the year before. [snorts] >> No, >> sorry. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, okay. I call the January 29th meeting of the school committee to order. I'll take a quick run through. We're all here. No roll calls. That's fantastic. Um, we will let
me take a quick run through the agenda and then we'll we'll go ahead and jump in. Uh, we'll start with public comment for anything that's not on the agenda. We'll take a vote on the consent agenda. Um, we will go to reports. In the new business section, we've got, um, Jane and Katie here to give us a presentation
on the status and future of the Pleasant Street Center. Um, we will, uh, revisit something we tabled last time, which was the, uh, the awarding of the David B. Libby scholarships. Um, Dr. Dr. Milichesky will review and then we'll take a vote to approve a rise director
search process and then old business will take up um the facility naming advisory committee discussion that we started the process of in our last meeting. Um we'll have any final discussion and then a vote to approve the FY27 budget. Uh we've got two fee
topics which we tabled what two three meetings ago when we first talked about fees for next year which we'll take up this evening and potentially vote to approve. And then um I'll run through some updates on the superintendent search process and we've got a few things uh to formally approve and a few things I would just love the committee's
um you know perspective and sort of informal sign off on if you will. So [clears throat] all right uh with that let's start with anything uh from a public comment perspective. Does anybody like to comment anything that's not on the agenda? I see one potential candidate.
[laughter] >> All right. >> All right. Fair enough. All right. All right. So, we'll we'll pass on public comment. Uh we can move to the consent agenda. Is there a motion? >> I move to approve the consent agenda. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Tom. All in favor?
>> All opposed? And it carries six to zero. All right. Let's move to reports and we'll start with you, Theo. >> Sure. Yeah. Um well, to reintroduce myself, my name is Thea Cuna. I'm a junior here at RMHS. Um, okay. So, some
upcoming events for the school. Our report cards are going to be published for semester 1, um, and term two and our midterm grades and everything. So, that's great. Um, and we have early release on February 2nd.
And yes, we get out at 10:05. And our winter drama show for the drama club is coming up uh February 6th and 7th at 7:30 p.m. and on the 8th which is a 2 p.m. matinea and on the 12th there's a choir event
guys night out at 700 p.m. at the pack and then February break from the 16th to the 20th. And we have the program of studies for next year. And we have some new
semester-based courses like introduction to business, financial literacy, um, and dual enrollment classes like for the arts and business and English. And today we actually had career day for all juniors. So over 40 professionals came
in and presented and all juniors heard from four different professionals. Um and that was successful. It was very exciting. And uh we have some international trips. [clears throat] Uh next spring it looks [cough] like kids are going to get the chance to go to Japan which is pretty cool. And the
Swiss exchange will also be taking place again next year should students be interested. So >> yeah. >> Great. Thank you. >> Awesome. >> Thanks so much. Um, so as we always say at the end of uh at the end of our student report, you are welcome to stay for as much of the
meeting as you'd like, but we also know that um all of the members of the student advisory committee typically have about a million different things they're involved in. So you're welcome to go whenever you'd like as well. So >> thank you very much. [laughter] >> She's like don't blame you. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. All right. Uh let's go to liaison reports and I will start with Laura. >> No report. >> Tom, >> no report. Sarah, >> no report. >> Erin, >> no report. >> Wow. Sean, I have no report. >> Sorry. >> Carla, I will kick to you.
>> So [laughter] sorry. >> Carla will always >> I know. >> Um Kellum update the next um KSBC meeting will be on February 9th. Um we have executive leadership team meeting on February 4th.
At that meeting, we will be um voting to send our 90% design um documents to the MSBA um which have to get there by February 10th, which is awesome. The exciting news is that we will be having
a furniture sit test where all different pieces of furniture that will go in Rise preschool and into the um K through five space will be all the options will be brought
into the um into the gym at Kellum and teachers and staff will be able to and and possibly some students too will be able to just go around and pick out ones that they like. It it's actually a fascinating process. Um because you're
you're not you're you're dealing with more functionality at this time, not actually colors and things like that. We'll get to a point where we'll we're going to try and um make sure everything coordinates well. Um so that will be on February 11th and 12th. All day on
February 12th. Um we've been having meetings on um the fencing on Haveril Street. what type of fence and the surrounding plantings. Um and um discussions about a temporary entrance that we have to have for the school when
we demolish the building in um at the end of the school year in 2028. Demolish the existing building because the children will be in the new building. We'll have to um switch the entrance to the school to the back of
the school. So, we have to uh plan [clears throat] that out. Um it involves a lot with drop off and pickup and the contractor's vehicles and things like that. And um Sean has allowed me to do a point of personal privilege, so I figure
I will do it now. Um good evening everyone. I wanted to take a few moments tonight to share um a personal decision with the community. After careful thought, I have decided that I will not be running for another term on the school committee. Uh my time in this
committee began at an extraordinary moment. Um I was sworn in the day before the schools were forced to close due to CO 19 and nearly every aspect of our work was shaped by that crisis.
We were asked to make decisions that affected students, families, and staff during a time of fear, uncertainty, and constantly changing guidance. There were no easy answers and often no perfect options, only choices that had to be
made under difficult circumstances and intense public scrutiny. Serving during that period was challenging, at times exhausting, and always consequential. It required balancing health and safety,
educational needs, family realities, and limited resources, all while conditions continued to evolve. While reasonable people often disagreed, I believed that this committee approached that work with sincerity, care, and shared commitment
to doing what was right for the best of our students. I first ran for school committee more than six years ago because I had serious concerns about our district. I ran on a platform focused on bullying, knowing that meaningful change was needed
because our children deserved better. As I reflect on how far the district has come, I am proud of the progress we've made. The single most important decision we made as a committee in my opinion was hire the hiring of Dr. Dr. Milvski,
under his leadership, the district has achieved several significant milestones. Some are of of which um including offering tuitionfree full day kindergarten. An achievement that would not have been possible without
acknowledging Tom Wise as the funding mastermind. expanding math pathways and educational tracks in the high school along with developing internship opportunities and dual enrollment classes. Implementing ARC core and other highquality
curriculum across all levels of the district. Increasing our Boston resident enrollment and advancing our METCO program into one that is admired across the state. Creating and truly living our equity statement centered on the belief that
all means all for both students and staff. Being innovated and fiscally responsible by leveraging a variety of revenue sources. Earnestly providing appropriate services to our special education students.
Hiring district-wide curriculum coaches, adjustment counselors, and assistant principles at every school. coaching and empowering our dedicated staff to be the very best that they can be for our students in keeping national polit
political noise out of the classroom. A gift not only to our students and staff but to our entire community. We have also successfully moved the Kllum school building project forward. As long as the committee wishes, I will
continue to lead this effort. We have a strong and talented team including dedicated designers and OPMs and I am proud to say that the project remains on time and under budget. In the coming weeks, we will submit our
90% design documents to the MSBA. I want to sincerely thank my fellow school committee members for their collaboration and dedication even when we did not always agree. I believe that this committee serves as a model for how school committees can and should
operate. I also thank our administrators, educators, and staff for their professionalism and unwavering commitment to our schools. And I'm grateful to the families and community members who stayed engaged, asked hard
questions, and care deeply about the direction of the district. It truly takes a village. I will continue to work hard through my final day. Thanks to Shaun's dedication and streamlining the search process, the town elections will
be h hel held on April 7th and we will meet on April 6th to select a new superintendent to lead the district. I remain confident in the future of this district and in the people who continue in this important work. I look forward to supporting our schools as a community
member and advocate. Serving on this committee has been an honor. Thank you for the trust you placed in me and the opportunity opportunity to serve. Thank you. >> Thank you, Sean.
>> So, um, sometime in early April, we'll have a meeting where I'm sure we'll all say, uh, say lots of nice things. Um, I'll say I'll say the I'll say the short version tonight, and you alluded to it. You know, we certainly bumped heads uh in those early days, um, pretty aggressively, I would say. and uh uh you
know it's it's but it really has been a pleasure to work with you and the partnership that you know that you and I in particular but the committee as a whole have built over the years has been um rewarding and fruitful and uh we've served in these capacities together a couple times now. >> Um and as as you alluded to um there is
a path to us appointing Carla as the school committee uh you know lead on on the building project. So, we'll have a um you know, I didn't want to put it on the agenda tonight, but at some point we'll put on the agenda uh kind of formally, you know, discussing that and making a decision there, but you know,
Carla has graciously um offered to continue in that role and given some of the turnover uh that we're going to have um you know, I think we would be wise to take advantage of that opportunity. So, um so we'll leave it there for for now and uh certainly more to say in the
coming months. Okay. Um, that was liaison report. So, we'll move on to new business now. And, uh, Jane and Katie, you can take it away. Yeah, you can come join us up here. Um, probably at the table closest to Laura. >> Okay.
>> Get you both on camera. Um, I have the presentation here. I can share. >> Got it. >> Just a second. Tom, is it asking you to approve sharing from the knee pad? >> Thought I had made it already.
>> Yeah, I would have thought so, too, but here we are. >> Oh, yeah. Let's try this again. All right. Here we go. >> Oh, our own clicker. [laughter]
>> We get the clicker. Slide, please. >> Next slide. No, you're never getting that clicker back. >> I get the ink. >> I get the clicker. >> You click. >> I get the clicker. You guys are in so much trouble. You gave me technology. >> Oh, boy. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, and
just as a as a just as a reflection, congratulations, Mrs. Naro on your work. You have a tremendous body of work that you've dedicated to the town of Reading and I thank you for it as a member of town staff >> and it's been a pleasure to work with you and I hope we do get to continue to work together with you too. Um I'm Jane
Wellman. I'm the assistant town manager and I um I have two departments. I have it's kind of one but also two uh public services and the administrative services. I am here with Katie Gabriella. She is the director of operations and in that role she manages
risk and communications and procurement. So we are here tonight with our procurement hats on to talk about the future of the Pleasant Street Center. Uh, one of the things the state likes us to do when we're talking about disposal of town property and particularly of
municipal building is to do what we're doing tonight, which is a bit of a road show and talking to boards, committees, and commissions about how you in your unique roles um to the community see a future for this public building. Um, and so we're we're your second stop. We
talked uh we started with the historic commission first. So, you gave me >> Is that the right one? >> Are we out of range? Uh >> oh. >> All right. >> I'm now pressed all [laughter] >> What a disappointment. >> I really should have made such a big
deal. >> They gave me a tool. I can't even use it. Wow. >> Next slide, please. [clears throat] >> Next slide. There we go. >> There it is. >> Okay. Look at that. All right. Fantastic. And I also have it here in front of me because >> my glasses are kind of funky.
>> That's fair. That's fair. So, this you saw this in your packet. Uh, quick facts about the Pleasant Street Center. Um, our first our first municipal building built in 1883. Um, the finished living area is 4,300 square ft. That includes three floors. Um, and the old jail is
still there, which is kind of neat. The bars are gone, though. Um, and that's in in the basement near the near the backside near where the parking lot entrance is if you're interested. Um, we had a commercial appraisal done last spring as an effort as we moved forward
to the recount vote. Uh, and so that commercial appraisal came in at $965,000. Uh, potential rental is $72,000. The building is up to code, so it's sprinklered, the elevator works, um, but it's older and, um, so that was that's a
consideration. Um, and some people asked this, the commercial appraiser was, uh, certified to do historic buildings. There is, which we learned last week, um, Matt knew this, but I didn't know this, that there's a preservation restriction on the building. So, that's
something that we'll have to look into for whatever the future uses. Um, the historic commission mentioned that to us. Um, the site is a multif family zone. Um, but it is too small for the minimum lot requirement for like a developer to do something. So, it could
still be housing if we did something with the housing authority or something along those lines, but right now a developer wouldn't be able to develop it. Um, it's on the historic register. It's also on the national historic register of historic places and there's a preservation. I think we added that
after you added that after last time >> after we learned about that. Yes, indeed. [laughter] Indeed, she did. >> Yes. >> Um, moving on. Next slide, please, sir. So, uh, with this, uh, property, we can do four things. We can sell it. We can
keep it for future town use. Uh, we could gift it to the housing authority, um, to make some housing with it. Um, they could do studio units, three, maybe four. Um, or we could lease it to a for-profit or a not for-p profofit entity. Um, we could do a lease for now
with the int with the intent that later we might have to use it for something that we that you as a member of a board can envision in the future. In 10 years we're going to need something or in five years we think we're going to need something. So that's what we're here tonight to kind of get your appetite on.
You don't need to make a vote. Um, we would love to hear your thoughts. You can give us feedback now. You can email us later or you can call us up on the phone. We'll chat. We're fun. Um, but that's what we're looking for. Sort of do you in your role see um a use for the
town that you that you um would like us to keep under consideration. We will collect all of the information here. We will do also a communitywide survey >> and then we will present those um those responses back to the select board. >> Uh next slide, please. Oh, go ahead. Jump in.
>> Yeah, of course. um early feedback from the select board, from the historic commission, kind of generally folks have been leaning towards we should keep this building, right? It's so centrally located. Of course, it's serving as our senior center now. It's not serving that purpose very well anymore and we're
getting the new reading center for active living. But the general temperature does seem it would behoove us to hold on to this building and see how we could potentially utilize it in maybe new innovative ways as we'll see on the next slide how um some other communities have utilized historic
properties or other municipal buildings. Why don't you take us through it? >> Sure. So you might be familiar with the Inspire Cafe in Wakefield. Um this is a public private partnership between the town and the Boys and Girls Club. Um they provide employment to individuals with diverse abilities and you know
being right next door in Wakefield hopefully some of us have had a chance to visit there. It's a great place. The the sandwiches, the salads, everything's really good. Um looking at Peabody, they have the Breaking Grounds Cafe created by the Northeast Ark sports local restaurants. So these are two kind of nonprofit examples in other communities
that we've seen. And then on the next slide we have some additional repurposed examples that are more kind of arts focused. So NATIC has the Center for the Arts and there's the Firehouse Center for the Arts in Newbury Port. And these are both, as you can see in NATIC, um certainly bears a striking resemblance
to our Pleasant Street Center. Also a former fireplace in that community that is >> fire station, >> fireplace, >> fireplace, put the fires out from the fireplace. Um that they have these both have been revitalized to be thriving centers for the arts in their
communities. um serving as performance venues for um music, theater, there's gallery space, there's the chance for education. I'm sure they bring lectures and the like into both of these places in these communities. >> And one one other idea I've talked about um I've talked about this with the
historical commission is maybe something along the lines of an aam. Um so it's a bit of a town museum and a and a performance space. You know, it could meet a couple of different needs. So it's a little bit arts, a little bit intellectual, a little bit of meeting space kind of thing that is that is
kept. Um there are grants to help us study some of this work. Um and uh so yeah, so and we'll pursue we're going to we're already starting to like look at what can we pursue that makes sense so we can help make informed decisions. But so that's sort of the another option um
for that's been done. Um next slide please. So, because nothing's ever easy in Massachusetts when it comes to procurement, Phil, I'm getting a big big head nod from Phil. He knows um with the sale or lease of
property, we have to compete, we have to engage in a competitive solicitation. So, we could put out a pro a proposal to lease it um to and but we can put in preferences for what we want. So, if the community says we really want to lease it to a nonprofit, we you know, whatever
the comm we can put that in there. So, we might get a for-profit business, but if we want to keep it for a nonprofit use or for short-term nonprofit use, whatever, we can put that information. We just want to know kind of where where's the community coming in on that. Um, and then another weird piece of
procurement law is that you you want to take this one? >> No, I don't like this. I'm confused by this one. So we can the select board has the power to lease the building the Pleasant Street Center building to another entity but they cannot lease um
the in part the parking lot any or the land that has to go to town meeting um as well. So that just makes that's just you know okay and that's like any piece of land any lease of any piece of land. So um you need town meeting approval
which is fine. Um, so you know, if we were to lease it to something, we could also keep the parking lot as a municipal lot downtown and add, you know, it's it's still a municipal lot depending what the needs are. And that's all future stuff, but just a wrinkle to be aware of. Um, and then as Katie said
earlier, the feeling from the select board right now is they seem to be favoring a lease versus a sale. And as we can see from the commercial valuation that we've done, it is a drop in the bucket. There's sometimes an appetite to think we can sell this building and we will offset our debt incurrence that
that we've you know gotten from something else and that is dimminimous comparatively. So the the the value that we may have from retaining the property for the community may be higher in than the intrinsic value of selling it. So
just okay and that's it. Next slide please. Here we go. This is for you. >> Short and sweet. Love that. [laughter] >> I'm sure many of you have already seen these slides at the select board or town meeting or there's some there's some
repeats in here, but [snorts] >> questions. Yep, Erin. >> So, not not a question, just sharing feedback. Um, I think your presentation speaks for itself in indicating that we should definitely hang on to the building. I would be really sad to see
us just sell it off. Um I think if my time in local government has shown me anything is that a need always comes up always always for more space. Um and there's lots of options as you said. You
know, it could be that we need more office space. It could be that we need housing. It could be, you know, lots of things. I love all of these ideas um for different reasons, but I think it would be really foolish to sell it.
>> Thank you for that. >> Others? >> Yeah, go ahead. >> I'll go. Um when we looked at the square footage, not that I'm proposing to sell, but I want to make sure we understand [clears throat] the whole thing. Does that include the parking lot next to it as well? >> No, that's the finished living space.
Uh, it's the building. >> So, if one were to buy both the square footage of the parking lot and the building, >> would that qualify in the 40,000 foot space? >> No, because it's the lot. I'm [clears throat] sorry, you were asking about the lot, the square footage of lot. No, that that's the whole thing. >> So, that is
>> that is the whole parcel. Yes, sir. Yep. >> Which so it does include the that that Okay. >> Yes. >> Um I mean just because I know Fidel was looking at different things in that space and whatnot as well. Uh, so it seems like all those would not really viable then based upon what you're
saying in terms of what he was looking at to sell it and maybe re redevelop it into condominiums and >> That's right. >> that kind of fun stuff. So, >> well, I mean, he started that work and we continued that work. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, so in terms of other things like the the use of the space because of
the building and the way it's laid out, I have a hard time seeing us renting it um for much other than like a performing arts museum type space like you're laying out unless we did massive renovations.
Uh, that's maybe just me. Maybe I'm not being creative enough. Um, but knowing the upstairs and knowing the main floor and the pseudo kitchen, uh, I don't know the downstairs as well. There's just the partitioning isn't well for saying, okay, I can do three rentals of some sort and make certain things. So, you
have to do more or less the whole thing >> from a rental perspective, >> as far as I can see it. Um, so with that said, you know, I think being creative about it and figuring out how to do some sort of like you'd laid out, I like your kind of I don't know what you called it, uh, art slash
>> library, you know, historical place, whatever that's called. Um, I also love the idea and with the kitchen there, if we could do something like what Wakefield's done, I really think that's phenomenal and we could tie that to our program as well that we have for
>> postgrads, right? I think that would be a really great collaborative association between the schools and the town. >> Um, and it would also en engender more enrollment in that program for us because it's right down the street which could be a natural [clears throat] other side of the revenue that could come in
to help the overall town too. So just thinking creative school town alliance um as well as that really that that Wakefield thing has been really beneficial for so many people and it's been it's gone it's gone really it's gone really well. So
>> not that I want to be competitive with that because there is a little bit of that but I think the opportunity that it allows for people is is really good. Then maybe upstairs could be more administrative space or something else like that but the downstairs could be the cafe type space. Uh so just food for
thought in that in that related space. >> Thank you Mr. um Wise. I one of the I just you made me think of something and then I lost my train of thought. Um one of the ideas that came up was like the cafe that you're talking about like inspire cafe but also um like a coffee
house. Like remember in college there were coffee houses so it could [snorts] be sort of like a a little light entertainment in the early evening. you know, there's ac capella groups or there's corral or something like that. In involving student groups, little open mic night, not too loud for the
neighborhood, but well done. Um, kind of engages that space also for youth. So, to your point, >> other thoughts? >> I guess I have one more point. I guess just >> the one thing I would caution us or say
as we think about this is whatever we do, we have to minimize the operational cost to us as a result of it, right? We already know we're adding additional operational cost with the center for active living and a few things that we're going to squeeze our budget. We already know we're facing, you know,
potential override here coming in the year or two. So, we have to be careful we don't add something that causes us to add two, three, four, five staff to support it. um which is a challenge even with the idea I just put forward. Um but so I just that balance has to be there
>> 100%. Yep. Thank you for that. >> Yeah. Go ahead Carla. >> Thank you. I I the way I I look at that building too is it it didn't work it didn't work out as our you know to to re to remodel that for our senior center
because it was so extensive that um and the cost was prohibitive to do. So my concern is similarly like that the operating cost that it's going to bring to the town um it would need to be a generating a revenue generating type of
situation in my mind um I I um I kind of go back and forth with that you know selling it you know you're not going to gain much from it but I I want to be careful about like giving it away so to speak if we could be creative
with the use um and and how to better use the space. I I do think that we're we always are in need of space. I love the idea of of of having like a cafe or something with our students to be able to do it, but I do worry about okay,
what happens when you start opening up the walls or you know that kitchen isn't in compliance now for a reason. >> Um so what what what will those expenses look like there? Um, >> okay. >> But it it's a great looking space like
for a you know brewery or and stuff like it's a great looking space, a cafe, something like that. >> If a brewery bought it, that would be awesome. But [laughter] we're selling that would be a sale, right? So maybe there's a long-term lease for a brewery, but >> yeah, >> you know, who wants to create that? We
thought, you know, a couple >> and they don't even need the parking lots. Everybody just walks to breweries, right? [laughter] >> Yeah. Perfect. >> Downtown and Reading. You can just walk to the brewery. Firehouse Brew. Let's see it now. >> That's good. You should trademark that
>> all day long. [laughter] >> Some deep and smoky bruise. >> Yeah. Great. Yeah. I, you know, I would mostly echo what folks said up here. I, you know, the 965,000 is just not that appealing in the grand
scheme of our um, you know, debt load and our operating budgets and whatnot. and and uh [clears throat] you know I think space is so limited in town hall in some of our buildings that preserving the optionality to have town owned space is is there's option value there. So I
think it's I would agree it's important for us to hold on to it. I think if we, you know, do go down the path of leasing or selling it, um, you know, I'd have a strong preference for something that is a gi given the location, given the historical nature of the building, for something that really is like a community asset versus versus a purely
commercial, um, you know, purely commercial pursuit. I know the multif family redevelopment is kind of out, but um you know, even something that might require a variance like a brewery, it'd be cool, but I also sort of, you know, think that should remain like a you know, a community asset versus just a
sort of a cool place to go and hang out, I guess. Um so, yeah. Any other thoughts from folks? >> All right. I think we just echoed the feedback you've been hearing for this. It sounds like >> I I I love that. I love that. If you
think of other ideas, I always leave meetings and then later I'm like, ah. So, u please feel free to reach out to Katie or myself and give us your ideas. People are starting to send stuff in or like here's a grant or check this out and so we are taking all that in and keeping track of it and we're open to
anything. You never great minds we don't there's no um what's the word I'm looking for here? I'll think of it later. Um [laughter] but we just through your roles and your experience and your engagement with the community you have a different you know view than we do and so we we are relying
on you to bring that forward. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Great. We can stay warm. >> Thank you. >> All right. Let's move to uh the awarding of the David Libby scholarships. Tom had an excellent memory last time and caught
that uh we there's a little typo there. So um the amount's been corrected. It's in the packet. It's 22 scholarships at a total value of $88,000. Um, is there a motion? >> Motion to approve the expenditure of $88,000 from the David B. Libby
scholarship to be distributed in accordance with the scholarship's intent to 22 qualifying graduating seniors from Reading Memorial High School who reside in Reading, Mass. >> Is there a second? >> Seconded by Tom. Any further discussion?
Okay. All in favor? All opposed? and it carries six to zero. All right. Next, we'll move to the RISE uh director search process. And Dr. Milleski, I'll hand it to you. >> Great. Uh so in your packet, you should see both a cover letter that outlines a little bit of the context on the uh on
the search and then also a proposed uh timeline and process. So just to give a little bit of a couple of points on that first, uh as you may remember a couple years ago when we hired Alana into the role, she committed to a one year in the role out of retirement. uh we're extremely fortunate that she agreed to
continue this year. I think she's uh done an amazing job in the role and has been very well her leadership's been very well received by students, staff, and families in the community. So, just like to start with a uh big thank you to Alana for her leadership and impact in our community and also thank you for her for staying on an extra year uh during a
time of transition. And we know that this was something that was coming. So, we are uh also fortunately we think we're on the most favorable timeline. So you'll see here that we are recommending to post a position right after February break which would allow us then to uh hire right at beginning of of April. We
think that's the most favorable timeline for recruiting and uh recruiting candidates and also finding someone locking someone strong in couple of things about the search. You'll see there's a few ways for community members and staff to be involved. uh that's either through uh staff of committee survey which will be released the 23rd
to share uh you know characteristics attributes that the community seeks in the next leader and also uh seeking members to participate on our screening committee. Uh they'll then go through the screening process and then we'll have as you'll see uh during the week of the 23rd we'll still map out a little
bit of what that finalist process will look like. We hope to have finalist candidates visiting Reading. We also know that can be sensitive uh given just for some people who may be in seated roles and also knowing that this is a a pretty niche role, someone with special ed background, prek background and
looking for sort of that leadership role. So um we are excited about the process. Um I met with the RISE staff today. They are uh you know bittersweet excited for Alana and also uh excited to try to find the best candidate here for the school. They wanted to make a point
uh loud and clear to the staff that how exciting is for someone to not only come in and work with an amazing team of staff, but how exciting to help lead the school into a permanent, you know, location, a state-of-the-art prek center, which they think should be a major cell for us in this process as well. So, uh, I'll pause there for any
questions or thoughts. I think it's just too bad the new leader won't get to participate in sit day or whatever that was called. [laughter] >> Sit day. >> What was it called? testing. >> Fit tests. >> Sit test. >> Sit test. >> Sit. Sit test.
>> Sit tests. There we go. So, besides a sit test, they'll have a lot of Yeah. to [laughter] engage and shape out the uh the future. Right. That's right. >> All right. Any serious feedback [laughter] or discussion on this one? >> We can bring some of those chairs that you
>> There you go. There you go. >> Okay. Um let's take a motion. I guess we should have done that first, but >> um new move to approve the rise director search process as outlined. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Laura. Any further discussion?
Okay. All in favor? All opposed? And it carries six to zero. Thank you. >> Great. You'll hear from us again on that during the week of February 23rd. >> Y Okay. Um All right. Let's move to facilities naming. So, uh, just to sort of set this up, um, you know, we'll we'll start I want to, you know, see if
there's any discussion on on the request individually. Um, and then, you know, depending on sort of what the pulse of the committee is on each of the each of the naming requests. Um, we've got a choice on how we form the committee. Um there's nothing in our policy that
suggests that we can't have a single advisory committee advise us on both of these nominations given that they're both related to the sort of high school facility, you know, sort of broadly. Um the one thing that could be a constraint would be um that the the building the relevant building has to have the
building principal as a repres as a member of the advisory committee. But since that would be principal Kalinan in both cases, I think we'd be fine to set up a single advisory committee. So, if we choose to advance all of the or both of these uh nominations uh to an advisory committee, we you know, we then
can decide whether we want to create one or two or what have you. Um and then the last thing to do for us tonight will be if we create an advisory committee or committees, uh we'll just need to identify which of us um will serve on that committee because it does require one school committee member.
So, uh, with that, let me first open up the discussion on the request from Claudia on, um, naming the fitness center and then the training center in honor of her parents and her father, respectively. Um, any thoughts, feedback
on that one, not a formal vote, just kind of taking a pulse here. >> Sounds lovely. >> Incredibly generous [laughter] is what it comes down to. Great. >> The new policy does allow that. The old policy did not allow, by the way.
>> So, wait, what? >> Old policy did not really allow this as a consideration. >> Generosity. >> Yeah, it it did it did have a clause allowing for um you know, that you might consider >> nominations, you know, as a result of the donation, but the requirements about
who could then be eligible for something to be named after were much more restrictive. Um, and so the new policy created some space where there probably wasn't enough before. Now to consider this one. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I just want to just double check. I
mean, I think the way she presented it, you may have an email if this matches what she presented in email. I just I heard felt like I heard something different when she actually said it. So, in terms of the actual naming when you formed when we formed the committee and making sure we align to exactly what she wants to call it or or what she's asking
for. And of course the committee can come back and say yes, we agree with that or no, but want to make sure it's consistent with what she asked for. >> Yeah, this is this is how she had it in writing. It was the it was [clears throat] the fitness center being named for her parents collectively and the training room being named for her
father. And she she left it as room, center, suite. I don't know what we call it today if it's a room, a center or suite. But yeah, >> um you know, we can we we have some flexibility there to have the the advisory committee sort of recommend the appropriate nomenclature there. Um, we can we can confirm it with her before we
provide a formal charge to the committee, but that's that's what was in the in the written ask. >> Yeah. I think she said something like in loving memory of her daughter blah blah blah. >> I you know, and I think I said in the memo, it's not here on the page, but I think I said in the with recognition of Claudia Nixon as a donor. Yeah. So, whatever. Yeah, we'll we'll we'll copy
we'll, you know, emulate her language, but you know, this was just in intended to >> sort of describe the conversation at large here. So, >> um Okay. So, I'm generally hearing support for that one. And then the second one was uh naming the press box
for Ted Ace Bryson. Um this is another one where I do want to confirm something because we had a discussion about you know is it Ted? Is it Ace? >> But the written the written requests uh did say ask for Ted Ace Bryson. We'll we'll go back and make sure there wasn't a misunderstanding there that
they don't whether or not they want ace whether or not he wants ace included at all or um just didn't want it to be Ace Price and you know without without Ted. So we'll we'll confirm that piece but um this this is how it was articulated in the written request. >> Okay.
>> Um any thoughts on that one? >> The years of service are crazy. >> Yeah. >> 53 or something like that. And that's [snorts] the voice of Reading football for like a better way to put it. So >> yeah, >> seems on the nose appropriate
>> agreed. And I I know I've received I don't know if they went to all of us, but I've received a lot of letters of of folks in support of this one. All right. >> Okay. So So Phil must have just had him send them to me. So we'll we'll get them we'll get them uh we'll get them in a packet when we you know when we consider
a recommendation from the um advisory committee. I suspect we're about to form here. So, okay. Uh, all right. So, I'm hearing general support for both of those. So, um, before we kind of take a motion, um, does anybody have any particular thoughts on the merits of
forming one committee versus two? >> I think one makes a heck of a lot of sense. We've done it before. The last time we did this, in fact, was was a one for two names, >> was it? >> Yep. >> Oh. um both the the field and the and the uh
gymn the court. >> Oh, that's right. Yeah, you're right. Yep. >> So, the gym gym at the fieldhouse, right, was was what we did. So, um in both of those cases, it was it was one and came they came back with one recommend with a recommendation appropriately.
>> There's a lot of overlap. >> Yeah. So, it it would be nice of us to I think to form one committee for people. Yeah, it'll certainly be easier to recruit as well for some of the roles that we have to we have to get populated. Would >> you like a motion? >> I would love a motion. [clears throat]
>> Move to form a fitness centering room and pressbox advisory committee. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> No. What's the acronym for that? >> I'm not even going to try. We'll just we'll give it a we'll give it its formal
name for now and and uh go from there. Um Okay. So, a second. Any further discussion on that? Yeah, I think there's a couple other things that Sean, you're probably going to have to draft as a result of this. So, like what is your sunset date? You know, most of the charge is probably copy pasteable from some of our old stuff, but with the updated language.
>> Yep. >> Um so, just as you think it through and and whatnot, you're going to have to we're going to have to accept that you're going to write the charge at this point in time because usually we vote. >> We've approved that in the past, haven't we? >> Yeah. >> But I would I would motion that we'd let
you write the charge and it's not going to be controversial. Let's take the motion on the formation of the committee and then we'll take a motion to Yeah. Okay. Fair. Um All right. So, any further discussion on the formation of the committee? >> Seeing none, all in favor? All oppose?
Great. That carries six to zero. Um so, do you want to offer a motion to empower the chair to to determine the charge of the advisory committee? >> So moved. >> So moved. Perfect. [laughter] A >> and the and the sunset >> and determine a sunset date as amended. Okay. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Second, >> I think. Go ahead. >> Okay. >> What? >> Give it to Aaron. All right. Uh, any further discussion on that? >> All right. All in favor? All opposed? It carries six to zero. Thank you. Um, last
little piece on this one is is um I'm expecting I think I think this has historically been a single meeting um if I'm not mistaken. No, it's usually so the school committee member is usually the chair. We specifically appoint them as the chair so they can coordinate
everything, but there's [cough] >> usually a [clears throat] a joining meeting like let's get to know each other and what we're trying to do. Then there's a public forum type meeting that says give us your feedback. Then there's a recommendation meeting. So there's usually three meetings, >> separate meetings. Okay. >> Um to make it happen um as as that goes
through. >> Okay. So the recommendation meeting is separate from them coming here or it's inclusive of >> it's their vote. They have to vote as a group about what they're voting on to come and have a recommendation given to us. Okay. >> Or two recommendations in this particular case to give to us. >> Okay.
>> So it's usually three meetings. >> So we don't >> they may choose to take the the last two together. [music] >> It is now 7:45. We've concluded >> future freshman. [laughter] >> Oh, future freshman night.
>> It's the arts the arts night. Yeah. >> Okay. Um Okay. So, so three meeting sequence then. Um, is there anybody who anybody who has, you know, bandwidth and interest in being the school committee rep for this or the, you know, the school committee designate for this?
>> Everybody raise your hand. [laughter] >> All right. We we don't have to appoint tonight. So, if if um if anybody, you know, changes their mind and gets a gets a a pulse of inspiration on this one, you know, reach out to me. Um, but otherwise, we'll I'll get it covered.
Just as a logistical stuff, it may depend upon your sunrise sunset date and how long we have to execute this, right? So something for you to think about and come back to us and say, I'm going to sunset this at the end of August or [clears throat] something. That means you have time in April, May, June, July to execute. >> Yeah, >> that might
>> give people like there's no way I can do it now because the superintendent searches until August. I mean until April, sorry. So as a note, so that's just that's in my head and so something for you to think about as you think about the timeline. >> Yeah, that's fair. I think last time we did it over the summer, so it was a pretty extended timeline. It was, you
know, took four or five months, I think, to get through the process. >> Yeah, in both cases, it came a little later in the year, so it was like a May time frame, which it came a little later. Um, so which led to the summer being acceptable, but something to think about. >> Okay.
All right. So, let me um I'll I'll I'll uh chew on the charge and sort of the right timing recognizing we are, you know, we're pretty committed. Some of us are pretty committed on the superintendent search for the next, you know, few months. And so, um, you know, I'll come back to everyone offline and
see who who might have availability given a timeline we come up with here. Okay. Um, that concludes that piece of business. Let's move to the FY27 budget. Um, I'll open the floor for any final discussion,
questions. Uh, and then we can take a motion and vote this evening. Is there any discussion on the floor or Phil? Anything else that's come up in the last week or so that you know is that new for us?
>> There were the questions were put together so the Q&A is out there for people to look at. There weren't that many questions again because it's not it's not a it's a roll forward budget so to speak. So there I think it's straightforward at this point. No changes. you know, we made our editorial
cleanups and we're, you know, I may have had a boo boo there or there in terms of grammar. We fixed that as well. >> Yeah. Okay. I I'll just share I was um Dr. Milleski and I were talking this morning and one of the things we were talking about was the, you know, kind of the discomfort
that some of us had with um leveraging sort of the balance of school choice. Um, you know, as I've started to wrap my head around this, I think I think this is a reflection is that where we are from a sort of budget and override cycle perspective is we've got a few levers
that'll allow us to maintain a level services budget, you know, for another few years, two, maybe two, three years. Um, this is the first one of those that we're pulling. Um, and you know, it leaves us with special ed reserve fund.
It leaves us with the prepays we do at the end of the year, you know, probably a few other smaller things. Um, but I I think the fact that we're in a position where maintaining a level services budget requires us to to make this choice on the on the school choice uh revolving fund is is an indication that
we're probably, you know, closer to the end of this cycle of being able to support level services than than we'd like to be. um probably still a few more years, but um at least on the school side of of the ledger, but um it's kind of how I've rationalized it at this
point. >> You're far more optimistic than I am. I I wouldn't have given us two to three years on the budget. I mean, not with negotiations and contracts being up next year, but >> Yeah. Well, I mean, negotiations Yeah. No, it's fair. It's fair. That's
that's going to, you know, that's going to be a challenge as well. I think it's no small thing that we are able to have a level service budget. So, I appreciate all the effort that went into um having to think a little more
creatively with this one about how to fund it. Um but I'm proud that we can offer a level service budget. I just hope anyone paying attention realizes that we are starting to dip into creative avenues to
to meet the budget needs to offer a level service budget. So, if we're going to continue to provide the same level of services and the quality in our schools, um something's going to have to give in the next few years. So,
>> Erin, you'll know this off the top of your head. What was the year of the override that passed? Was it 17 or 18? >> It passed in the spring of 18. >> So we're we're at eight years now, right? They were they told us three to five. >> Three to five. >> So there are some critics
>> to the pandemic though. >> Well, there's some critics out there that think that certain money has not been managed well. And I think overall the town >> does a really good job in extending and and we've done some very creative financing over some of the stuff we've done as well over the years. So, um,
yeah, I echo your comments. I Sean's comments, I I understand, but I'm a little bit more lerary of some [laughter] of it. Um, but I totally understand where he's going. Um, and then we'll we'll see what happens. Yeah. Okay.
Um, anything else? >> All right. Let's take a motion, sir. >> Uh, motion to approve the FY27 budget. >> Second. >> Second. Seconded by Tom. F. [clears throat] Any final discussion? Okay, seeing none. All in favor? All
opposed? And it carries six to zero. >> Thank you. >> All right, let's move to uh the last couple of fee buckets that we had. Um Carla, maybe we'll start with a motion on these. >> Move to approve the extended day fee rates.
>> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Laura. Um Dr. Milesky, any any uh commentary you want to make here? I know probably we're all familiar but Oh, okay. >> which the ex the recommendation is a 3% increase. >> Yep.
>> Okay. Um any further discussion from the committee or questions >> just I mean it's a minor niche I suppose. Um it is what it is in this regard. I think just we need we should update the packet to include the materials that we have on this. It's not
in the packet. So, the public, as far as they know, we're voting on something that's not in the packet. >> Um, and so we should make sure that we publish an updated packet that includes >> the survey results. I mean, >> the the the actual numbers, right? It doesn't actually say
>> back a couple meetings. >> It was back a couple meetings ago. Correct. And so, you know, we should just make sure we >> It's a good point. >> Update that appropriately. >> Okay. Thanks for bringing that up. >> Yeah. So, it's it's as presented in our what was that? January 8th meeting, I think.
>> Yeah. U but yeah, that's a good that's a good call. We can we can publish an updated packet that includes that information again. Okay. Um any final discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? All opposed? And it carries six to zero. Um Carla, could we
take a motion on the last uh feed fee bucket here? Uh move to approve athletics, drama, and band fee rates. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Um Dr. Milesky, any commentary on this one? >> Yeah. So, just to kind of make sure
that's clear, then that's the 10% athletic free increase that was presented on December I think it was December 18th. >> Was it before the holiday? Okay. Say $10. >> What did I say? 10%. Oh, yeah. 10. December 18th, uh 2025 meeting. I just like to share too on that. I shared with school committee we've started to do a
little bit of a dive into just some of the data the school committee wanted on cost per sport. Uh also if you watch that meeting you'll also see there's a lot of layers than even just some of the costs that sort of may appear sort of in we as we go through and look at uh you know costs in our in the department. So
I think our our department our uh team would like to take a deeper dive you know form a committee to look at sort of all those hidden costs both on the athletics and the art side. So that way if we're going, you know, to do something different as a committee and as an administration, we truly
understand sort of all of the different pieces and layers to it. Uh so that's uh if we move forward with the recommendation, we then will assemble that committee and try to get, you know, hopefully something in front of you over the next couple of months, uh to position the committee to be able to have the data they need to be able to
make decisions or change the the general structure. >> I think that's a great idea. There was a lot of different layers. >> Yeah, there's a lot to it and I think it's, you know, it's probably not all stuff that any one person can rattle
off. So, >> okay. Um, any further discussion? >> Oh, yeah. Dr. Corum, please. >> Jeffrey Corum Ridge. the previous meeting, there was also a question about looking at the fee caps for uh students
or families that had students in different one in athletics, one in band, one in drama. Um I don't know if is that going to be part of this future committee or it I didn't hear it in the description you just talked about digging into, but can you would you also
consider that? >> Yeah, I think that would be Thank you for bringing that back up. I think the plan is for that to be part of the sort of a larger analysis. Yeah, I think um one of the flavors of cap we talked about is a family cap across categories of activities, right? And and um you
know I I'd be curious to know just sort of what is the sort of you know full family burden if you will on um uh you know on different activities before sort of understanding how to think about you know that that kind of cap. So um definitely makes sense to take that up
again once we have that information. Um, you're a little late to the party. We uh we we approved we approved the committee. Um, so we will be we will be forming [laughter] we we [clears throat] will be forming uh an advisory committee to to take up the uh the naming for the press box.
>> Y we're cruising tonight. [laughter] >> We're cruising tonight. Thank you. >> Good to see you. Do you want to mention you'll follow up real quick on the naming? >> Oh, yeah. And and Pete, I I'll um I'll follow up with you offline. I I want to
we just want to confirm we have exactly what the ask is in terms of the name because the discussion last time versus what we got in writing are maybe a little bit uh confusing. So, I'll follow up the offline on that. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Um
that brings us to our last agenda item, which is >> Wait, we >> Oh, I'm sorry. That would be a useful thing to do. Um, >> I asked for final discussion and there was none. >> All in favor >> and all opposed carry six to zero. Thank
you. Okay. Um, all right. So, that brings us to our last agenda item, which is uh, you know, sort of at a macro level about the search process here. And there's a few things I'd like. >> It's a little hot, right? >> Yeah. I didn't >> Andy maybe can turn it down a little
bit. The mics are hot. the monitor in the back. We're hearing oursel Oh, that's better. >> Way better. Yeah, >> thank you. Um, okay. So, uh, few updates. So, we we've since we last met, we held, um, the community forum and the
staff forum. Um, I would I would say they were lightly attended. um the the staff forum uh you know I think we had maybe eight or so staff members in addition to you know kind of those of us who were sort of you know part of the process. Um and then the the the
community forum we had um beyond staff members who attended we had three parents attend um two of whom uh have applied to be on the screening committee as well. So, um, you know, I we're taking it as an indication and, you know, I think this came out in the discussion as well that generally
speaking, there's there's not a ton of anxiety about where the district is right now that people feel pretty good about how things are trending. And so, um, there's just not a ton of energy around, you know, I I have to get my voice heard and drive some change in this decision. And so, um, you know, I'm
taking that from sort of the the interest level, but I'm also taking that from what the actual discussion was in the room. And you know, one of the interesting themes, um, and Olivia's raw notes are in the the version of the packet that was distributed today. Um, sorry for the updates on that, but we, you know, we had the community forum
literally last night. So, um, the, um, so her raw notes are in there, but, you know, one of the big themes really was, um, particularly in the staff forum was, uh, you know, Dr. Dr. Milichesky has has built such a sense of ownership in the direction the district is headed and
some of the initiatives that we have underway and the elements of the district district strategic plan um that the you know the staff feel really invested in having the opportunity to carry on you know to carry on that work. And so one of the things that I think we
need to think about is um how do we how do we screen for a candidate who's going to be sort of, you know, self-confident enough to come into this and not feel like they need to like put their stamp on things and sort of, you know, rip the band-aid off and, you know, really make it their district and and sort of re, you know, reshape the district and their
image, so to speak. So, um, you know, I think, uh, I I we tried to weave that into some of the role description and some of the, um, sort of marketing brochure, you know, information that's in the packet as well. Um, but that was one of the, you know, interesting themes that came out. You know, certainly
themes around prioritizing, you know, collaboration, uh, communication, you know, both both being a proactive sort of listener, seeking out new voices. I think one of the things that several of the parents, you know, who are on last night sort of indicated is they didn't, you know, um, necessarily feel like they
would have had an opportunity to have a voice in the past and, you know, through whatever mechanism, you know, felt pulled in by Dr. Millesky and had opportunities to, you know, to get involved and and have their voice heard. And so we we certainly want to um see some of that preserved and prioritized.
um you know from a skills and capabilities and qualifications background um the staff were adamant that you know a good blend of classroom experience you know um along with uh administrative experience whether that's at the building level or at the district
level is is I think important to that group um certainly you know some familiarity with school building projects you know it's probably a unicorn to expect to find somebody who's deeply embedded or deeply rooted in MSBA as well but certainly somebody that has familiar with school building projects I
think is is is important. Uh >> it is now 8:00 and we have concluded our second session. Please move on to the third and final final location. Again, that is please move on to the final location.
>> Sounds like it sounds like we've got 15 minutes to get through [laughter] this agenda. So, so um so uh you know I would say nothing nothing terribly surprising. I think it all was probably very consistent with what we would you know what we would expect and probably what the sentiment of this
committee would be as well. Um but we did try to reflect some of that specifically in in the materials. Um so you know next steps the next big sort of milestones you know we're we're expecting to post the role next week. Um
it'll be open until March 1st. So, it's it's just right around a four-week time frame for the role to be posted. Um, and then, uh, the screening committee sort of orientation is February 24th, I believe. So, um, once we get, you know, through this milestone this week of
getting the the description buttoned up, um, and, uh, getting the role posted, um, we'll have a little bit of a quiet period where we can get organized and ready to to actually operate, you know, you know, operate the screening committee. um proactively prepare communications to candidates to tell
them everything they need to know about recruiting folks that may support, you know, maybe part of a site visit and that sort of thing. So, um you know, certainly lots of work to do, but the the timeline will will be a little bit more relaxed um once we hit this milestone of getting the role posted.
So, that's the general update of where we are. a few things I want to um you know step you through and and uh ask the committee to to weigh in on and and in a couple cases formally vote tonight. Um one is the the posting itself and some of the content in the posting. Two is
the salary range um which which traditionally is included in these postings. And then third is uh take you through what the um uh sort of volunteer group looked like from a screening committee perspective. um share with you my recommendation for who we select to the screening committee and and I I
would like to have the committee formally vote to approve um formally approve that piece. That piece and the salary are the two things that I'm looking for sort of formal approval uh on this evening. Um so let me let's start with the uh let's start with the
posting itself. Um in the packet are two versions of two different documents. Um the shorter document, you know, that's a little bit more sort of formal, you know, sort of formally structured is is the actual content of the job posting that would be posted on Schoolring that
an applicant would see as they were, you know, kind of initiating uh the application process. The reason you're going to see two versions are um we created a first draft which was really um a direct emulation of what you see in
sort of the standard MASC postings. Um, so the the components and the sequencing and you know sort of the layout were were very much um emulating that. The second version was one which Michelle and actually I have the order backwards. The first one you're going to see is is the one that Michelle came up with um
but the the second one we came up with was um Michelle's pass at it which was intended to more um closely mirror how she typically writes role descriptions and and materials in support of the roles that we have in the district. um she she you know leveraged a lot of the
same language and certainly the same qualifications and criteria that we'd suggested um but um you know but wrote the wrote the description in a way that's sort of more consistent with how the district typically prepares uh prepares role descriptions. Um you know we and and I specifically have lauded
Michelle in the past for bringing an a semblance of um sort of HR professionalism to the way that the district runs its HR uh function. And I think her her version of that, you know, probably is, I would say, a more modern, more professional view of of what a role
description, you know, could look like versus the more traditional MASC view. Um, so I I don't know if there's anything in particular that I want folks to look at. I just maybe give you a minute to to digest and see if there's anything that catches your eye about, you know, one version or the other. Um
the other thing that you're going to see the the more sort of marketing oriented one is the you know what traditionally is called the brochure in support of the role. Um again the second one in there is the sort of MASC modeled one. It also closely mirrors the one that we
published back in 2021 when we last went through um a search. Um it's got a little bit more sort of flowery language around the town and the opportunity. it leverages some of the content from the town website that's why is writing such a great place to live. Um you know that
sort of thing. Uh and then again the the version that actually appears first in the packet is the um I'll say more streamlined um a little more to the point version that uh Michelle created. Again leveraging a lot of the same mostly the same content but a little bit
more streamlined. So let me pause there give folks a minute to digest. I know you only all received this this afternoon, but if there's anything that sticks out to you, um, you know, I'd love to take your feedback. Um, we don't have to fi we
also don't have to finalize this. You I've got really the weekend to get this finalized. So, you know, if folks have thoughts after this evening that you want to share with me, um, you know, I can work with Michelle and Olivia and we can incorporate, you know, we can incorporate that before we actually do the posting. >> Lisa,
>> it's funny that you clarified that the second one was the more modeled after mask because I read it and I was like flowery was the word that came I was like what like I love writing I love writing it's been my home for a long
time but some of the language I was like what are we doing here >> in the second one >> in the second one >> this all appeared in our brochure last time >> I know >> reading is known as a great place to live that was on page one of the brochure last night [laughter] >> it got him flower language.
>> All about the flowering. >> No, I [laughter] will say you you'll see. I mean, I I I did, you know, I I took some artistic license and included, you know, the approval of the Killllum School as like an, you know, so there's there's some there's some updates to it, but it broadly speaking is is very much
modeled after the same content we used back then and the same content Mask still uses in their in their brochures. Um, well, I liked the first one better overall, but >> can I jump in, John? >> Yeah, please. >> I would agree with that, too, because I
also think that any candidate worth interviewing will do their homework and we'll dig in on the details and understand who's on the school committee and what the community is about and what's going on versus serving that up to them in every detail. Um, so I kind of like the more streamlined. The other thing that and just throwing it out
there under qualifications um where we talk about years of experience my preference in general is to include also a minimum number of um any kind of leadership type things. So the progressively responsible administrative leadership we don't have a number of years of experience there. Um so certainly that would be for the
committee to look at but I do think it's sometimes helpful to say a minimum of including a minimum of five years progressive administrative leadership or whatever that is. >> Can I offer a counterpoint to that? Sure. >> Um, two things. One is, um, depending on what number we came up with, you know,
we we hired a superintendent who might have maybe might have fallen short of certain, you know, certain thresholds that we might have put in place depending on how you define, you know, define that leadership experience. Um, and then the second thing is, uh, you know, one of the things that's been
hammered into me by the the talent acquisition professionals in my firm is, um, you you typically tend to see women in particular um under reppresented when you know because they'll they'll look at they'll look at a criteria and say well you know
if I don't meet that to the letter it's not worth me applying and so you may have somebody who's really attractive on every other dimension but opts not to apply um and and I you know I I'd rather um my bias would be towards you know
articulating to the screening committee you know via the two of us the two of you that are going to participate on the screening committee that there's a probably a minimum threshold told we'd be comfortable with but not not you know using it at this point in the process. Can I counterint please? Of course. >> So I think the other two think as somebody who has some experience in this realm lately. I thought you um I would
say you know maybe there's you could caveat it as preferred versus like required kind of preferred also levels of experience. I also personally am really kind of I like the job descriptions that also say we know not everybody's going to check all these boxes or fill all these buckets. we welcome, you know, diverse candidates to
come who think they, you know, like there's some I'll try to find a couple examples, but it kind of includes a caveat at the end of like, you know, we value diversity and experience over these things that we've bulleted above. If you feel like you are really, you know, bring a lot to the table, we welcome you to apply and are excited to learn more about you.
>> I agree with that. And I think that that actually really says a lot about what we're coming from, where we're coming from on our end as well, that we're not just interested in the numbers, but that we're interested in finding the person who's the right fit. Exactly. And so I
think if we emphasize that that we're approaching it holistically and that, you know, we're not going to be, you know, if you don't meet an exact minimum threshold for one of those bullet points, we're not going to get caught up on that. uh I think is is a very um attractive position to be coming in for
an applicant to be coming into. >> I mean, as I recall from last time, it it's a position that attracts people from different levels and different experience. It's not it's not necessarily what you think or what you think isn't necessarily
going to be the best fit. You know, someone might currently be a superintendent, but then it begs the question of, well, why are they leaving? You know, someone might have only been in leadership a little while, but maybe they have all this other experience that, you know, we
feel is going to be a great fit. So, um, I I don't want to limit us in that regard, but I like that language. I'll try to find some examples. Senator, >> I'm gonna I guess it be a voice of a slight slight descent, maybe more
agreement with Sean in that I uh that's I would like keep it simple, stupid, right? I think there's a the KISS principle can apply and I think as it's written is is from a experience perspective um you know is is what got
us what we have, right? And if we had tried to do certain other things, it would have been I mean maybe limiting is the right word, maybe not limiting. Um but I also, you know, all that other language that's at every posting on LinkedIn right now is just for me it's kind of annoying. Not
everybody is it kind of annoying. I know it can open the door for other people and they may feel more welcome by it, but I think I just want to be cautious or that we don't overdo it. Like we're slimming down. I I agree with Aaron that I like the shorter one better, right? So, if we're slimming down and then we're adding a bunch of other stuff at
the end, it just seems like it's it could be distracting o overall. Um, so I I like the shorter one. I like the progressive experience. Um, and it allows the screening committee to value that progressive experience and look at it and say, "Okay, based on everything
we've done," and that's the charge that the chair would generally give them. We want you to look at the holistic candidate, right? Um, and then you know, whatever we have as our normal stamp at the end of everything else that Michelle does, then I'm comfortable with that. And I don't think we need to
>> overengineer it when we're not the HR professionals, per se. The one thing I would ask or say that I I would think we I want to think about um, and whether people would agree or not is is open for questions, but I think we've almost
simplified our commitment to equity too much. I would actually prefer to keep our all means all in that paragraph. That's a little bit longer paragraph than the two sentences that are there in the shortened version, but I we spent a lot of time building that up and that
has been our foundation for a lot of what we've done over the last five years. And I leaving that out of this to me seems like we're missing something. Um so I think that that's my one feedback here is the shorter version. If we could pull back the all means all version of equity as opposed to just our
commitment to equity is these two sentences um >> I think it would be more meaningful personally. >> Which version which page and version are you looking? >> So if I'm on about the school district the the shorter version it says our commitment to equity is at the bottom of the or the top of the second page I
think um of the school profile. In the longer version it's it's indented in the about school district. Um, and if you pull that paragraph up to the equity sentence of the of the shorter version, it it still fits the two pages, but it
it fit it is our definition of what we mean by equity. >> So, you're saying you prefer the shorter version, but let's pull in the full equity statement. >> Yeah. >> So, is that what I'm hearing? Okay. >> We were very purposeful with the language of that equity statement. Very purposeful.
>> And that was a very collaborative >> process. Yeah, I I think um you know, I I'm certainly hearing the the support for the the slimmer version. Um so maybe Michelle and I can work to sort of thread the needle here a little
bit because I what gets lost is there were some narrative elements in the longer version that were very intentional, right? you know, it was demonstrating we're maybe not unique, but we're unusual in having that degree of collaboration with the teachers union and or you know, with the RTA and um and
that, you know, the the highly functioning school committee and like some of those things we specifically they're specifically called out in the longer version do get lost in the shorter one. So, um so, you know, point taken. Yeah,
>> I do I do really applicants should understand that reading is operating from a position of strength. I love that sentence. >> I think that's in the longer one, but I don't know if it's in the >> It's not. >> Yeah, >> that's another one of my narrative
choices, I would say. >> I love that. I I read it and it jumped out at me because I was like, "Yes, we are like that's important to get across. Okay. >> You know, and some of what comes after it.
>> Yeah. But that message I do I do think is important. I think the equity statement is important. I agree with that. >> Okay. The thoughts >> you want to talk about compensation now. >> Do you want to do >> Yeah. is is I mean let's I mean any
other thoughts generally on >> the job description >> the job description or the you know sort of the content and the marketing materials and then we'll move to those two pieces. I guess one other maybe controversial
one um if I think about what actually has driven our district forward so much would be the order of the selection criteria might be to adjust collaboration, communication and establishing trust above demonstrated
commitment, right? Because those set the foundation for the demonstrated commitment to equity. I mean, it's kind of debatable, but collaboration and communication has driven a lot of what we've been able to do. And the outcome has been equity, inclusion, and and excellence in
outcomes in high outcomes. Um, trust has been part of that as well. And the outcome has been that we've been able to get high high returns. So, I mean, Tom's looking at me sideways, so he may think it's otherwise, right? But I I just I feel like to me and even even in some of
the feedback we got from the staff, it's like the collaboration, the communication, the leadership are are important and critical to us. So we oftentimes what you put first is what you value most. Um and while I totally, you know, value the outcomes and the inclusion and equity, I think the what
drives our capability and drives our success so far has been those other two other two criteria. >> Yeah, I think that's a fair point. I I think that was probably a nod by Michelle to taking out the the full the fullness of the equity statement is, you know, f like prioritizing it or or
featuring um you know, equity and outcomes for all, you know, positive outcomes for all of our students and that kind of thing there. Um so, it's a I think it's a I think it's a fair point and I'll we'll work with her if we're going to pull the equity statement back in. I think there's >> some opportunity.
>> I don't I don't want to take out the you know, high performing all that stuff. just just sometimes it's just an order of execution. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> I do like that the first statement though references students. >> Students are important. Yeah.
>> A little bit. [laughter] >> It is the center of what we do. But the how we do it. >> Yeah. I don't know. It's it's totally six on one half, half a dozen on the other. really use swap those sentences. So, >> all right, I'll um Michelle and I will arm wrestle over
that one. We'll figure it out. Um but I I hear the feedback. >> Okay. Um so, let's talk salary range. So, >> no, let's do a motion. >> Oh, sure. >> Um move to approve the superintendent job description. >> Um it's going to probably see some updates
and we don't I don't we don't formally need to approve this. So, let's let's you >> good. >> Let's pass on that one. Yeah. Um, >> not seconded. >> Not second. >> No second on that one. >> You see that this is not lined up by the way, right? >> Uh, key district leadership. >> I did. I did. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Okay. Just on that one. >> We got We've got some Yeah, we got some clean up to do. Um, so, okay. So, let's talk salary. So, >> rationale here. Um, the sort of typical practice seems to be providing a range
that usually has an upper and lower bounds about $20,000 apart. Um, almost every superintendent, I shouldn't say almost every, the majority of superintendent postings do include them, but there are certainly some that don't include them and just say something more generic about, you know, salaries
commensurate with experience and, you know, negotiable or something something to that effect. Um, you know, I think, um, given that we've, you know, made a a a healthy investment in our superintendent salary position over the last couple of years and currently in our in a position where I think we're
quite competitive, I think offering a range where the top end of that range is actually just slightly below where Dr. Milichesky currently is, um, puts us in a position to have this be really appealing. Number one, some of the active searches, and some of these are in smaller towns, you know, a little further from Boston, but some of the
active searches are more in the 170 to 190, 180 to 200 range. So, this will be um an appealing range, number one. Um number two, you know, um you know, if we get a candidate who is a true unicorn and um
you know, checks all the boxes, we've got a top end here that's that's quite competitive. And number three, you know, we probably have a little bit of wiggle room if necessary on top of that without, you know, sort of damaging our budget position overall. So that was the rationale for this range, but I'm very
open for thoughts that folks have or whether you want to include one or not. >> Yes, sir. >> I think the rationale makes total sense. I think by law we have to include it now. There's trans the Massachusetts transparency law to is enacted as of the fall. I should contact the Hopedale
schools because uh yeah. Okay. >> Pretty sure that's I'm pretty sure it was effective in the fall. >> I think you might be right. Yeah. >> Um so I think we have to >> um but I think the rationale around the range makes sense to me. >> I was just going to widen the range a little bit on the short side and maybe
even a little bit on the long side, right? Um it's entirely possible we come up with a unicorn, but yet that unicorn is not developed yet and needs time to prove themselves appropriately. Um, and so we might want to make sure we're fixally responsible on that side too,
where 200,000 might be a great starting point for that person. Um, and so, you know, while we can go lower than what we're offering, it it would seem silly to say, I'm going to go 220, but I'm going to only offer you 200 because of your experience. So, I think I'd like to go and say 200 is the starter instead of
220. And if if they weren't 220, great. If they weren't 240, great, whatever. Um, but I don't want to presuppose something as an outcome by boxing us into a lower range of 220. That's one side of it. The other side of it, you know, well, yes, we know where he is
now. It's entirely possible we get another grand slam and it's somebody with more experience and they're they're still as great a communicator and they're still as great a collaborator and they have execution that they they've proven over time and they come with great references even from their existing district and you know, maybe
it's 250 instead of 240. Um, so I was I was suggesting more or thinking more of a 200 to 250 range. Um, it gives us a little bit more flexibility on the short side and a little bit more on the on the high side without to your point really damaging the long-term um, you know,
viability because he likely would have been in the 250 range give or take um, by the end of the school year. So I I don't think that's a far reach from where he is right now. Um, and so that's why I'm saying 200 250 is is a
little bit range for me. >> I'm not I'm not uncomfortable with the top end adjustment because that's a good point. I mean, you know, an end of the year increment would get them into the upper 240s, you know, at a minimum anyway. So, that part makes sense to me. The um
the lowend piece of it, I I don't have the numbers I don't have the numbers in front of me. Um, but my recollection when we looked at it the last time that we negotiated a contract, I think 200 would put us, you know, around the 10th
percentile of our peer group. Um I I worry that providing a range that's both that wide and starts you know at on the lower end of what sort of you know the prevailing superintendent contracts are today. I worry that that might actually be a turnoff to candidates who
would say am I going to go through this whole process and they're going to try to you know lowball me and get me at the bottom of this range. I would I would argue the opposite of that is that I mean if they're if they're the candidate and they're that good, we'll find a way, right? But at the same time, if they're if they're
coming in and they're just an HD, I mean, not just, but they have just graduated from one of the prevailing schools for superintendents, you know, Vanderbilt, HDS, whatever, and they have, let's just take Tom's profile, right? If you have another Tom, you know, but six years younger with a
similar background, is that maybe with inflation from there it would warrant 220? Maybe not. But if we look at the ex the experience of that that pool you're talking about, many of them have been superintendents for a long time. And new hire superintendents weren't just weren't hitting the the middle to the
high range of that necessarily that didn't have experience. So I'm I I hear you. I don't want to I don't want to negatively influence the pool, but at the same time, I don't want to box us into saying we must go to 220 if the person's experience has not yet
warranted 220. >> Okay. Thoughts others have? >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> Do we need a range or can we just say 200 plus? >> You can say anticipated. So, you just have to put a range out there. You could say the anticipated. That was be my comment. We don't have to say it is this. We can say we anticipate the base the pay range will be between these. And
then there's usually a caveat of like dependent upon you know qualifications of the you know preferred candidate etc. >> I think also you know Tom came on board you know we were all hopeful but he had to prove himself right and he proved
himself and he you know we we worked to to get him where he needed to be. Um I I would I would lower I don't know I would lower the range. Um, I feel like I would lower the range. Um,
I don't mind having a a very broad range, like Tom said, 200 to 250, you know, but I I wouldn't even go above 240. I mean, if somebody is uh going to hit it out of the park, you know, um, we we would go above, right? No, nothing is
locking us into that. I don't I >> It's easier to go above than it is to go below. You can't you can't pose to 220 and then offer somebody 200. >> Right. >> Right. >> I I would start >> 210. >> Go. Sorry. I didn't mean to touch off >> for the bottom.
>> Yeah. >> I mean it's it's a compromise and that's if that's if people would get comfortable with that. I just I I think it needs to be a little wider as a possibility. I think it needs to have a lower a lower level whether it's 200 210. I'd prefer 200, but if we can compromise at 210, then I'm I'm I'm
better there than I was at 220. >> Yeah, it it seemed high to me. You know, that's just my reaction. And and I I think a $50,000 I I wouldn't even I would do 200 to 240 as the range if that
if I had to make a decision right now. >> I'm trying to wrap my like I'm going back to the process last time. I'm trying to wrap my head around the kind of candidate that I would be like, "This is our person. We're gonna offer you 200." Like, I just can't I have a hard
time thinking that like I mean, I'm hoping we're equally as excited about this person because I was so excited when we hired Tom >> and I and so optimistic and I thought we found a unicorn. I mean, that was I use that over and over like this guy's a
unicorn. So to me, if we find another unicorn or or a shiny horse, [laughter] a Pegasus Pegasus >> is where that exists. >> I can't imagine going low. I I don't I don't know. I guess
that's what like I understand what you're saying, but I'm also thinking like >> ultimately we're picking the best of a of hopefully a well-qualified pool of candidates. We are I mean absolutely we are right. I mean but let's not I mean
we we we hit it out of the park and Tom delivered, right? But let's back back up the truck a little bit, right? What what experience did Tom have? I mean he had great experience as as a principal. He had gone through a superintendency training class. He had an associate
superintendency and navigated a complex thing with COVID and helped you know related stuff and he had teaching experience. But there was nothing that said for sure, right, that he was going to be who he has turned out to be. >> Well, >> right, we all >> I don't know that we're going to get that from anyone.
>> Well, I know, but at the same time, so that to that point, it's it's would I I mean, I think we just have to figure out would I would we again like let's take Tom's profile again, right? I go back. I think we started you right around
195 or 200 or something like that. >> 190. >> 190, right? Yeah. Yeah. And it's six years later, right? So, it's a different different year and inflation's happened and whatnot, but and other things have happened around the state, but at the same time, if you were to take that profile now,
>> okay, maybe it's 205, maybe it's 210, but you're not going to offer them 230 or 240 out of the gate unless you're in a competitive bidding situation. Yeah. Right. >> Which is a whole different dynamic. And there is a bit of a dynamic that we have to worry about even here on the Northshore. So, I'm fully acknowledging
that, right? Um, but at the same time, I we just have to I think we have to give ourselves flexibility on the low side just in case, right? You can't you can't offer you can't say 220 and then offer 210. You can say 200 and offer 210 or offer 215 or offer 220, right? You have
the flexibility to go above your low number. You don't have flexibility to go below your low number. And so, that's why I think the low number needs to be the 200 number. And that's still to Sean's point, it's more competitive than what what's being posted, 170, 190, etc. 200's above those numbers. >> Well, these were again small districts
in more more rural. >> Who's looking near us? >> Andover. >> Andover, Willie. >> And Tukesberry. >> What's Andover offering? >> I don't know. But their current superintendent was relatively close to Dr. Milichesky. So, >> and where' you say Tukesberry? >> Tukberry. >> Are they >> right? Tukesberry.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. Tukberry and handover. >> And neither one of them is us. No, >> frankly. >> Right. I mean, just And that's not just being that's just not ego from our our perspectives, but they both have had >> relatively significant challenges um with their unions, with their school
committees, etc. >> over the over the recent past. We we don't. So, you want to walk into one with a with a a nightmare or do you want to walk into one that's in in good shape? Right. I mean, I think I don't want to be mean to people, but it's it's a reality. >> I think this was the commercial that
goes along with the [laughter] ad. lightning is gonna um my my only I think my only reaction to the 200 is like is that is seeing that low range going to turn anyone off. So if if we don't think putting a lower range is a deterrent
then I don't have a problem. >> I don't think it's putting a wider range. >> I don't think it's I personally I don't think it's deterrent. I mean when I look at postings whatnot you see the low and you see the high and you say well I'm going to be for the high. Okay. Right. I'm not worried about the low because I know what my my skill set and my experience is and I'm going to go for
the high, right? So that that's me, but other people can have a different opinion obviously. Um the high performers that we're looking for are not going to be worried about the low in my mind, but yet it does open up the capability that somebody who's just coming out of school can say, "Well,
that I could probably do that." To me, that's that's where my head is. Don't want to speak. >> No, I just have I was one comment on the on the high end, too. is I do think if it's a realistic possibility that you would, you know, that the committee would go up for someone with a certain
level of experience, you know, someone may read the profile and say, well, 240, if they've already sort of capped that, that's the top that they're seeing that the the committee would go where I'm hearing that that's not necessarily the case of what would happen in reality. I think if you're trying to cast a wide net and you're trying to pull some people who maybe are probably, you know,
in that range already, I don't know why you would keep that chip in your back pocket and say, "Well, we get there, then we would move it." Instead of trying to bring them in earlier in the process. Um, and just talking to a couple candidates the last couple years who have like toyed with the idea of moving across districts. They're like, "Well, I saw the posting. It only would
be a $10,000 jump and it wouldn't be worth it for me to make it." So I I do think if that's it seems like that's a you know given what's probably in the budget of rolling forward my salary times a you know a 3% increase or 2.5% increase. I think that that if if that's
a possibility I don't know why we would hold you would hold that back when you're trying to cast a wide net early on. Um >> that's really helpful feedback. >> So what would you put Dom? [snorts] >> I I would go to the high end. I would I would go up to what has been discussed and whether or not the committee goes
that high is that's up to the committee. But I would think that that would make you really really competitive with some of the other searches that are ongoing and it keeps you right with what's budgeted in the in in the budget that was just approved. So I think there's um I don't know and I think I on on the
back end I the low end I defer to you on that. I think they're all reasonable perspectives. I just think the high end is important to attract the kind of candidates I think >> you can possibly pull somebody in. >> Yeah. And it's not unusual to have a $50,000 range. >> No. Okay. >> No, >> I see I see $100,000 ranges out there.
>> Correct. I do too. >> I I I So, thank you. I appreciate that. I I can certainly, you know, 250 at the top end. We do have the the qualifier. It's subject to experience and qualifications, right? So, you know, I think a realistic candidate is going to
understand if they're coming in never having served in the as a superintendent or with, you know, limited central office experience or what have you that they're they're not going to expect to top out in that range, right? So, I, you know, I'm certainly comfortable going higher. on the lower end. I I 200 still doesn't make sense to me
because and Tom you you raised it which is you know he came in at 190 you know we felt really good about him and wanted to get him but but again the you know the the experience was not as much as you might you know see in some other candidates right um and so you know if I
just roll that forward five years 190 to 210 feels like a more logical you know sort of floor to me Um so you know my my maybe compromise would offer you know just for discussion just to keep the discussion moving forward
here is we we adjust it to 210 to 250. That's the range. >> I would support that. >> I'm more comfortable with that than I is. So if that's what we get, that's what we get. Right. >> I still like the 200 to 250. I think
that's a nice broad range. Um, >> it's my preference as well. Yeah. Right. >> If I if I were voting right now, that's and it was rank choice voting, that would be my number one preference. >> Yeah. >> I just I I think, you know, when I see a role when I see a role posted and the
range is too wide, it's like you don't actually have a view of what this role is worth. You're gonna offer me the least you think I'll take it. The least that you think I'll take. That's how that's how I perceive it personally when I look at at roles that are posted.
>> I guess we're different, right? I mean, that's I I I see what you're saying. >> Well, no, no, I'm not different in thinking like, no, I deserve the top end of that range. I agree with you there. No, but but I I think that that's that's that's the orientation of the of the of the hiring, you know, the hiring firm is
is they're providing this broad range because they, you know, want to keep this low floor there. So, they have a a place to start that, you know, technically was in the range and they're going to see what they can get away with getting you to accept. I I I think that can be perceived there's a risk that that gets perceived negatively as well,
you know, having too broad a range. >> But I think if they do their homework and see what we've done for Tom That should that should go away. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Form you'll be rewarded. >> Yeah.
>> Um I know. But now I'm also thinking if we if we start at 200 then it feels more I I don't think we're realistically going to be offering anyone 200. So it feels more like, oh, we've upped from
the bottom of our range when we offer something above it. >> Our unicorn is going to have watched this meeting. [laughter] >> It's going to know that we don't we're not actually serious about 200 if that's where we go. >> It depends. Again, depends on the qualifications. I might be serious about
200. Depends on the qualifications, >> right? I mean, it's that's the whole purpose of it is to open up the qualification range for people who may not have as much experience and on the side that has experience and has delivered, right? You're you're giving yourself the ability to then find the
best candidate across both sides of that range, right? We probably, you know, fair unfair, if we had looked at some of the other candidates at the time, we probably wouldn't have gotten them at the rate we got Tom at at the time. But I think we were still confident that
Tom's rate was the right rate for him and the right rate for Reading and he was the right choice for Reading. Right. So, it it allowed us the flexibility to find the right candidate at the right price for Reading. And this this allows us to find the right candidate at the
right price for Reading. And if the right candidate and the for that then the right price for that candidate is 200 great right if the right candidate is 250 great or somewhere in between you know we have to we have to consider all those all those factors when we put out
the offer uh as things go flexibility for for us is in my mind is huge as we look at this and I don't think 50,000 is a big problem from a range perspective >> I'm convinced You've convinced me. >> Can I make a motion?
>> I'll swing over. >> I'm going to make one more argument. [laughter] >> Make the motion. >> Quick, let me make the motion. >> Uh FY25 numbers among our Fin Peier communities.
Canton is the lowest at 210. North Reading's 214606. And this is FY25. So this is two fiscal years in advance. Um, Denim with a first year superintendent was at 215. Nic with a first year superintendent was 235.
The the the realistic range among our peer communities is, you know, sort of squarely in that 220 to 245 250 range. Um, >> we don't we don't know from that if it was their first year as a superintendent period or the first year in that
district. Right. >> I just, you know, I think this is a competitive enough market if we get a candidate that we are, you know, this, you know, as excited about as we'd all like to be to the point that we want to extend this person an offer.
I I I find it hard to believe they're not going to have other opportunities. Um, and I I I think there's risk. I just think I think there's risk in going too low. >> Won't apply. >> Yes. okay, >> won't apply or won't prioritize this opportunity versus other ones they
might, you know, other ones they might be looking at. >> Um, >> I think that risk is relatively easily managed by the by the person on the right hand side of the table who would be probably being asked questions about the district and the process and can answer how we execute and how we offer.
I think that's pretty easily addressed. If they're going to not even apply without even investigating, they're probably not the right person for the for the job in the first place. >> Well, yeah, but what I mean, what's what's he going to tell them? Yeah, they said the range is 200 to 250, but
>> he's they're not going to ask he's Yeah, he's going to say that, but he's going to talk about the rest of it. He's going to talk about the collaborative nature of us. He's going to talk about the union stuff. He's going to talk about reading as a town. He's going to talk about a lot of different things that make us who I mean, this brochure that makes us who we are, right? Um, I I
don't think we should go in with a fear base. I think we should go in with a with a strength base. And if we go into the fear base, then we've lost already. We have to go in with a with a strength base. We are who we are. And I think we have a lot to to talk about here. We're in a very different spot than we were
six years ago, right? Uh I might have gone the other way six years ago to say, you know what, we have to put out a big number because we're in we're in a bad shape. We're not there now. I I but I still think this gives us the capability to bring in a really really good strong person who's done it for multiple years
at the top range. You know, it gives us again that that capability for someone who has not yet done it, but we still see amazing potential for on the on the short range. Um I see no negatives in the in the 200 to 250 range. >> Um yeah, I mean if if you're all there,
I'm just one vote. The negative the negative is the perception that we don't understand the market for superintendent because we're offering a range that bottoms out 10,000 below any peer community. So
I mean that that that's the risk is that that is that we we create a perception that you know even if the person loves the district wants to be here this is their first choice among whatever opportunities they have you know some fear that this could be a tough negotiation if they're not you know the
unicorn with that checks all the boxes and has all the all the experience points and all that kind of stuff. So, you know, I'm just one vote. I but I do I do think I I don't think we can I don't think we I don't agree that there's no risk to going too low in the
range. So, >> it's a hard one. >> It is. [snorts] This is why we actually work well as a group. >> You both make excellent. >> We listen to each other. We, you know, we we consider it and ultimately we vote and we move forward as a group.
>> Are you watching candidates? [laughter] point them to the 45minute conversation. >> You put a you put a link to this meeting in the brochure. >> Watch video. [laughter] >> I will go ahead. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> I was going to say to my earlier point
about not putting too much into the brochure about because we want people to come to the table, have done their homework and their research. I do think your point is valid, Sean, that anybody who's done their actual research will know what the other communities and kind of where salaries are at. So, I do see that. I think that's an important consideration.
I mean, it's interesting because at two different numbers, you're saying the same thing sort of like you're saying this might turn someone off by going too low. You're saying we open the door to all levels of experience by by setting it lower. >> So, we want the same thing. We want as
many people as possible >> with a wide range of experience to apply and prove themselves. The question is is is either approach going to discourage someone from applying outright.
>> I I think the higher end is a the higher end brings in a certain level of person, but I also think the lower end is bringing in that person who is not experienced but may be really good. And you know, for your first job as a superintendent to come in and be making
$200,000 and then okay, prove yourself. You know, like we we took a chance with Tom, we were all hopeful, but it was okay, prove yourself. And then when he started, he was rewarded because he deserved it. Like I I think that's um I
I think that's a >> Yeah. >> I think that's a reasonable approach and I think that's a a reasonable way to to move forward. I I don't disagree with that, but I I do think that 200 is not the 2026 equivalent of 190 in 2021.
>> It sounds like everybody's comfortable with 250 as the top end. And so the real discussion here is 200 versus 210, which is, you know, $10,000 is a lot of money, but also not a lot of money. And so I guess the question is is the the risk of
what Sean's talking about with the perception um and and seeming like we're lowballing it to potential candidates who have done their research. Is the risk of driving them away worth saving $10,000
>> or is the other side of it, you know, opening the door for other people, right, worth $10,000? I mean, just just real quick, I just quickly pulled up the calculator, right? If if we had been not a rewarder of performance and we didn't have a track record of that, Tom's
salary would be approximately 20,000 less than it is now, just on a 3% roll forward every year from when he was, right? So part of the process is again prove yourself and then you will be rewarded and we have a track
record of rewarding performance. [snorts] >> But at the same time if they don't prove themselves we don't want to be stuck with an albatross of a contract of somebody who can't execute. >> So we have to we have to be conscious of
both sides of the possibilities as well. Uh now to to Laura's point 210 200 in the grand scheme of things is it a big difference in that in that regard? U no but I still think we open up our ch our opportunities for more candidates with
200 and the highly qualified candidate who who knows what they're worth won't have a problem with 200 because they're looking at the 250 or they're thinking okay I'm I'm easily 230 240 in this range I know what I'm worth and that'll be part of the negotiation. Um, that's
my perspective, but again, let's let's put a motion on the table and we can vote it. Whether it's 210 to 250 or 200 to 250, we can work our way from there. >> Dealer's choice. >> I motion I motion to um modify the
superintendent salary range from to a 200,000 to 250,000. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? All opposed. >> Sorry, Charlie. [laughter]
>> All right. 200 250 it is. Okay. Um Okay. Last item here. Let me share. >> It's not in here, right? >> It's not in there. I I It was a little bit of a working document, so I was hesit hesitant to share. >> You just finished it two minutes ago.
>> Um not two minutes ago. [laughter] That that Tom guy, I'm taking him off the committee. >> Yeah, that was Yeah, that that's [laughter] exactly what I was waiting to see. Let's see. Oh, hold on. I have to go to my system
settings to share. Bear with me a second here. Okay. Let's try this together. >> Is this gonna work? Oh, you guys can't read that. >> Okay, let me zoom in.
>> Here we go. >> Go off your shoulder here. >> Let me zoom in. Hold on. Sorry. >> Okay. Is that starting to become legible? >> I'm just gonna lean this way. Look on my screen. That works.
Um okay. So we um identified a committee make up of 17 uh 17 individuals. Um it was two school committee members, three central office or non-unit leaders with at least two of those being direct reports to the superintendent. So that's
five. Five staff um including representation from each level, five parents including representation representation across levels but also CPAC and mechco. and then town manager designate and then police chief SRO or designate. Um so that's that's the 17.
Um we have our two school committee members, Tom and Tom and Laura. So that was kind of the easy one. Um this list includes everybody who volunteered and I want to talk through sort of what I'm recommending which are the ones in bold here. >> Okay. >> Um and I'll and I'll talk through kind
of why you know why we landed here. So, um, we only had three parents, uh, three parents volunteer for for the, um, for the screening committee. Um, none of those three parents at least sort of selfidentified that they're involved in CPAC. I did reach out, you know, to
CPAC, um, after our last meeting, you know, reach out to them to let them know that, hey, you know, we were hopeful to have a a parent who's actively involved in CPAC, if you can reach out to your membership. I didn't hear back from them until last night. Um, and then I didn't hear anything from them again today. So
I don't um it doesn't look like they you know they uh have somebody who's you know ready and can commit. Um so one of the things that you'll see here is I prioritized um staff members who uh a couple staff members who are have special education
experience to you know it's not the same certainly not the same as having a parent you know um parent in the district but um that was one of the things that you know I tried to do to sort of you know balance that given that we didn't have somebody raise their hand from a CPAC perspective um there also
wasn't anybody um there weren't any Mechco family members um or parents that that uh volunteered as well. Um fortunately, Cindy did um you know did volunteer so I immediately sort of prioritized her as one of the staff
members um you know to have at least some representation of the MECO program of the METCO program in that regard. Um from a from a central office perspective again initially we we tabbed uh we we
tagged having three um the nom the volunteers there were Sarah Hardy, Lindsey Fton, Alyssa Gyos, Nicole Schwarz, Mary Julian and Aaron Burchill. Um I thought you know Sarah made all the sense in the world. I think having you know one of his directs who sits in the central office every day or one of the
new superintendent's directors I should say who sits in the super in the office every day um be involved in this process and ultimately you know hopefully be a champion for this new person coming in would be really valuable also value you know Dr. Hardy's u you know um perspective generally. Um we had three
elementary school principles apply. Um Alyssa Gyos does have some scheduling conflicts and um I literally flipped the coin between uh between Lindsay and Nicole um for for another slot there. Um Mary Juliana and Aaron Birill, you know,
were the other ones again just to sort of represent a diversity of different types of staff and different types of roles. So the reason you see four here is because with only three parents volunteering, we had two more slots to allocate. And so what I did in this pass was to allocate one of those to admin and then one of those to an additional
teacher um or an additional staff um staff position on the staff front. You know, I thought Jess Bailey, um, who, you know, certainly has very proactively expressed her interest, um, and obviously in her role as the RTA president, is a a key, you know, a key
stakeholder and a key partner for any incoming superintendent. So, that was, you know, I think one of the first ones that that I flagged. Um, Susie Carroll was the uh the sole middle school uh staff member who volunteered. So, that was, you know, another another one right
off the bat. I already talked about, you know, Cindy and and why I thought Cindy was, you know, critical to have. Um Jennifer Delaney was the only um the only person from the PAR educators union who who volunteered. So I prioritized her as well. Um and then, you know, essentially what we were left with at
that point was a bunch of volunteers at, you know, at the high school. Um Stephanie Lasiss again to have, you know, somebody with a with a a voice and a focus on special education as a department head for special ed at the high school made a ton of sense to me. And then we were left with Maggie, Rich,
uh John, and Raph. And then u again, you know, kind of a a random, you know, sort of a random draw among those four who, you know, all all are involved in different things and and represent different departments and things like that, but um uh just sort of went with a little bit of luck of the draw on on
filling that last spot. Um I reached out to Matt Krenelis on, uh the town manager designign. You'll see here that Bob Lashur had volunteered. Um Bob reached out to me. Um he'd also had a conversation with Matt at some point
and just, you know, articulated that if there was a a spot where he could make sense, you know, he'd be he'd be happy to participate. He obviously participated on the last one in his role as town manager at the time. Um uh so I did, you know, I did reach out to Matt and I gave him a heads up, you know, hey, hey, you know, I don't know what
your capacity for this is, but Bob mentioned he's available. I think one thing that is important in the screening committee process is somebody who has a, you know, a really good understanding of municipal finance and I think Bob's probably second to none there. I think Tom, with you on the committee, I'm comfortable, you know, I'm certainly comfortable that we have enough um, you
know, enough expertise there and and Matt as well, obviously, but but Matt did articulate that he um he's available and and wants to serve in that capacity himself. So, so that one's there. And then um, uh, Chief Clark and I have been going back and forth on email a little bit. Um the scheduling is a little bit
tough for them. They've you know the the obvious candidates have some uh some significant conflicts in the weeks that we would have the screening interviews. So we're still we're still working through it there. But I you know what we'd be asking you to approve tonight is sort of a TVD slot still still you know
coming from the RPD. So that's the [sighs and gasps] that's the rundown and the rationale. Um, we haven't notified any of these folks, you know, so we we certainly can adjust this, but I wanted to to share that and sort of get the committee's perspective.
>> Can you clarify what levels the teachers are at? I know some of them, but not all of them. >> Yeah. So, so Jess through Raph, um, are all at the high school. >> Um, Susie Carol is uh, an EL ELA teacher at Coolage, sixth grade, I think. Yes.
Um and then um Cindy and Jennifer Delaney are both at the elementary level. >> Okay. And then what about the parents? Do any of them represent high schoolers? >> Yep. Uh Matt Mloud has um one at each level. >> Great. >> Um Megan Baker has u elementary and
middle school. And then Joe's got I think three kids all in elementary school. Oh, you know you know them. Yeah. Yeah. >> Um Okay. Yeah. >> That's got I wasn't sure if there was a high school parent, but I think that's important. >> There is. Yeah. And I think Matt, if I'm not mistaken, has been involved with the Kllumin
project as well in some capacity. >> So anyway, >> and Susie Carol has multiple kids in the district, >> graduates. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That falls off the page here, but a couple of these folks are a couple of these folks are parents as well. >> Yeah. Susie's got middle students at
middle school and high school. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> that's good. [snorts] >> And Bentley, right? >> Oh, yeah. Right. Yeah. And one who's who's graduated. And Aaron Burchell also has um a student in the district. >> Yeah. >> Um so counting the ones in bold, you'd
have 17. >> That's the 17 that we targeted with, you know, again those two that we had earmarked for parents being reallocated to an additional teacher and an additional central office member or ad, you know, member of the admin.
>> I think you've done a pretty good job here, Sean. Um it's never easy to balance it all. Um whether you coin flipped or thought or argued or debated all the different things that it uh you never really know and how that works. Coin flip is fine. Um if RPD is not able
to fill the role, what do you what are you inclined for? Go ahead. >> Can I because I was going to bring that up. I would put Bob Lasher in there. Um, if you know I I the finance piece of it is important.
Um, I know Tom is on there. I I I can't, you know, nobody knows m no, nobody knows municipal financing better than Bob. Um, he's a community member. He his kids went through the district. Um,
I would love to see him I would love to see him on this committee. Yeah, Tom. I I I hadn't thought about it. I, you know, haven't put much thought into it because um I'm still hopeful based on my exchange with Chief Clark that we're going to we're going to get somebody from the PD. I may not end up being an SRO or, you know, I think
his um initial instinct was Deputy Chief Amandola, but she's she's at uh I forget what it's called, command academy or something like that for the first three days of interviews. So, um, so we're I I still expect that we'll get somebody
from RPD. So, I hadn't put a ton of thought into it. I think the options would be Bob, the options would be, um, you know, another one of the interested uh, teachers or or, you know, members of the admin that raised their hand. Um, we could think about another, you know, another town staff member in a in a
department that we, you know, face off with, whether that's facilities or DPW or, um, you know, something like that. Um, so I I think there are options, but I I hadn't I don't have a lean one way or the other.
>> I think it's important that we don't overbalance in terms of our staff rel ratio. So I think as much as I I appreciate they're all in there and they all want to participate, we have to >> keep keep a some degree of balance. Yeah. >> As we go through this. Uh so
>> if that's >> and at the high school in particular, we'd be adding another high school teacher which would be a >> like a very overweighted block of >> necessary. That was another thing I went I mean I don't know Mr. Est's what subject does he teach? >> Uh physics, right? >> Correct. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, we have we have the
sciences, we have history covered, we have English with Miss Carol. Um, Jess is special. Okay. So, I'm just trying to make sure we're covering certain subjects as well. >> Yeah. We don't we don't have math, but we have STEM. >> Yeah. And physics is a lot of math, so
I'm not worried about that. >> There Sarah knows >> Yeah. >> math. >> Yeah. I mean, she does. Well, and Aaron covers a lot of the ELA side of it as well. So just like I'm just looking at the whole like I really think it's a good combo good mix across the board overall. [cough]
>> Um >> I'm kind of torn like if it's not going to be a school resource officer or it's not going to be like >> Dave Clark. I'm I I guess I'm kind of wondering how attached someone else is necessarily going to
feel. I I would maybe go back to Chief Clark and say if this is going to put a burden on these people who do have a tie to the schools. Bob did volunteer. I I don't know. I just
>> Richard body was he considered? >> Um I have to assume he was considered because he was it was him and Chief Clark that I I contacted initially. Yeah. >> Okay. Um, but you know, he just he mentioned those dates were tough for their SRO's and command staff and they were still working through who who might
who would be available. >> Yeah, >> I I agree with you, Aaron. If if you're not going to have an SRO or the chief, >> I'd rather have >> some of, you know, because like Chief Clark has to communicate with you on the regular, right? Like that's an important relationship, right? I'm not I'm not
like not [clears throat] putting pressure on Chief Clerk to step up for this, but I'm just saying I I feel like it should be someone who has some connection to this position or to the schools otherwise
>> remind me does the 17 number where does that come from? >> It doesn't. >> Okay. So, it's it's not >> there is a balancing of all the roles. >> Okay. But we're not mandated to have no it's quite a large. It's good to have an odd number though. >> That was the only thing. Yeah, I think we were at 16 at some point and decided
we wanted an odd number and we added I don't remember what we added to get to an odd number, but >> yeah, that's that's the only sort of thing we designed for there. >> The the only other person I would consider to be Joe Huggin, but he's got so much going on with Kell, >> right? So, I just can't I can't overload him in that regard in this tight window.
That's why I was thinking Bob, too, because I was like, "Oh, you know, >> it would be good to have Joe on there, but >> um Bob's another check in that box, too." >> I don't know if you all saw that, but um there was just a a comment. You know, I
don't need to say this particular name, but you know, there's there are two lieutenants who live in town and have kids in the schools, right? So, I I I hear the point. I hear the point and I I don't suspect Chief Clark is going to assign, you know, going to suggest random brand new 24 year old officer. I
think, you know, I think it's >> he's gonna send Rusty. >> I think it'll Yeah. [laughter] you know, but you know, but like uh you know, Detective Lewis, you know, would certainly, you know, still be relevant or, you know, I mean, so >> yeah, the the category is broader. People who have I didn't mean toize that
>> and and we did my my only hesitation, too, is we did >> we did say it's, you know, uh, police, chief, SRO, or design, >> you know, so we did give them a little bit of license to determine who who the right person is. I I know I know Chief Clark's being thoughtful about, you know, who who that would be, but
>> Okay. Um, so I mean if if they're not able to come up with somebody that makes sense, you know, I'm hearing, you know, support to to maybe think about Bob for that role. Um, but, um, I do want to give Chief Clark the opportunity to >> work through that with us. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Good on that point. So, going back to the special ed piece, um, the parah that's on there and I'm blind. So, Delaney, what building level is she? >> Uh, she's at >> is she special ed or gened? special special ed special ed parent would end
>> and I and again we might not get this but I think you know having a parent with special ed experience >> would be my preference as well because it is a different perspective than a teacher or somebody in the building with special ed experience >> there too for that >> yeah
I mean I would love an elementary special ed >> as well but yeah um >> I know that's so it's more airing my frustration of just and saying out loud like it's just it's a different perspective also shows you >> how different we are from.
>> Yeah. >> Um the other the other um you know if if if I hear back from the CPAC board and there is somebody who raises their hand. I mean we >> um >> we could either you know that that slot
that may or may not open up we could you know put a parent there um or we could go with you know we could go with 18. You know it's I I don't know. I mean, from your experience, how many of the votes are really require a tiebreaker versus there being some degree of consensus?
>> There weren't many 98 votes. >> Yeah. So, I mean, >> there were a lot of 125 votes, 134 votes. >> Yeah. So may maybe what I'll suggest is, you know, from a motion perspective, we sort of focus on the 17 that are bolded here, leaving the door open to um
identify a back fill if RPD is not able to identify somebody and to accept um an additional parent uh who represents um CPAC if if they're able to identify one. >> So 17 potentially 18 um >> works for me.
>> Would this make up otherwise? >> I don't know. for all the time you already put into. >> Yeah, >> it's not easy. So, yeah, that's a big thank you. Yeah, it's a lot going on, Sean. So, thanks. >> I can breathe on Monday when this thing [laughter] gets posted. We get a little bit of a little bit of reprieve, a little at least a little bit of better
pacing. Anyway, >> um >> do you want a motion? >> Yeah, let's see what it sounds like. [laughter] >> Do you want to range? >> No. Uh motion to approve the superintendent search committee >> as proposed
>> as discussed as proposed >> um with uh >> and with license to add an additional parent as necess if necessary >> or modify the RPD position as necessary. >> Yeah, that's part that was part of our discussion. So I feel okay about that one. [laughter]
>> Uh so says Tom. Is there a second? >> Oh, >> second. >> Oh. Uh. Oh, yeah. You you made the motion. I don't know who I don't know who seconded. We'll give it to you, Laura. That's >> Oh, I came off my nose. >> Okay. Any further discussion on this one?
All in favor? All opposed? Six to zero. Thank you, everyone. >> Awesome. >> All right. Uh, that brings us to the end of our agenda. And so in compliance with open meeting law, we will cease our discussion at this point. Is there a final motion?
>> Motion to adjourn. Second. >> Seconded by Carla. All in favor? All opposed? We're adjourned. Thanks everyone.