Now that the dust has settled from the resignation of Superintendent Dr. John Buckey, let’s focus on the School Committee. It’s been nine weeks since Buckey’s departure on Aug. 2, and yet we are no closer to understanding why the School Committee wanted him gone.
It’s only natural that community members have come up with their own explanations, connecting dots that may or may not be part of the bigger picture. A lack of information always leads to speculation, especially given the town’s rocky history with superintendents.
It is not our place nor our desire to speculate; our intention is merely to shine a light on the lack of transparency throughout the committee’s talks of early termination of Buckey’s contract and thereafter.
According to Buckey’s contract, early termination would have cost taxpayers $92,500. Since he resigned following the cancellation of a vote on exercising the early-termination clause in his contract, he will be on paid administrative leave until the end of the calendar year, and will then receive a lump-sum payment of $94,350 on Jan. 2, 2024. In all, the cost of this agreement totals nearly $175,000.
And now, the School Committee will need to direct even more money and resources toward the hiring of a new superintendent.
The role of the School Committee is to hire and fire the town’s superintendent as it sees fit. But more than that, committee members are expected to be good stewards of taxpayer money, provide support to the only member who is required to have a background in education — the superintendent — so that he or she can effectively lead the district, and articulate to the public if there is a problem with the superintendent that needs to be addressed.
We don’t think it’s controversial to say that the School Committee has failed in these essential duties. Take it from community members, such as Paul Baker, who expressed his disappointment with the committee’s handling of the situation at a public meeting on Aug. 11.
“Good luck getting an override from these townspeople, and any semblance of an override for the next two, three, four years,” Baker said. “You have lost the confidence of this town and this school district, of parents and grandparents, and I’m so disappointed.”
Or, take it from the School Committee itself.
“I’m just so profoundly disappointed that this is where we’re at,” committee member Meagan Taylor said at the Aug. 11 meeting. “I think, as a committee, we did not effectively manage the superintendent. I think if there were concerns about his performance or his actions, as a committee, we should have raised those and discussed them as a committee and come up with action plans on how to address them.”
With the facts we do have, it appears as though the previous committee was satisfied with Buckey’s performance as of early June, when it voted 5-0 to grant him an overall “proficient” rating.
The review stated that Buckey demonstrated “leadership and dedication to the district and improvement in transparency of the budget and detail provided to the district this year.”
Less than two months later, on July 26, the newly elected committee was prepared to take a vote on terminating his contract early. Executive session minutes released from July 21 reveal contract negotiations surrounding an investigative report on a bullying allegation, among other concerns that were not specified in the release. There were discussions of early termination and of allowing Buckey to negotiate and resign. The committee decided to offer Buckey what was essentially an ultimatum, forcing him to negotiate his exit by July 26.
Apparently, whatever happened after the election resulted in the use of more than $150,000 of taxpayer money.
Committee member Alison Taylor expressed concern at the time that signing a non-disparagement clause would result in the committee not being able to correct any misinformation that spreads to the public.
But, with the committee and Buckey ultimately signing such an agreement, it seems that is exactly the situation we are in. However, it is our understanding that the committee can still provide some level of transparency on this issue. If it legally cannot, it needs to come forward and explain why.
There must be more to the story. The early termination of a superintendent should only occur for egregious reasons, and if that is the case, the public has every right to know the reason. It is the taxpayers’ money that funds decisions made by the School Committee. And anyone with a child in the schools, or anyone who teaches in them, is directly affected by those decisions.
The damage may be done, but the School Committee should do everything in its power to make amends with the town. And that begins by coming clean about what happened to the fullest extent it can.