Lorain/Elyria, OH
Schools chief’s review put off till after contract
Print this story
Read comments and discuss this story
LORAIN - The Lorain school board has delayed its annual performance review of Superintendent Cheryl Atkinson until the fall even as it works to negotiate a five-year extension to her contract.
Board Vice President Tony Dimacchia said the board had originally intended to complete the review by July, but board President Cynthia Miller decided after re-examining Atkinson’s current contract to delay the review. The contract requires the review to be completed by Oct. 1.
“I don’t see any red flags with performance evaluation or anything drastic that would lead us to believe we’d need a new superintendent,” Dimacchia said, adding that the board could approve a contract extension this month.
Board member Paul Biber said he believes it’s more important to keep Atkinson than to complete what he believes will be another positive review of her.
He said Atkinson has proven herself in Lorain and will be sought after by other districts willing to offer more money “unless we have her locked up with golden handcuffs.”
Atkinson’s first review, completed a year ago, isn’t in her personnel file, where the contract requires it be kept in a sealed envelope marked confidential. According to Ohio law, public officials’ performance reviews are public records.
Atkinson said last week that she would make the review available to The Chronicle-Telegram on Monday. She said Monday that she has been unable to locate her copy of the review, although Dimacchia said he has a copy he will make available.
Atkinson said she doesn’t know why the review isn’t in her file.
“You’ll have to talk to the board members about that,” she said. “I just had my copy.”
Biber said the board and Atkinson shared responsibility for making sure the review was part of her file and available for examination.
“This is kind of sloppy and embarrassing,” he said.
Board member Raul Ramos, who, along with Dimacchia, sits on the board committee reviewing Atkinson’s performance, said the board has other things to worry about besides completing Atkinson’s review.
He said he gave Atkinson a positive review a year ago, and his evaluation of her will be “even better” this year.
Board member Jim Smith said he’s not certain why his fellow board members are in a hurry to extend Atkinson’s contract, which isn’t up until July 2010, but he said he’s willing to wait on her review.
He said he had already completed his personal evaluation of Atkinson - which Ramos had requested on June 2 - and turned it in.
“It wasn’t as positive (as last year), but it was at least satisfactory,” he said.
He got a call from Atkinson’s office Monday telling him his evaluation would be returned to him and the review was being delayed.
But the delay means that he will have more criteria to judge Atkinson by, including enrollment numbers and a new state report card on how the district is doing, Smith said.
Smith said he was concerned that Atkinson’s first review wasn’t where it was supposed to be. It’s the second provision in Atkinson’s contract that has been violated, he said.
Atkinson also is in violation of a clause in her contract requiring her to live in the Lorain school district. The home she rents from school board attorney Anthony Giardini is in the jurisdiction of Amherst Schools.
Biber said the negotiations on Atkinson’s new contract - which could increase her total compensation package from about $213,000 to more than $250,000 per year - haven’t been completed yet.
He said the district can’t give Atkinson everything she has asked for and that the board also has some issues that need to be addressed.
For instance, he said, under the new contract, Atkinson will be required to give the board a monthly schedule noting when she takes vacation or sick days. That wasn’t being done before but should have been, he said, because Atkinson can get paid out for the days she accumulates and doesn’t use.
Contact Brad Dicken at 329-7147 or bdicken@chroniclet.com.
Print this story
Report an innappropriate comment
In order to comment, you must agree to our user agreement
and discussion guidelines.
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you aren't already registered,
click here.
If you are registered, click here to log in.
Need help? Email Us.
I suggest that Mr. Biber research the salaries for Superintendents in districts with less than 9000 students and a performance record as dismal as this district’s. $250,000. is an astronomical amount of money to pay for this superintendent (especially when the public is denied any access to her past evals). If you are already paying this “leader” $213,000, I really do not believe that she plans to go anywhere. Lives in a $479,000 home. Lives in Amherst. Looking at receiving a five year, guaranteed, quarter million dollar per year contract. And, gets to use vacation days without claiming them. Do you REALLY believe that “golden handcuffs” are necessary? Do you know ANYONE who would walk away from that deal? Come on, Mr. Biber. Can you really be that intellectually challenged? Mr. Smith, may you continue to try your best to not only bring a reasonable perspective to this entire matter, but also try to do the things you three amigos promised when you were elected to replace those you replaced.
(Report comment)
Something doesn’t seem right…
Are there some problems associated with doing the review BEFORE granting a new contract, other than someone might have to do a little work during summer vacation?
Or could putting off the review until AFTER the contract is granted, be a way of covering one’s posterior, leaving open the excuse of, “Since no review was available to us, how could we possibly have known…”
Also, I have to suggest that the board looks into purchasing copies of, “Negotiating for Dummies.” I have a copy, and I think it would help them to avoid the glaring mistakes that have already been committed in striking a deal with Ms. Atkinson’s attorney/landlord.
And, have I been missing something regarding the Lorain City Schools?
What great strides forward has it made, from the bottom of the heap, that might be lost if they lose the current leader?
How do Lorain schools rate with other Ohio schools, or schools around the country?
Have they really improved that much?
(Report comment)
Dan S. asks important, astute questions. One would think that simple logic dictates that the evaluation precedes the new contract. Or, like the provision that the superintendent must live in the city, doesn’t the evaluation count? If the evaluation is meaningless, why do it? And why five years? As Dan S. asks, how has this superintendent so improved the Lorain Schools that she is worthy of a five year deal worth a quarter mill a year? NOTHING in the state results (yes, Mr. Smith, those results are available) indicates even a modicum of significant improvement. Further, where in the world will this money come from? Another grant? Or will that levy looming on the horizon cover it? The embarrassment that Mr. Biber refers to is certainly not limited to the past evaluation business. This entire, irrational, private, and unnecessary extension and enhancement of an already outrageous contract doubles down on that embarrassment.
(Report comment)
Hmmm, sounds kinda fishy to me. The evaluation should be completed before a five year contract is signed. That would be “common sense”. Otherwise it seems like something is wrong here. It does not make sense that the superintendent’s previous review is not in her file?? She said she has nothing to hide yet now also her review given to her is lost? Sounds abit strange. As Judge Judy says “if it doesn’t make sense” it would make it hard to believe. If they are not going to give her an evaluation before her contract is signed then I would think a one year contract is in order. Come Lorain School Board get on the ball here and do your job the right way…..
(Report comment)
how is it that they can get away with deciding when and who their evalution policies apply to and to whom they dont?
(Report comment)