School board looks past conflict questions and investigation to keep Nease on board into 2022

June 13, 2020  |  By Lisa Scagliotti

Superintendent Bridget Nease. File photo by Gordon Miller.

The Harwood Union School Board this week worked through conflict-of-interest questions and looked past an impending investigation to vote to offer the superintendent a one-year contract renewal to end in June 2022. 

In a statement issued Friday, the board elaborated on the rationale behind its 9-5 vote Wednesday night after a lengthy executive session to discuss Superintendent Brigid Nease’s job evaluation and contract status. 

It acknowledged the strain in the district around the issue of leadership. 

“It is time for our Board to lead the way in unifying our district. We know there is much work to be done and we are confident that Superintendent Nease can continue to provide effective leadership during this transition period. We are committed to moving towards intentional and positive changes that build up our schools, our students and our community,” the board’s statement says.  

With the district since 2009, Nease’s current contract runs through June 2021. The board must notify her by September 1 whether it plans to offer her a new contract, something the group decided to do before it takes its summer recess. 

The board met in person for the first time since mid-March when the  COVID-19 pandemic led to school closures and a statewide stay home order. Since then meetings have been by video conference. 

The meeting was held over Zoom with members individually logged in from separated locations at Harwood Union High School. Only a small portion of the meeting was in public with the discussion and deliberation about Nease’s employment in closed session. 

When the board emerged, it immediately took a vote on extending the contract by one year, through June 2022. Nease earlier had expressed a preference for a two-year contract that would have ended in mid-2023. 

Given the board’s weighted voting structure, the 9-5 vote was actually a  70-30 percent split. 

Waterbury’s four representatives -- Chair Caitlin Hollister, Michael Frank, Kelley Hackett, Alexandra Thomsen -- voted in favor of the new contract. Joining them were Duxbury representatives Alec Adams and Torrey Smith, the board’s vice chair. Waitsfield board members Christine Sullivan and Jeremy Tretiak along with Rosemarie White from Warren were the other affirmative votes. 

Both members from Moretown, Lisa Mason and Kristen Rodgers, and Fayston’s Theresa Membrino and Tim Jones opposed the move along with Warren member Jonathan Clough. 

The meeting came to a close after 10:30 p.m. with board Chair Hollister saying she would share more details on the rationale for the decision. On Friday the board issued a statement that outlined the key steps for the next two years with Nease at the helm: 

• Getting through the COVID-related logistical and financial challenges with as much stability as possible.

• Keeping consistent leadership while Harwood Union High School and Warren Elementary School add new principals next school year. 

• Finalizing the district’s overall plan for PreK-12 schools.

• Recruiting, hiring and welcoming a new superintendent in 2022. 

Conflict concerns dismissed

The board’s closed session and decision on Nease’s contract followed a tense discussion where several board members addressed questions raised about whether they had conflicts of interest -- or appearances of conflicts -- that would necessitate them recusing themselves from the superintendent contract discussions and vote.

Moretown lawyer Neil Nussbaum filed formal letters of complaint suggesting that Waterbury board member Michael Frank and Waitsfield member Jeremy Tretiak had conflicts. He cited Tretiak’s work connection with a company that provides contracted services for student behavior support and that Frank’s spouse works for the school district. 

The board’s policy asks that members first address any such questions directly and both Tretiak and Frank discussed their circumstances in detail.

Waterbury member Kelley Hackett also addressed her connection with the district by running a home preschool program that receives state funding through the school district. 

Board members appearing satisfied with the explanations offered no further challenges to their peers. 

Chair Hollister read a statement in which she said that the only individuals who could not vote on a superintendent’s position would be those employed by the district itself and that would not apply to any board member. She noted that the members in question and all of the board make calls regularly to abstain from votes when they perceive a conflict or appearance of one. 

“I respect their integrity as I do all members of this board and  trust all of us to make the appropriate judgment call,” she said.

Intense public debate leads to investigation

Over the past few weeks, the topic of the superintendent’s contract renewal has sparked a wave of public comment in the form of more than 200 emails to school board members and extensive posts on social media platforms including Front Porch Forum and Facebook. The vast majority of the outcry was in opposition to Nease remaining with the district past her current contract, according to board members.

Community members cited experiences and circumstances throughout Nease’s 11 years in her position in passionate appeals to sway the board vote. 

It was in the course of this public debate ahead of Wednesday’s meeting that comments shared on social media and with the board promoted action from the board. The group met briefly Wednesday in executive session on the matter. When they returned to public session, Hollister said:

“We have received a complaint regarding a conversation that occurred in 2016 between a parent and our superintendent. We will be proceeding with an investigation conducted by an impartial third party. I would like to note that the board will plan to add to our work plan a broader conversation about school climate and racism in our district … That is all we have to say on the matter for tonight and to be continued.” 

Nease has responded to the complaint and it’s allegation of mishandling an incident involving racial harassment. “I abhor racism and racists, and have never spoken in an ambivalent way about institutional racism,” Nease said in a June 7 statement.   

Despite the vigorous public conversations, the board’s process to evaluate a superintendent does not incorporate public input for consideration. It relies solely on a survey of those who work closely with the superintendent -- other district administrators, principals, central office staff and board members themselves -- to provide feedback on a superintendent’s performance. 

The point came into focus at the start of Wednesday’s meeting when just two members of the public offered comments. 

Former Harwood School Board member Steve Odefey from Waterbury said Nease has integrity and his support. He called the social media posts and emails to the board “noise” that the board should ignore. “But you shouldn’t listen to me, you should follow the process,” he said. 

Cory Stephenson of Moretown ticked off a number of examples of what she called Nease’s “divisive tactics” over the years that spread “fear uncertainty and doubt in our communities” ending with: “It is time for a change.”  

In its Friday statement, the board acknowledged the rancor saying that the district’s challenges aren’t solely due to the economy and the pandemic. 

“In recent weeks, we heard from community members who did not advocate for [Nease’s contract] renewal and who are frustrated and upset with the Board,” the statement says. Pointing to its vision statement that seeks to work “in partnership with our community,” the board said it’s begun discussing how to address concerns in the community.

The board also hinted at goals set in Nease’s job evaluation saying that Nease herself “has already identified communications, culture and climate as areas in need of immediate attention.”