Letter: Let public evaluate local superintendent

To the Editor:

A question asked on the Republic Insider blog is one that might well be asked of the readers of The Daily Republic. “Before approving a salary increase for the superintendent, shouldn’t the superintendent’s job performance be evaluated in an open session seeking public input from parents and taxpayers?”

About 10 of the 30 comments tried to answer that question. Of those 10, it was divided almost equally. Those in opposition to its being done in public seemed to feel that the board hired the superintendent and therefore the board should do the evaluations. The real question is: do those same people want the president’s performance evaluated by those electors to the Electoral College who actually elect the president? Or do those persons feel that in a democracy, people have a right to question and for that matter, even vote? For more than 200 years, the President’s performance has been evaluated by the public. Every four years, the public is allowed to vote to “rehire” the president.

In the Mitchell School District, the superintendent is hired for a three year contract. Unlike a four-year presidential term, the school board extends the superintendent’s three year contract another year. So at that time, the superintendent is under contract longer than any elected board member has yet to serve.

The founding fathers believed that four years was long enough to let the public determine if the president was performing satisfactorily. Now, in the Mitchell School District, would it not be appropriate to let the public evaluate the superintendent once in 10 years?

Tags: letters to the editor, opinion, letters