Click Below for Additional Meeting Resources:
Meeting Opening and Pledge of Allegiance (Link: 00:00:00 – 00:00:00)
Williams called the meeting to order at 6:02 PM on Tuesday, September 30, 2025. The meeting began with the Pledge of Allegiance, which was recited by the attendees present.
Public Comment and School Updates (Link: 00:00:00 – 00:03:00)
Williams asked if there were any commendations and, receiving none, moved to public comment. No one online raised their hand to make public comment, so Williams concluded that portion of the meeting.
Carlson provided an update on Marblehead High School activities. She reported that fall sports teams are performing well, with boys soccer at 6-2, golf at 8-2-1, volleyball at 7-2, field hockey at 3-3-2, boys cross country advancing to 2-3, girls cross country advancing to 5-0, and football at 4-0. The early risers basketball club began that day at 6:15 AM in the field house. The marching band has begun their performances, including a successful performance at the previous Friday’s football game.
Carlson reported that seniors are in the midst of their college application process, with school counselors and teachers working on recommendations before the October 15 application deadlines. Nearly 100 colleges, including Dartmouth, will visit MHS throughout October and November. She reminded attendees that AP payments are due and should be submitted to Ms. Shatford in the library. Eight MHS students were recognized in the 2026 National Merit Scholarship program, with senior Ian Schemel named as a semifinalist. October 22 is scheduled for the PSAT for freshmen, sophomores, and juniors, while freshmen will conduct their day service and seniors can participate in a college essay writing seminar or college visit.
Carlson announced that on October 8, the school will participate in the Mass General Hospital Surf Substance Use and Risk Related Factors Survey. She noted that seniors in health class are currently completing a CPR unit that includes certification, building upon the 8th grade CPR unit. She concluded by informing attendees that the boosters are having their annual donation drive at 11:30 AM on Saturday, with student athletes walking around town in MHS gear.
Meeting Minutes Approval and Village School Donation (Link: 00:03:00 – 00:05:00)
Williams noted that there were no schedule of bills to be approved and requested a motion to approve the meeting minutes from July 2, 2025, July 31, 2025, and September 18, 2025. A committee member made the motion and another seconded it. During discussion, a committee member noted that the September 18 minutes were missing some names of who made and seconded motions and requested that those be added. Another committee member indicated they had the necessary information and were fine with approving the minutes with the understanding that the corrections would be made. The motion passed four to zero with one abstention.
Williams then requested a motion to accept a donation intended to benefit the students of Village School. He explained that the Village School PTO would like to donate funds to have water bottle filling stations installed in each of the cafeterias at Village School. Each filling station costs $1,703 with an estimated $800 for plumbing, bringing the total project cost to $4,206. A committee member made the motion and another seconded it. After brief discussion, the motion passed five to zero.
Town Charter Review Discussion (Link: 00:05:00 – 00:09:00)
Williams asked for an update on the town charter review. A committee member explained that the town charter committee has created draft B and is asking boards and committees to review sections describing their duties and responsibilities, looking for corrections to factual errors. The committee member reviewed Article 6, Section 6.8, which covers the school committee, and had one concern about the broad statement regarding powers and duties followed by four specific areas of responsibility.
The committee member noted that the draft did not address the school committee’s responsibility for overseeing the budget once approved by town meeting. After discussing this with Amy Drinker and Sean Casey, they proposed adding sentence 4.5 stating that the school committee shall be responsible for monitoring budgetary compliance in the school department. This language tracks with the Long Meadow charter, which served as the basis for much of their charter language. The committee member noted there is a separate Article 9 focused on budget development and approval, but not budget administration.
Another committee member expressed reluctance to comment on the charter section, stating it represents only a small snapshot of the school committee’s responsibilities and questioning whether it could be all-encompassing. The committee member noted that while budgetary compliance is a responsibility, so is developing the budget, though that appears in a separate section. This committee member indicated the charter language is too simplified and that anything could be missing, noting that the document would ultimately go before town meeting for approval.
Williams asked if there were other major responsibilities that should be included, wanting to ensure nothing significant was missing when people compare the charter to other documents describing the committee’s work. The committee member reiterated concerns about the simplified nature of the document and the difficulty of capturing all responsibilities, noting uncertainty about how the responsibilities were synthesized and the challenge of documenting every responsibility comprehensively.
School Committee Goals Discussion and Open Meeting Law Concerns (Link: 00:10:00 – 00:21:00)
A committee member concluded their report on the town charter review, stating they had been requested to report back to the committee after reviewing the document. Williams then moved to discuss school committee goals for the year, noting that six SMART goals had been submitted by members and circulated. He asked members who submitted goals to briefly explain their goals and importance, while ensuring deliverables were attainable within the one-year timeframe.
Schaeffner raised concerns about an open meeting law violation, stating that the document shared with committee members represented opinions of members that should not have been shared in advance with a quorum. She explained that typically the committee would come together in a workshop or open meeting to bring ideas and synthesize them, rather than sharing ideas in advance with the entire committee. Schaeffner argued that sharing member opinions with a quorum in advance constituted a violation and made a motion for the committee to self-report.
Williams expressed respect for Schaeffner’s opinion but suggested consulting with legal counsel first to verify whether a violation occurred before self-reporting. A committee member seconded the motion for discussion, noting that while the intention was to provide suggested goals for discussion rather than share member opinions, it was worth investigating. Schaeffner maintained that self-reporting would be appropriate and that there was no harm in doing so, as the attorney general’s office would determine if a violation occurred.
The committee discussed the costs and process of investigation versus self-reporting. Schaeffner explained that the violation occurred because a quorum was made aware of some members’ opinions outside of an open meeting, which should have been done in an open meeting setting. The motion to self-report passed four to one.
Schaeffner then discussed potential remedies for the reported violation, including making the document public, attending open meeting law training, and committing not to repeat such actions. She noted that while some members may have completed online training for newly elected officials, in-person training would be beneficial as it allows for specific questions and scenarios. Williams indicated he would investigate available training opportunities and forward information to the committee.
Schaeffner suggested the committee consider bringing in a facilitator for the goals discussion, noting that school committee goals relate to superintendent goals and operating procedures, and that a facilitator could help synthesize different opinions as had been done in the past. Williams expressed openness to this approach if it would produce a better result, though it would add time to the process. Committee members agreed to have preliminary conversations about goals while potentially arranging for a facilitator to assist with the process.
Individual Goal Presentations and Discussion (Link: 00:21:00 – 01:05:00)
Williams asked Gwazda to present his two goals first. Gwazda explained that his goals were reactions to community feedback and focused on better communication while developing tools for future committees. His first goal was to tell district and committee stories using existing resources like superintendent updates and student updates, while developing additional distribution tools. The goal would cover meeting discussions, school happenings, and success stories from schools through a workflow for press releases, submissions, and newsletters. Gwazda indicated this seemed very doable within a one-year timeframe with a proposed launch date in mid-November, and he offered to own this goal. A committee member expressed willingness to help with this goal.
Gwazda presented his second goal of building a goals tracker that the public could use to track the committee’s progress and deadlines. He described using Google tools to create a manageable sheet tracker that could be published on the website, with the tracker built by the end of October and launched in November. He emphasized the importance of documentation so the work wouldn’t be forgotten if he left the committee. A committee member expressed excitement about this goal, noting it would provide consistency and expectations. Williams appreciated that the framework would keep goals visible and discussed regularly rather than only reviewing them at year-end.
Clucas presented her goal on enhancing community communication and engagement, which involved conducting a baseline survey in the fall to understand how informed the community feels about accessibility of information and communication. She proposed using this baseline to drive improvements and conduct a follow-up survey in the spring, along with post-meeting instant recaps within a week of 90% of committee meetings. She noted this was achievable because it built on existing work and would demonstrate that the committee cares and is listening to the community.
Clucas presented another goal on strengthening financial transparency and community understanding, aimed at improving how Marblehead families and community members understand school budgets. The goal included making cost drivers and opportunities clear, offering dialogue opportunities, and building trust through transparent budget allocation. She proposed using one-pagers, public presentation decks, public meetings, community forums, and surveys to measure community understanding from fall to spring semester. She noted this was particularly important given the challenging budget year ahead and the need to explain funding requests while enrollment declines.
A committee member presented a goal on elevating educator voices, proposing to hold listening sessions jointly with administration to understand educators’ perspectives on issues the committee focuses on. The sessions could be school-specific or topic-specific, covering issues like budget or student services. The goal also included exploring adding an educator representative to sit at the table during school committee meetings and having the student representative play a more active role, similar to how some districts include CPAC representatives.
Schaeffner raised concerns about the educator representative proposal, noting the committee has a policy regarding teachers and the need to check with legal counsel. She emphasized the importance of respecting the relationship between the superintendent and staff, as the committee only supervises the superintendent, not individual staff members. She suggested getting input from union leadership and the superintendent about how such a process would work to avoid putting anyone in an uncomfortable position.
The discussion expanded to include student representation, with Schaeffner expressing that while many school committees have student representatives, having one student represent an entire student body may be unrealistic. She suggested that enhancing student voice should be part of the district improvement plan and the superintendent’s responsibility rather than a school committee goal, as the committee is responsible for budget, policy, and overseeing the superintendent, not day-to-day operations including student organization.
Schaeffner emphasized that the committee’s goals should focus on their core responsibilities of budget, policy, and overseeing the superintendent. She suggested goals should include securing adequate funding for schools given the upcoming significant budget ask, developing a zero-based budget with staff accountability data to support the budget request to the town, and working with the superintendent on the district improvement plan. She viewed communication as the committee’s responsibility but believed goals should center on their primary duties.
Gwazda agreed with Schaeffner’s perspective, noting that communication is essential to all goals, particularly for effectively communicating with the community about the budget. He suggested that communication tools need to be built to effectively carry out core responsibilities like budget approval.
A committee member presented a goal supporting the superintendent in completing the district improvement plan, emphasizing the importance of public understanding of the plan and the committee’s role in high-level planning and strategy. The goal included thinking about strategic planning going forward and the committee’s role once the district improvement plan is completed, ensuring future goal-setting would be more aligned with district direction.
Williams indicated he would reach out to MASC to request a facilitator to help develop the goals the committee would vote on. Schaeffner cautioned about being aware of the resources needed for the proposed goals, noting that Marblehead has a very lean organization with limited administrative support compared to other districts. She emphasized the need to avoid over-promising and under-delivering, suggesting close collaboration with the superintendent to understand what resources are available.
Gwazda agreed about being resource-conscious, noting his intention to use existing tools and avoid recurring costs to ensure longevity. Schaeffner reiterated concerns about asking for administrative support when there is limited capacity, emphasizing the need to work closely with the superintendent to understand what resources are available and adjust goals accordingly. The discussion concluded with agreement that committee members would be responsible for communications rather than the administration, and consideration of social media as a time-effective communication method.
Superintendent Evaluation Process (Link: 01:05:00 – 01:10:00)
Williams moved to discuss the superintendent evaluation process, noting it was another important task beyond setting committee goals and that they would likely use a facilitator as they had in the past. He explained there is an end-of-cycle summative evaluation where the superintendent first fills out his progress against his goals, followed by components where committee members would individually write their assessments. Williams noted there are performance standards and actual goals that need to be evaluated as a committee, emphasizing the importance of facilitation to avoid violating open meeting law while creating a composite evaluation that incorporates all ratings and comments.
Williams indicated the process overview and evaluation forms had been placed in the Dropbox for committee members to review. He stated that over the next few meetings, the committee had two big priorities: establishing school committee goals and conducting the superintendent evaluation.
Schaeffner noted that the superintendent is on an off-cycle, operating from October to October, and clarified that while they were well into the school year, it was still within the evaluation cycle. She emphasized that evaluations are conducted in open meetings and strongly discouraged the past practice where one or two committee members would come together to compile a composite evaluation separately. Schaeffner advocated for each member to come to the committee with their individual evaluation to discuss and compile together so all members would be heard.
Williams agreed with Schaeffner’s approach. A committee member asked whether the same evaluation form is used every year. Schaeffner confirmed it was the same form and explained that DESE has certain requirements for the superintendent evaluation. She noted that while they may not have to use the DESE form for mid-cycle evaluations, they do conduct both mid-cycle and final evaluations, with the summative evaluation being submitted to DESE.
Williams clarified the terminology, explaining that DESE and MASC refer to the mid-cycle evaluation as a formative assessment and the end-of-cycle evaluation as a summative assessment. Schaeffner noted there was a principal evaluation form included by mistake that should be removed. She explained that it would be the superintendent’s responsibility to provide his self-assessment and relevant data for his specific goals, while committee members could use anecdotal evidence and their experience with him in their evaluations. Williams noted that newer members who might not feel comfortable or haven’t been present long enough could choose not to fill out the evaluation.
Subcommittee and Liaison Updates (Link: 01:10:00 – 01:18:00)
Williams asked for subcommittee and liaison updates. Gwazda reported on two meetings he attended. He met with CPAC and had a positive experience, discussing what they wanted from the liaison relationship with the school committee. He noted that discussions around the special education budget would be important to them and offered to invite other committee members, particularly those from the budget committee like Schaeffner or Clucas, to join a CPAC meeting when they were ready for that discussion. Gwazda also mentioned that CPAC is looking for new members.
Gwazda reported on the first meeting of the roof committee, which went well. The meeting included another presentation from Left Field and RDA, focusing on introductions and reviewing the timeline for upcoming decisions, particularly around what could be applied versus recovery options. He described it as a knowledgeable group and thanked Williams for helping assemble the committee.
Clucas reported that the policy subcommittee had a meeting that morning and would be bringing provisions forward, with plans to discuss with Williams which October agenda would be most appropriate. Schaeffner added that they would be meeting monthly unless there were urgent issues and emphasized that any subcommittee, including policy, takes direction from the full committee. She invited committee members to come forward with any policies they had questions about or wanted to modify, add, or rescind, noting they were doing administrative work updating policies for minor issues and hoped to start a full review.
Williams raised a question about kindergarten enrollment age requirements, noting that many people had asked him about when students can start kindergarten. He believed the current policy was based on turning a certain age by the start of the school year, which could create inconsistencies depending on when the school year begins relative to September 1st. He noted that many districts in the state use September 31st as a specific date and asked if this could be explored. Schaeffner indicated this might be a superintendent decision rather than a policy issue but agreed they could explore it and suggested hearing from both parents and teachers on the matter.
Gwazda mentioned hearing feedback at the CPAC meeting about the tardiness policy. Schaeffner disagreed with the policy and noted that if students have accommodations, the policy should not apply to them, with such accommodations typically addressed through IEPs. She indicated that the assistant superintendent for student services, who attends CPAC meetings, would be the appropriate person to address these concerns.
Gwazda provided a facilities update, noting they had met on the 5th and that most updates were provided by Pfifferling at the previous meeting, covering the extensive work completed over the summer. He mentioned they would be looking at school signage as an upcoming project and expressed excitement about diving into that work, having already started background research.
New Business and Executive Session Motion (Link: 01:18:00 – 01:24:00)
Williams asked if there was any new business. Gwazda raised a question about charter school liaison responsibilities, noting he had received a comment that morning about there being a liaison to charter schools in the school community. Schaeffner indicated there was also supposed to be a liaison to something else. Gwazda expressed interest in rekindling the relationship between the committee and charter schools but was unsure whether the liaison role belonged to the committee or the superintendent. He indicated he would research the matter and potentially return to the next meeting with findings. Schaeffner suggested he speak with the superintendent about who sits on what committees, noting that the superintendent attends various meetings.
Williams brought up the MASC conference in November, noting that several committee members would be attending. He explained that if they wanted to have someone vote at the delegate assembly, they needed to submit a delegate who must be formally voted upon by the school committee. The delegate form must be submitted by October 20, so they would need to vote on a delegate at their next meeting if they chose to have one. Williams asked committee members to consider their interest in serving as a delegate.
Schaeffner noted that delegates vote on a slate of questions, so the committee would need to review those questions and provide direction to the delegate on how to vote. Williams asked if the lack of a delegate in recent years was related to this requirement. Schaeffner clarified that they had occasionally had delegates in the past and noted that delegate activities occur on the very last afternoon of the conference. She suggested reviewing the slate of questions, which are typically aspirational messages that MASC members want to send to DESE or the legislature, to determine if the committee felt strongly enough about any issues to send a delegate.
Williams then requested a motion to enter executive session for two purposes under Chapter 30A, Section 21A3, Purpose 3. The first was to discuss litigation between the Marblehead School Committee and Marblehead Teachers Association, case MUPL S24-10570, as an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the committee’s litigating position. The second was to discuss threatened litigation by former student services chairperson Lawrence Skelton Lear, as an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the committee’s litigating position. Williams declared there was no intent to return to open session for either matter.
A committee member moved the motion and another seconded it. Williams conducted a roll call vote, with Schaeffner, Clucas, Gwazda, and Williams all voting in favor. The motion passed five to zero. Williams then restated the purposes for executive session and declared that they were now in executive session, noting they could move to another room.
All About Town provides all information in a good faith effort to improve community engagement and awareness. However, text is generated by artificial intelligence, and we make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information provided herein. Use of the site and reliance on any information on the site is solely at each individual’s own risk.