W-G administrators work reviewed
WAYNESFIELD — Two Waynesfield-Goshen Local Schools administrators received mixed results during their recent evaluation from school board members.
Superintendent Chris Pfister received high marks for his performance at his position, while school board members highlighted several concerns on the evaluation of district Treasurer Doug Passet.
Board members were in consensus on Pfister’s evaluation, as he had no unsatisfactory marks detailed on his evaluation.
Comments on his evaluation included — “Chris does a great job working with everyone. He is a leader,” “Board is kept well informed and he is very organized,” “… puts the board goals as his No. 1 priority,” and “he has vision for the district.”
Board President Doug Pepple said the comments on the evaluation speak for themselves.
“He works to improve student achievement and he has taken the goals of the school board to heart,” Pepple said. “I believe he is working well with staff and faculty, and the comments reflect that.”
Pfister signed a contract with the school district in March that is through July 31.
He served as interim superintendent since November 2011 before signing on after previous superintendent Joanne Kerekes announced her resignation in September 2011.
Pfister passed off his evaluation as a result of teamwork from within the school district.
“I appreciate the board’s recognition of the dedicated work and accomplishments of the faculty and staff over the past year,” Pfister said. “Their commitment to student student achievement resulted in an ‘Excellent with Distinction’ for the middle school and high school and together, at the same time, we were able to achieve fiscal stability.
“With all of the new mandates, rising test requirements, and continuing fiscal pressure it will be hard to move forward, but I have absolute confidence that everyone here will continue to work hard for the children of our district,” he said.
Board members extended a contract extension to Pfister, who came out of retirement to take the position. Pfister said he is still evaluating what he will do regarding the contract offer.
While Passet’s evaluation was not underachieving, board members pointed out several concerns they would like to see addressed.
Two board members said his performance was unsatisfactory in “collecting all monies due the board” and “works cooperatively with people within and without the school.”
Concerns mentioned on the evaluation included a board member stating they were “dissappointed that after two years a former board member and former superintendents’ names were still on bank records.”
Another board member said Passet’s evaluation in 2011 asked that the district be “taken to the next level,” but wrote “I think we are still at the same level.”
Other concerns cited by the board included that a clear picture of the true deficit was not given to the board, leading to an appearance of dishonesty and severe lack of attention to financial detail during negotiating with staff and faculty.
Also, an administrative assistant position was still listed in appropriations for 2012-13 even though the position had been eliminated at the end of fiscal year 2010-11. Also, it was commented that administration had to point out that bank accounts did not have updated account users, with former Superintendent Ernie Jones still on the list of account users.
Pepple said board members were not specific on any one problem, and they were simply asking for improvement in the areas mentioned on the evaluation.
“Again, the comments on the evaluation speak for themselves,” Pepple said.
Passet declined comment on the evaluation.