be. The joint committees will then discuss/deliberate, and vote on the final list. Names of all individuals who submit an interest form will be made public.

Q: Who is on the Subcommittee for a New Superintendent (SNS)?
A: Members of the SNS are:
Anna Heard (Shutesbury representative on the Regional School Committee)
William Sherr (Pelham representative on the Regional School Committee)
Jennifer Shiao (Amherst representative on the Regional School Committee)
Margaret Stancer (Pelham representative on the Union 26 Committee)

Q: What does the SNS do?
A: The SNS is a subcommittee of the joint committees, and as such it makes recommendations to the joint committees. The SNS is not empowered to make decisions that are actually the purview of the joint committees. The SNS has been doing the legwork and research on the superintendent search, and bringing recommendations to the joint committees.
For example, the SNS administered an RFP (request for proposal) for a search consultant last month. We worked with the district to post the RFP on the “Goods and Services Bulletin” (a state portal for RFPs), we received and reviewed the five proposals, and made a recommendation to the joint committees to hire McPherson and Jacobson as the search consultant for the superintendent position. Of the qualifying proposals submitted, McPherson and Jacobson’s was the most high quality and demonstrated that the firm has deep experience in public K-12 superintendent searches. The joint committees voted to accept this recommendation at the November 28 meeting.

Q: How can I keep up to date on the superintendent search?
A: Check out the Superintendent Search webpage (https://arps.org/suptsearch/) for information, updates, and a timeline, on the search process.

I’m fairly certain we can all agree that the Amherst Regional High School (ARHS) track, and the field inside the track, are in poor shape. The surface of the six-lane track is significantly degraded, the field is not regulation size and in poor condition, and the orientation of the facility is such that players have to deal with the sun in their eyes during the time when games are taking place. 

There is currently a project in the works that aims to re-orient the track and field 90 degrees, expand the track to eight lanes, and create a regulation-sized field so that tournament competitions can be held on it. This project will be expensive, AND it is sorely needed. It’s not an exaggeration to say that a generation of student athletes have had to use a deficient track and field facility. And right now it’s been almost two years since the project was first voted on by the Regional School Committee (RSC), in March ‘22.

The money to pay for this project is going to come from a number of different sources. A large chunk of it ($1.5 million) is going to be appropriated from the four towns in our region (Amherst, Leverett, Pelham, Shutesbury). Each town will contribute a proportionate amount that they will acquire through borrowing. When the RSC voted to approve that appropriation on March 15, 2022, we included a requirement that if another $2.2 million can be raised through other sources, then the project will include a synthetic playing field. 

So, what’s happening now?

It’s unclear at this time if that additional $2.2 million will be raised in time, and even if it is, it may not be sufficient. The total cost estimate for a re-oriented track and field with synthetic turf was reported to be $4.7 million in March ‘22. Cost estimates are very likely to be higher now, almost two years after that estimate was calculated. 

At the November 28 RSC meeting, the committee discussed the fact that the $1.5 million from the four member towns is pegged to a synthetic turf project. In other words, because of the added requirement in the 3/15/22 motion about synthetic turf, the $1.5 million approved by the four towns could only be used on a project with synthetic turf. If it is determined that we don’t have enough funding for the synthetic turf project, and if the RSC decides to have natural grass on the field (which costs less), then we would need to vote another borrowing authorization and go back to the four member towns for them to approve it.

Leverett, Pelham, and Shutesbury are governed by a Select Board/Town Meeting form of government. The best time to go to those three towns with a request for appropriation is at their spring Town Meetings. Each of these towns holds a Town Meeting in the spring (Apr-May) of each year, during which a request like this can be approved.

In my opinion, the best way to set ourselves up for the success of this project is to rescind that vote from March 15, 2022, and vote for a new borrowing authorization that does not stipulate that the field will be synthetic turf. If we do this in time to get on the agendas for the spring 2024 Town Meetings for Leverett, Pelham, and Shutesbury, then we will have all options on the table to move forward with the track and field project.

If we don’t do this in time for the spring 2024 Town Meetings, it could significantly delay the project.

At the December 12 RSC meeting, the committee will discuss a motion to rescind the March 15, 2022 debt authorization vote. (This motion was made at the November 28 meeting, and the RSC voted to postpone it to December 12.)

I want to be crystal clear: I am 100% in favor of this project. It is sorely needed. We can’t allow another generation of student athletes to practice and compete on deficient facilities. I want this project to move forward with as few delays and roadblocks as possible. The best way to do that is to remove the requirement that synthetic turf be used.

Redacted versions of the five reports stemming from the Title IX investigations at the Amherst Regional Middle School have now been made available to the public. They have been posted on Boarddocs, the website used to post School Committee meetings, information, and policies. To access the reports, visit the ARPS Boarddocs site, click on Library, then School Committee Information.
Or use this link: http://go.boarddocs.com/ma/arps/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=C7SKS452D9F7

The five reports are:
– Title IX investigation report about Tania Cabrera (11 pages)
– Title IX investigation report about Hector Santos (36 pages)
– Title IX investigation report about Delinda Dykes (65 pages)
– Investigation report about Delinda Dykes and Hector Santos (34 pages)
– Investigation report to ARPS School Committee (94 pages)

I want to clarify that, despite what has been reported in the press and discussed among community members, the fifth and longest report (Investigation report to ARPS School Committee) is the only report that the Regional and Union 26 School Committees (RSC and U26) previously had access to. The other four reports were not made available to us prior to being posted publicly on Friday November 17.

RSC and U26 School Committee members were originally informed that we could pick up a redacted version of this report on October 10, in preparation for our October 12 meeting. Ultimately, we were permitted to have the unredacted version of the report, which most members picked up on October 10 or October 11. We were instructed to sign confidentiality agreements stating that we would not disclose the information in the report, and that we would return the report to the superintendent’s office after the October 12 meeting and would not retain a copy of it.

On October 12, after the meeting concluded, we surrendered our copies of the report to Attorney Marc Terry, who indicated he would have them shredded.

Between October 12 and November 17, I had no access to any of the reports.

Here is the link to the five redacted investigation reports (three Title IX and two non-Title IX):

http://go.boarddocs.com/ma/arps/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=C7SKS452D9F7

At tonight’s (11/14/23) Regional School Committee (RSC) meeting, Interim Superintendent Doug Slaughter stated that redacted versions of the three Title IX investigation reports and two other investigation reports will be made public.

According to Slaughter, more than one individual had submitted a public records request to the district requesting the reports. The district declined to fulfill the request, due to the information being personnel matters and thus confidential. One individual (called the “petitioner”) then appealed the decision to the Secretary of State’s office. The Secretary of State’s determination was that the reports are considered public record, and should be made public with appropriate redactions.

According to Union 26 Chair Irv Rhodes, the names of students and the names of witnesses will be redacted.

Slaughter informed the RSC that tomorrow (11/15/23) is the deadline for delivering the redacted reports to the petitioner, and once that happens they will be public documents.

The RSC then voted unanimously to instruct the superintendent to publish the redacted reports to the RSC’s Boarddocs site (a public-facing website used for meetings, agendas, and documents), and add a link to the reports to the ARPS website.

You can watch this portion of the meeting on Amherst Media’s YouTube page, starting at around 1:10:30: https://www.youtube.com/live/zcuP5uapUFU?si=dZBywXVG10epZeda&t=4230

I will publish a blog update when the reports have been posted publicly.

I’ve heard from concerned community members that former Superintendent Mike Morris is involved or will be involved in decisions stemming from the Title IX investigation reports. This is simply not true. Morris will have no input on decisions resulting from the Title IX reports, or any district decisions.

The concern may be coming from a section of Morris’s separation agreement, which states in part “Should your cooperation and assistance require your participation in any activity connected to such litigation you shall be compensated at a per diem rate …” I contact Marc Terry, attorney for the school district and the School Committee, to confirm the meaning of this section. Here is his response:

“Mike will not be involved in any decision-making related to the Title IX reports (or any other matter related to the Districts). The language in the separation agreement requires Mike to provide factual information related to pending or future litigation to the extent necessary to support the Districts’ case. For example, we have multiple unfair labor practice charges, arbitrations and MCAD cases pending against the District that were filed based on facts occurring when Mike was the Superintendent. It is likely he had some involvement in at least some of the issue that led to those claims. He would be called upon to share that information with my office or insurance counsel to enable us to defend the Districts’ position. This may include conversations with counsel, being deposed or testifying at a hearing.”

So, if Morris needs to be involved due to a lawsuit or charge against the districts, he would be compensated for that activity. But he will not be involved in any district decision making on any topic.

I also confirmed with Interim Superintendent Doug Slaughter that Mike has not been involved in any district decision making since his termination date of 8/31/23. Doug’s response: “I can confirm that Mike has only provided assistance as described in Attorney Terry’s response. He has not and will not be involved in any decision making for the districts.”

I understand that the community has lost trust in the school districts and the School Committees, and that when there is a lack of trust and minimal transparency, rumors and speculation can take the place of facts. I appreciate the opportunity to correct this misunderstanding, and I hope that community members will continue to come to me with concerns.

At last night’s joint meeting of the Union 26 and Regional School Committees*, ARPS Finance Director Doug Slaughter was appointed interim superintendent, effective 9/1/23, backfilling Michael Morris who separated from the districts as of 8/31/23.

The committees’ intention is to have Doug serve as interim superintendent for the 23-24 school year, while the committees implement a search for a permanent superintendent.

The votes to appoint Doug interim superintendent, to lower his compensation from the proposed $173,611.10 annualized salary to $170,000, and to approve his contract, were all unanimous.

Doug is now on an unpaid leave of absence from his finance director role, while he serves as interim superintendent. The committees and Doug will next need to determine how to backfill his finance director responsibilities.

This is the second time Doug has been appointed to fill the superintendent role. In May, he was appointed acting superintendent while the superintendent was on medical leave.

*For a refresher on the various school committees, see my previous blog post Amherst has two school committees?

Another day and another School Committee resignation. Peter Demling notified the School Committee of his resignation this morning. In his note, he said:

“I’m grateful to have had the opportunity to serve our schools and to have served with you. Take care of yourself, and take care of each other, no matter what happens.
I wish you, the committees and our school districts nothing but the best as you face the road ahead.”

You may be wondering, who is left??

The answers are:

• Irv Rhodes and I are the remaining two members of the Amherst School Committee. With only two members of a five-member body, the School Committee does not have quorum and therefore can not meet or take any votes. I talked to staff in the central office today to make sure payments (including payroll) can still be made, without a committee meeting to approve warrants. After consulting with the school district’s attorney, it was established that either Rhodes or I can sign warrants, and they would need to be approved at the next meeting with quorum. So, payments and payroll will not be held up.
• There are now three vacancies to be filled. See my previous blog post about the process to fill School Committee vacancies. The Town Council will be holding a meeting on Monday August 28, which Rhodes and I will also attend, to discuss the process and timeline for filling the vacancies.
• With these three resignations (Herrington, McDonald, Demling), the Regional School Committee* is also down three members, how ever that nine-member body still has a quorum and is still operating. The Union 26 committee is down two members, but that body also still has a quorum and is still operating. In fact, the Regional and Union 26 committees (including Rhodes and me) are hard at work determining who will be our interim superintendent. More will be shared on that soon.

*See my blog post Amherst has two School Committees? for an explanation on the multiple School Committees.

Happy Thursday! It seems like it’s been ages since my last post and yet it’s only been three days! Let’s jump right in.

Allison McDonald has submitted her resignation from the Amherst School Committee (and thus also the Regional School Committee). In her resignation notice, which she forwarded to both School Committees, she said:

“While I’ve endured the challenging and at times toxic climate of Amherst public life, I am no longer able to do so. 
I hope that Amherst will move forward and commit to dynamic civic dialogue without the vitriol that’s characterized this past year, and I look forward to contributing to our community in other capacities.”

The Town Council will need to meet to determine a timeline for filling this vacancy. I can only presume that they will fill both this vacancy and the vacancy left when Ben Herrington resigned, simultaneously.

Next, why did the School Committees need over 2.5 hours last night to approve the meeting minutes from the August 17 meeting?

• Taking accurate minutes is not easy. The APRS staff member who took minutes for the August 17 meeting (at which we discussed the separation agreement of Superintendent Michael Morris) did a great job at capturing the discussion and debate, but it’s inevitable that in a discussion as complex as this, details will get missed.
• The purpose of minutes is to have an accurate record of what transpired. SC members were sent the draft minutes on Tuesday, and I reviewed them and made suggested changes on my own before last night’s meeting. While going through the minutes, what I kept in mind is that one, two, 10 years from now, when someone reads these minutes, they need to be able to have an accurate understanding of what transpired.
• When the SCs went into Executive Session, Peter Demling opened up the document and we edited it on the fly. My suggested changes and Demling’s suggested changes were already incorporated. (I had sent my suggested changes to Demling and RSC Vice Chair Sarahbess Kenney on Tuesday).
• We went through paragraph by paragraph, to make sure the minutes accurately reflected what we said. We suggested edits, discussed the edits, and came to consensus on each edit.
• We were notified by Marc Terry, the attorney for the school district and the school committee, that we had the option of redacting only those portions of the minutes that reflected his advice to us, and claim attorney-client privilege. After some discussion, and after reviewing the entire document, the committees agreed not to redact anything that could be covered under attorney-client privilege. To be clear, NOTHING HAS BEEN REDACTED FROM THE MINUTES. I think this was a good and right decision, and I’m glad we all came to consensus about it.
• After we made edits to the full document, Demling created a final “clean” version which he emailed to us, then we took a break so that we could review the clean document.
• When we came back, we decided that we wanted to get the minutes out to the public as soon as possible, and therefore we would not worry about things like inconsistently naming individuals (first name, last name, first last), small typos, extra spaces, etc.
• We voted unanimously to approve the minutes and publish them. It was a very collaborative effort, and it seemed to me that all members took seriously the task of making sure the minutes accurately reflected what transpired.
• It was a slow process, but it definitely kept moving. We took exactly the amount of time we needed to make sure that the discussion of Morris’s separation agreement would be accurately reflected.