The Post and Courier published an "interesting" article today about the superintendent's contract.
I had read the superintendent's contract several months ago, after it was texted to me. I didn't save it.
From memory, I recall that there was to be an evaluation within four (maybe six) months, and then the Board would decide whether to extend the contract for a year. I recall thinking at the time, "WHY?"
My opinion was the contract provision resulted from poor negotiations by Richland 2. They were under the gun to hire somebody fast, because they lost the first three months after Baron left in January. The negotiating team was behind the curve. They were not in the strong position in which an employer usually finds it. And why would the legal advice to the District ever agree with that provision?
The superintendent's contract is a personnel issue. Why did the article have comments from two board members?
Will an evaluation occur "in the fall"? Historically, since the superintendent's contract runs from July 1-June 30, there would be a review before the end of the School Year (June 30), and a contract amendment, if there were to be one, at that time.
Angela Nash's gushing comment about the superintendent ("So far we've had such a great working experience with Dr. Moore") weakens any position of the Board, should it decide not to extend the contract when it enters its second year. That would have been better unsaid.
