BE OUR GUEST: EVALUATION OF SUPERINTENDENT WAS ORDERLY, THOROUGH PROCESS

These remarks were made at last week's meeting.

As has been our custom, as immediate past president of the Cape Girardeau Board of Education I assumed the role of coordinating Dr. Neyland Clark's evaluation for this. In other years that process would have been completed by April or May. Due to other considerations, namely Proposition C election, this process was deferred to a later date. The process formally began on April 25 when I forwarded a evaluation form to each board member. At that time I did not ask Dr. Robert Fox to participate as he had just been elected and really would have had little capacity to evaluate Dr. Clark's performance for the past year as a board member. I asked for board members to complete their evaluations and return them to me by May 5. The form we used is a four-page form which contains both an objective section where we rate the superintendent on specific responsibilities and a narrative section where we each write our comments regarding Dr. Clark's performance in the following areas:

Relations with the board, management of public relations, management of curriculum and instruction, business and fiscal management, long-and short-range planning, staff personnel management, student personnel management, management of physical facilities, personal and professional qualities and an overall assessment.

A board member or two were late in responding to my request, and other matters arose which delayed the evaluation process. Also, the board began to receive significant public comment regarding the board's performance and Dr. Clark's performance.

Considering the time differential, on June 27 I asked for Dr. Fox to participate in the process. I also asked all other board members if they had any additions or changes to make to their evaluations, most of which had been completed by May 5. By July 7 I completed a compilation of all 8 of the evaluations into one anonymous document.

During the week of July 11, school board president Ed Thompson, Dr. Clark and I met at some length for a preliminary discussion of the evaluation. In our customary practice this would have ended the evaluation process. However, this year, due to the public and board concerns, it was my recommendation that the entire board participate in the discussion and that the whole board be provided with a copy of the total complied evaluation containing all board members' anonymous comments. As you know, we decided the best time and place to have this discussion would be at our annual planning session in St. Louis.

I would like to point out that all during this period of time that I along with other board members received written and oral comments from our constituents. I had several meetings with individuals who expressed a desire to meet, and I know other board members did also. Included in the documents we received was a petition containing about a thousand signatures which called for Dr. Clark's resignation because, and I quote, "The effectiveness of and confidence in our current school superintendent has deteriorated," The board has also received hundreds of letters in support of Dr. Clark. While we want to be very mindful of our constituents desires and wishes, we also note that the board is responsible for the performance of the superintendent. This is not a popularity contest. We have used all the information provided to us in the formulation of the results of the evaluation.

We proceeded with all this information to the board evaluation session in St. Louis where we had an open and frank discussion of Dr. Clark's strengths and weaknesses. Under state law we cannot disclose or discuss written or oral comments included in the evaluation. However, I will say that the predominant opinion of the board is that Dr. Clark's performance in all areas surveyed was satisfactory to excellent. That is not to say that there were not some valid criticisms made also in some of the areas. I believe that Mr. Thompson acknowledged this in his statement after the planning session. With respect to much of the public comments received, it is the consensus of the board that much of the comment and criticism leveled at Dr. Clark more appropriately should have been directed at the board. Since he has been here, Dr. Clark has been operating under and at the direction of the board of education. If there have been mistakes made, much of the blame for these mistakes, real or perceived, lies in the laps of the board.

I and my fellow board members will be proposing some changes in several areas, including but not limited to communication, public relations, board meeting dates and times, agenda procedures and other items. I know Dr. Clark, also, will be making some changes in his method and manner of operation as a result of the evaluation.

Ladies and gentlemen, this process has been a long and arduous one of all of us. It has been especially difficult for Dr. Clark and his family. Dr. Clark has been extremely cooperative throughout it all. The evaluation process is never over. Each of us is subject to the evaluation or our performance on a daily basis. It is time now, however, to put this formal process to rest for another year.

Personally, this has been a difficult decision for me to make. I am publicly identified as a supporter of Dr. Clark. I am proud to be in that category. I believe on the whole he is doing a great job. But our children and our community have great educational needs at the present time. All of these needs require more funds. The only sure source of those funds is going to be a local tax increase. I think there is a high level of frustration in the community over the last three failed tax votes. I believe this frustration has been vented recently at Dr. Clark and the board. A change in superintendents will set this district back at least two or three more years. I have been tempted to try to win some public opinion by voting not to extend Dr. Clark's contract for the sake of public relations for the district and board. My final decision is that would be selling out for the sake of expediency. It would not be fair to the man, the board not in the best interest of the future of the Cape Girardeau Public Schools.

Regardless of all our personal feelings and regardless of the outcome of this forthcoming vote, as students, parents, community, board, administrations and staff we must strive to put our differences behind us and work together.

I would like to make a motion that based on the results of the board's evaluation, Dr. Clark's performance has been determined to be acceptable, and further, based on this acceptable performance, we extend his contract by one year.

Following his remarks, Campbell made a motion that "based on the results of the board's evaluation, Dr. Clark's performance has been determined to be acceptable, and further, based on this acceptable performance, we extend his contract by one year."

John E. Campbell is a certified public accountant and member of the Cape Girardeau Board of Education. At last week's meeting of the board of education, Campbell made the motion made the motion to extend Dr. Clark's contract for another year.