5J evaluation needs the personal touch

Voters in the Baker School District don't pick the district's superintendent, but they do elect five school board members whom they entrust not only to hire a skilled administrator, but to make sure the superintendent succeeds.

To that end, board members measure the superintendent's performance each year.

We're not convinced, though, that the board's recent evaluation of superintendent Don Ulrey was as useful as it could have been — to board members, to Ulrey, and to the district's patrons.

Each board member filled out a form in which they could rate Ulrey in 20 categories, ranging from his enthusiasm for the job, to his sense of humor. The rating scale was a range of 1-4, with 4 being the best possible score.

The evaluation form is comprehensive, and it covers the gamut of attributes that a superintendent who earns $97,599 per year ought to have mastered.

Unfortunately, board members didn't sign the evaluations, so Ulrey doesn't know how each member scored his work.

Board members should sign their evaluations — why should they be cloaked in anonymity when they're judging the superintendent's performance?

More important, the board should, as member Damien Yervasi has suggested, schedule a meeting during which each member can discuss his or her findings with Ulrey, and tell him in which categories he excels, and in which he could improve.

It's far better in this case for board members to talk with Ulrey than to simply jot down a series of numbers. Like any employee, he's entitled to know how he's doing, in the opinion of the people who decide whether he keeps his job.

Voters deserve the same. When a voter asks a board member how the superintendent is doing, the voter should expect that the board member will answer with words and specific examples rather than saying the superintendent is "about a 3.5."

Oregon's public meetings law allows the school board to discuss the superintendent's performance during a private session, so neither board members nor the superintendent can claim that they could not be candid.

We would, however, recommend the school board at least summarize their evaluations during a public meeting.

That would confirm for voters that the people they elected to manage the district have scrutinized the superintendent's work, and suggested ways in which he or she could do better.

That, after all, is one of the board's more vital responsibilities.