What's up? >> All right. Like to welcome you to the uh evaluation subcommittee meeting on Tuesday, September 23rd, 2025. Deputy, please call role. >> Mr. Bailey >> here. >> Mr. Das >> here. >> Mr. Para,
>> please rise to seat the flag. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Pursuant to the open meeting law, any
person may make an audio video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and are deemed acknowledgeable and permissible. Um, starting on
item one, >> we have citizens in >> Oh, do we have any citizens in? I'm sorry. >> Yes. Yep. Um the first one is from a Dave Olivera. Good evening members of the subcommittee. Well, let's talk about the superintendent review, shall we? We have
multiple teachers vacancies. Scores are not where they should be. Some kids being asked to stay home because they have no first period class. School buildings are costing taxpayers money up to 80,000 just for one school. This has
to be the easiest evaluation this committee can fill out because if this superintendent gets anything more than not meet the standing then those committee members are just useless as she has been. I request her I request
her to give up 80,000 from her over 200,000 overpaid salary back to the taxpayer and asking her to resign her post so we can get someone who cares about the business at hand and that is
better leadership for the students and teachers and also asking Ken Pachico to resign his post so we can get someone more qualified to the business at hand and that's to care about the safety and of the kids and teachers of the school
district. There is a lot of money we are paying these two people and the screw-ups between these two. We should be take talking a vote of no confidence on these two. So I ask members like Mimi, Shelley, and Tom, let the
professional do their job. If you still stand with professional after this mess, I understand why you didn't pull papers out. Dave Bower. >> Mr. Chair, just one quick question. Um, the individual mentioned something about
children going home after first class. Actually, don't really >> No, the uh it read was that um >> or first after first period >> some kids were being asked to stay home because they have no first period class.
>> Do we get and that sound like familiar? >> No. can we like find out about that specific part that I didn't know the individual was referring to either? >> Sure. >> Um so one question that I have is is I
think that's a pretty broad and general statement um because we could be talking about any school in the district. Um so my only concern with that is what school is he talking about? Is he talking about his own kids? like does he have kids in the district or um
>> there's no mention of a um a school in there at all of any school whatsoever. >> Yeah. So was it the meas mentioned 80,000? If he mentioned 80,000 I'm assuming he doesn't mention RPA. What happened there?
>> He did not mention RPA but he there is a mention of 80,000. Yes. >> Okay. >> But there is no mention of RPA. >> Okay. Um, do we have any other sus? Okay. >> From a um, Taylor Perry,
>> I am writing as a concerned Fall River resident and parent regarding the recent Department of Labor Standards finding of the Robert El Maderas Resiliency Preparatory Academy. According to the state's own 10page report, inspectors
documented 23 absess abscess related violations after a community complaint about dust and noise from a window replacement project. These violations range from missing inspection
records and inadequate warning signage to problems with poly sheeting and loose caulking. The district now faces $81,250 in fines if the issues are not corrected by October 13th.
This is far more serious than a missing binder. The absence of a certified absesses coordinator and the legally required inspection records represents a critical compliance failure. rules that exist
specifically to prevent hidden obsesses exposure to and in to ensure proper monitoring. Containment is not a solution. Without current inspection records, no one can honestly guarantee that Obsesses
was not disturbed during past maintenance or the recent window repairs. I am demanding immediate action. Independent air quality testing of every occupied space to ensure that
100% of students and staff are safe. Closure of RPA until those results are completed and the building is confirmed safe for re-entry. It is unacceptable that the district funds continue to be direct directed to lower priority
projects such as vape detectors while critical safety hazards like absesses remove remain unresolved. Protecting children and staff must come first. Ignoring the crisis not only endangers lives but also creates serious legal
exposure to the district. Our schools cannot continue to postpone essential maintenance while diverting funds elsewhere. Superintendent Curley, what are your specific goals and long-term plans to ensure that major safety and
compliance failures like this never occur again? Please address a public road map showing how you will correct this system systemic issues and prevent future violations. Due to due to the
importance of the safety of the children and staff, I'm respectfully asked until a full assessment proves that RPA is safe, no student or staff member should set foot in that building. Respectfully, Taylor.
>> So, um just a few comments on that. Um, I know you already addressed it through email. Um, I'm imagining you're probably going to address it in front of the full committee. Um, at some point just for the edification of the public. Um, I don't really have many questions on because I've read through the emails and the documents and I know um, Mr. Das has
also expressed um, his concerns and things of that nature. Um, that's just how I'm going to leave it for now because I don't want you to talk about it 85 times um, on how that goes. But um yeah, I just >> very very quickly because I know we're
on evaluation. Um I fully agree with the citizens input and um believe just so we're safe as a district there should be some outside um testing by an independent agency just to confirm there's no issues. I I leave it at that.
Thank you. >> I'll just respond to that. Mr. You've made that clear on Facebook and in an email to me and I already responded to you to let you know that we've contacted the Department of Public Health. We've contacted other entities
and we're awaiting a reply on testing. >> I I did see you sent an email um today. I was at work when you sent it, so I wasn't able to >> Well, you've sent me emails since the end of the workday, so I assume that you had read that one, but Okay. >> Thank you. Um just really quick, I know
she referenced October 13th date. Um, can you just touch on that date a little bit? Is is does things have to be remediated before a specific or not remediated, but do things or any information? >> We do have um an October 13th deadline.
>> Um and so because some of the items are things like signage and um getting a person trained, we do have those things. they're they're lined up and so we're we'll we'll meet the deadlines. >> Okay. >> Um and I think the idea was if there was
an opportunity for an appeal, but I mean we certainly don't disagree with any of the elements. Yeah. >> Um and so it's true we could be assessed the um $81,250 or we could apply um all or part of it to any action that we're taking and we
are applying it to the action. So >> Okay. Thank you. Uh moving on to uh did I put that? Um no I didn't. Moving on to discussion >> one >> one. Yeah.
>> Um timeline you have any questions? I I I do. Um is my first question is just looking at this just being a discussion. My understanding that the timeline was something that was created by the
evaluation subcommittee and that timeline in the past has been referred to the full committee for approval. I see here it's just a discussion. Is there a explanation? I believe when we get to 3.3 and there's
a discussion and vote to refer the tool that will include the timeline and it will include like the timeline and the process. Um and then finally in the the tool will encompass I think with that vote it can be all the pieces. >> Okay. >> Okay. My my that's what I was expecting.
>> Sure. My my concern is with this timeline is um I think it's just if we're having this in December, we're going to be having a meeting in December. I think it should be held slightly earlier either um in November.
Um just my I don't know, just my thoughts. So this just going through this um it appears that the evaluation subcommittee chair will report out to the full committee a final report and that's
listed in December. Um not sure when our date is in December. >> It's the 8th. >> December 8th is the first. >> So if I can um I think part of this as well is waiting for October data right
to is that are we incorporating? Yeah, we're expecting um I think September 29th was the date they sent out this week. Yeah. >> That there'll be a release of the data on September 29th. >> Yeah. So, incorporating some of that in
and then having a a a meeting with the eval subcommittee over again and seeing um you know what that looks like. And obviously the timeline is the timeline, but I think that's part of the reason why um the timeline was laid out like
that because when we look at our meetings and when we look at the data and and um the superintendent's team um also give them time to prepare um with the new school year starting. >> Sure. No, that makes sense. U Mr. Bailey, um you know, one thing too, um I
wanted to suggest that either I don't know if it has to be in the tool. we can discuss it now since it's the timeline. I think it's um it would be beneficial to submit I I actually let me re re back
up just a little bit. So the timeline is so obviously you're not the the full chair obviously Miss Pereira is. >> When Miss Pereira puts these together, does it go to like yourself or does it go to anyone else just for like a review
like beforehand before it's submitted to the the full committee? >> Does what go >> the individual um school committee assessments? No, >> the superintendent does not see any of the individual um they normally get
submitted to me, the individual um evaluations of the superintendent and then um either I work with the um chair or the chair requests them. She has them and then she creates the cumulative and then she sends it to me. I prepare the
cumulative and then have um it prepared so she presents at that meeting. Um, and everybody at that point sees what the final is. >> I think it's um, and I don't have an issue with this if like the superintendent even saw if the
superintendent wanted to give feedback or wanted to like either correct something or like maybe give further feedback that the superintendent saw the individual. I don't know if that's ever been done or that's like >> I think for the most part >> an ethical issue, but >> No, I think for the most part when we
when we go over um and you can correct me if I'm wrong, um Dr. Kelly, um >> I think for the most part when we go over the evaluations themselves, we provide her an opportunity to respond or or talk about some of her points and um
she obviously goes through her goals and things of that nature. Um, so I it's not like a, you know, a process where we put things forth and it's just like this is the end all be all. Um, if and I'm not mist I'm not misspeaking when I say that, right?
>> No, I mean I think um and I'll try to pull it up here. I mean in the model there is a there is a guide for how to do this. I don't know the extent to which Fall River has used the guide um in the way it was intended, but I know that as part of all of our evaluations
and and they generally run the same cycle. We do people do have an opportunity to respond. Yeah. And you know, so when you sign off on an evaluation, someone is just basically signing off that they've received it, not that they agree. And then we do have people who then will submit um some kind
of I'll call it a rebuttal but it's not that a response um where people want to go on record saying >> kind of a you said this but I don't disagree I don't agree and you said this and I don't agree. We do get that sometimes. >> Did we do that last time or is that for
like your process? Um, so I don't we had never discussed it as part of um we've never discussed it as part of the process when we did this last year and I did not respond. >> Yeah. So I think I think one of the biggest things last year was um if I'm
not mistaken uh >> Miss Pereira read all of the responses from all the committee members along with some of the feedback um and then obviously we had the um evaluation tool um and then we had the cumulative
score of what we decided as a committee. >> Right. No, I understand that. I guess my I guess what I was advocating for, we submit it, we submit our individuals to the chair. >> The chair has the opportunity to send these to the superintendent. Superintendent has the opportunity to
respond. Then that individual member might have the ability to >> change something if they wanted to. I think um or or not, but I think it's just um it creates dialogue and I think that would >> Yeah. And I don't see anything wrong
with that process either. Um because I do think it's it's it's fair. I mean, if someone writes some type of assessment about me, um whether true or untrue, I should have an opportunity to respond um regardless what it was, right? But I think one of the biggest things with
this, we're talking about overall performance and and goals and how to move the district forward and and things that we can improve on. So, um with that, I'm I'm not mad at that process. um just because I do think she should
have a voice in her evaluation. Um I think it's important. Um so I'm I'm not against that. Um, but I do think we need to talk collectively as a body to see how that would go and how that would fit into our current timeline because it is
it probably would shift the timeline because if >> we're doing >> well I think if that's something that the committee is looking for then obviously that would be expecting the superintendent to do you know and she would have to >> we have to give her more time to allow
her to >> review >> yep >> each evaluation. And if she had something that she wanted to speak with the individual, then address it and then that would then
might change the evaluator's decision to change the evaluation or how they were evaluated and then resubmit their evaluation. So then that would change the whole timeline. >> Yeah. >> Right. And if I can add to that, well, if we go by this timeline that we have
here, November, school committee works on their individual assessment of the progress made um in achieving the goals. And I'm assuming that means filling out this. >> Yeah. So, just to be really clear though, this is what what's in this
chart for 2425. We already did this, >> I think. >> So, this is what we did last year. And so you have to like keep going all the way through because we went through an evaluation cycle. So if you go to like
the last page, >> superintendent, if I can just correct, I think this is for 2526 like on the right. >> No, >> no, no, no. School year 25. >> Yeah, but we're but like we haven't finished up 2425 yet. So the only things
that we've done for 2526 are the goals workshop and the second and and we have the second read. I'm not I believe Mr. Das that we should really think about what this looks like for 2526 as well
you know as part of the planning but we do have to wrap up 2425. Um so I think that what is being proposed here um so in September evaluation subcommittee
meets to discuss the timeline process and superintendent evaluation tool. October it's suggested superintendent submits end of cycle evaluation progress report. November school committees works on the individual and in December that's the um
report >> that's for 2425 >> that's to wrap up last year just to interrupt I'm I'm sorry and I don't mean to step out out of line or anything but this committee chose to evaluate the
superintendent 6 months in. That's never happened before. >> So we're >> it's the committee is evaluating her two times. >> Yeah. Right. >> And that's never happened before. This is the first time that that's happened. >> What What's your So what's what would
you like to see happen? >> That's why it kind of looks like we're duplicating stuff and like what you were saying, Mr. D, like this is like 25 26. It's really not. But we already did this. No, we're redoing it again. >> I just wanted to point that out. Like I
guess um just looking at to your point like everything that we have here for 24 25 in September, October, November, December. I just say we just duplicate that for this year as well because I feel like last year was more of like
it was very hard to evaluate. It was more of a um I took it as more of just an opportunity just to provide early feedback. >> It wasn't it was a summitative evaluation. It was not a formative evaluation which is what should have been done. The committee decided to do a
full evaluation based on six months. So >> and to your point like looking back at that maybe we could have done that different but without looking into the past I guess going back to my question what would you like to see done this year? >> I I we just need to wrap up this eval
process and get next year started really. So I think that if we're if I'm able to get to you by the um you know in October um my self avail and we can stay on the on
the schedule of getting um the school committee to do the individual reports and to get it to the chair in the um in a timely fashion so that it could be ready for December 8th. That would be the ideal. >> Right. Right. Okay, I think we're on the same page for
>> Yeah. So, tech technically how we're looking at this is is and once again and I know I'm being redundant. We're we're wrapping up to 24 25 year um and this is this tool and and everything we're doing. We're not going to deviate from
anything we're doing especially and I I'll say personally like I'm not going to be on the committee in January. So, it would be unfair for me to assess if we were doing that, anything that's going on here or to frame um whether I was saying you were doing an
amazing job or say you were doing a bad job. And I don't think the wrong way, but it would be wrong for me to frame that and then jump off the committee and someone else comes in and then all of a sudden they have this >> perception um that's untrue. Um so, I don't think we deviate from this. Um I
know it's just up for discussion, but I also think this is something we have with the full committee on how we're going to move forward on the 2526 year. >> Sure. If um I recently went to the MASC conference, not conference, the training and a part of their training was on
superintendent evaluations. they did recommend that if like something happen like obviously there's elections we're going to have at least three new people coming on three new members coming on is um that would be in my opinion and in
MASC's opinion as well would be not a good situation if we had an evaluation early spring with new pe individuals on the committee so this makes sense to have individuals that worked with the superintendent for over a year now complete that evaluation
because they have the experience and like the inner workings to understand to make a an accurate evaluation. So, we didn't do one before December, I don't even think it would be fair to do one until November of 26. So, well, we talked about that and we discussed
that it would probably look worth it, if I'm not mistaken, you guys can correct me, like almost 18 months because we evaluated at 6 months, which like the superintendent was saying, with a full evaluation where how can you really truly evaluate someone after 6 months on
the job, right? Um because at that point, we're working in the 23 24 school year. She wasn't even completely here for that time. So, um, so that's why it's to be honest, having that
evaluation that early on and looking back, it kind of put us in a weird situation. Um, so, um, it it is going to look different. Um, and that's why I think that's a discussion for the full committee because we're not going to evaluate her
every six months. >> No. Um, >> no, but I do think that a a midcycle like a formative eval makes sense. even if it's just um checking in on the goals or doing some kind of um you know if
there are recommendations that come out of a summit of eval I think it makes sense that halfway through the next cycle there's a reporting out on goals progress and then and there's a reporting out on any um action that has been taken in you know in response to
the recommendations I think that's a good practice yeah so that would be something I would want worked into the 25 26. >> Okay. >> Um and yeah, >> and also I think it's important with that because if you can align it with the evaluation uh reporting tool um with
your updates, your goals and things of that nature now um whether it's quarterly or whatever the case may be. Now when you do your full year's eval do some type of comparing. So >> all right. Um, so just I if you're
looking for an evaluation, the timeline you said to have them done before December, I I I would support that. So >> yeah, I think that I think that makes sense um to wrap up um if it yeah, if we didn't wrap up um by December, then
I yeah, I can't imagine how the eval would work. So I think we just have to wrap up with the current members and then um >> and then move forward from there. >> Okay. >> Um just moving on to discussion. It says
32 evaluation process pretty much just cover that in what we just did. Um we'll move on to 33 discussion and vote to refer superintendent evaluation tool to the um
local. Any questions on that discussion? >> Um Mr. Chair. >> Yes. Um, so I guess what in the past what what what should this body recommend to the
full body? Like what like a time are we recommending some sort of draft timeline or concepts of a timeline or what this and we're going to reval we're going to send forward this tool if we choose to.
>> Well, so um a few things. this timeline isn't going to change um just because like the superintendent was saying, we're wrapping up the 2425. Now, if we're discussing the 2526 um and we can do that the full body and
we wanted to change some of these things, then it's probably best that we have that laid out and have the opportunity to do that. But I don't really see anything from October to December changing in the timeline. Um, as far as the tool, if I'm not mistaken, and you can correct me if I'm wrong,
this is the tool we voted on at the body, correct? >> So, we would be >> um, so basically evaluating you twice for for the same goals. >> Well, no. So when we did when we did the
first evaluation which so I started July 1 there was never um we didn't really have a goal setting. >> You're under Maria Pon school >> right? I'm sorry >> you're under Maria Pon you're basically operating on her goals or >> no I don't remember. No we we didn't do
any kind of goal setting when I started like so started July 1 probably could have should have done a meeting there should have been something maybe in August to set goals for the year that didn't happen. So I think when we did the evaluation last year it was I don't
know that they're workables. It was just an abbreviated tool. >> Correct. >> It was a modified >> Yeah. >> that this tool was modified. Um took out some things like I'm not sure. So and then >> and we were on the same
>> timeline I submitted but I submitted evidence for July, August, September, October and part of November like four and a half months. I submitted that in November and then um the the eval I think did it happen in December,
January, there was something >> December. >> Okay. >> So that's why we were saying we essentially it'd be like >> I understand now. Yeah. So >> goals for December and then I did a goal setting. I'm sorry. So then I did a goal setting meeting in December and then >> they got approved in January.
>> Yeah. I got feedback and we did them in January. >> So you have no issues with the standards being here as well? No, I think the standards um uh the performance standards are the same, you know, for superintendent across the state and they work for me.
>> Um just a question and I really don't remember the process. Sorry, Mr. Go. >> Um the self- evaluation process is that I I remember you sent a lot of EV like a lot of backup documentation. >> Mhm. I don't did you like fill out something like this to like evaluate
yourself or >> it wasn't I didn't do it with the tool. Um there was a for each standard I believe I did make a statement of where I thought I was. So it was like I gave evidence and described what the evidence was like evidence of and then gave an
overall um like self assessment rating kind of thing for each one. >> Not for each. So, if you look at each of the indicators on here, I didn't go to um
sorry, keep going. I didn't get into like 2 A, 2 B, 2 C, 2D, and give a rating for each one of those. It was more of a like an overall rating for standard one, or standard two, three, four. >> Okay. And um I didn't go through this
yet. I'm just looking at this for the first time today. So the everything in here was like basically your goals. >> These were the goals that got set in January. >> So I can I can speak on it like um you know when we did this before I did a lot
of needs improvement across the board and it wasn't to take shots as you know it was more of because she just started >> on a job. So how can me as one member sit here and be like you're doing an amazing job when we you just started. Um
so that's why I think right now with the discussion that we had if it was there were quarterly reports and you provided information it would make it a lot easy to piece things together um and then also uh make a judgment that was based off of facts when it comes to your body of
work. So, um any other questions, concerns, discussions? >> Yeah. No, this um what type of vote would we be sending to the full committee? >> Uh just making a motion to uh refer the uh superintendent's evaluation tool to the full committee.
>> Okay, I'll make that motion. >> Second. All in favor? >> I >> um any new business? No. Like to make a motion to second. All in favor? >> I I All right. Thank you guys.