03/19/2026
Just a question. Do you believe that someone earning 6 figures (plus 6 figures in "stipends" and unchecked "honorariums" should have annual goals and an evaluation of job performance?
I know I do.
Apparently a majority of the board do not agree that they should follow policy and law and meaningfully evaluate there ONE employee.
On 3.18.26 I received the following response from the public records officer of the district:
Ms. Bettinger:
Three records at this time have been located that are responsive to your request.
Please note, third party notification has been made to Superintendent Vela pursuant to RCW 42.56.540. Should Mr. Vela nor his legal counsel object to the release of the records, please expect the records on April 8, 2026.
Thank you,
Jerome Wilen
KSD Public Records Office
This response referred to my public record request of 2/12/26. One of the MAIN duties of the board is to evaluate the superintendent. That didn't occur last year in any meaningful way. I requested 5 documents. It looks like 3 are available but, I may never know which 3 because, do we really think Vela (or his lawyers) will "allow" it.
Your tax dollars hard at work!
It appears we are on-track for a non-evaluation again this year.
If you feel like reading further, below is the email I sent on 2.12.26
Good Afternoon Board,
In light of the recent budget crisis announced by the superintendent. It is imperative that the board and superintendent can point to specific, measurable, accountable, relevant and timely goal achievement based upon an "agreed upon criteria" (goals). That is one of the boards first and foremost duties.
Whichever board director is in charge of the agenda should be responsible for ensuring that this evaluative work is part of the annual calendaring agenda. Failing to perform a transparent and honest superintendent evaluation puts the organization at grave risk of legal action on many fronts.
In years past, the Kent School District school board engaged in a multi-step process: public work sessions to set the goals; a public vote to approve the goals; public check-ins mid-year at a minimum/quarterly (best practice); a public meeting for the superintendent to present his final results; the superintendent's private submission of the self-evaluation to the board; the submission of individual board ratings privately submitted to the board president for compilation; once compiled, discussion of the review in executive session. At the end of that process per policy 1630, the board, based on the evaluation, may terminate, renew or extend the superintendent’s contract for periods not to exceed three years.
I haven't seen one meaningful meeting on the public calendar regarding the agenda since the '23-'24 school year. The last meeting that related to the evaluation provess that I can find was the meeting regarding the extension of the superintendent's contract after the board's evaluation of contract year Aug '23 - July '24. That contract was approved in a meeting that began on September 11, 2024 and ended on September 12, 2024.
I did a record request last year for the "agreed upon criteria" for the Superintendent's '24-'25 school year evaluation. It returned "no responsive documents". Yet, somehow an evaluation took place. The only way for that to have happened is if those board directors who conducted the evaluation based their evaluation specifically on the following documents:
The superintendent's self-evaluation for contract year Aug '24-'July '25
The superinendent's job description
A performance appraisal instrument for contract year Aug '24-'July '25
Policy
The Superintendent's contract
I have in my possession/access to, everything from contract year Aug '24-'July '25 except the following the items highlighted above.
But, I cannot find a board meeting where a majority of the board voted to approve goals for this contract year of Aug '25-July '26. In the off-chance that I missed that vote you'll also see that in my request.
NOTE: I'm fully aware the board recently did a review of the strategic plan measures but that is not specifically called out as evaluative criteria by this policy, so please do not include any documents related to that plan. Further, the superintendent's contract is over 20 years old so that wouldn't include language about a strategic plan being evaluative criteria; as that concept of the strategic plan didn't exist in KSD 20 years ago; so unless his contract language specifically names the strategic plan as evaluative criteria then, it doesn't qualify.
Though, in the past, one or two strategic plan goals have been part of a superintendent's "agreed upon criteria" (goals) for a specific year.
Consider this my record request for the following documents:
1. The superintendent's self-evaluation for contract year Aug '24-'July '25
2. A performance appraisal instrument for contract year Aug '24-'July '25
3. The completed performance appraisal for contract year Aug '24-'July '25
4. The agreed upon criteria (board-approved goals) for the contract year Aug '25-July'26
5. The dates of any mid-year goal reviews for contract year Aug '25-July'26
I know the board recently did a review of the strategic plan but that is not specifically called out as evaluative criteria by this policy.
For reference, I have provided the full text from the board policy requiring annual superintendent evaluation. (this was added in the email. Here is the link to that policy: https://go.boarddocs.com/wa/ksdwa/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=86D59T63DE02 )
Sincerely,
Michele Greenwood Bettinger
Evaluation is primarily for the purpose of improving educational performance, professional growth, ensuring adherence to policy and contract, and strengthening the working relationship between the board, community and the superintendent.