Saturday, August 31, 2024–5:30 p.m.
-Rachel Hartdegen, Rome News-Tribune-
This story is possible because of a news-sharing agreement with the Rome News-Tribune. More information can be found at northwestgeorgianews.com
The evaluation was completed during a called board meeting on Aug. 19 and the Rome News-Tribune acquired the evaluation summary through the Open Records Act. Georgia law only requires that the summary of the performance evaluation is available to the public.
Overall the review was positive with the board praising Holland’s community engagement, professional development for staff and aligning the district’s vision and mission.
The district’s gifted program and Holland’s collaboration and partnership with outside organizations was a source of pride for the board. That includes his partnership with Kennesaw State University and Berry College.
The three areas Holland was rated the lowest were in regards to his leadership and maintenance of school facilities. In these areas the board stated that Holland didn’t meet his performance requirements.
The board stated that the superintendent needs to discuss leadership decisions with them and then wait for board approval before moving forward. In the last year there have been too many changes, they stated in the review summary, and there needs to be better communication with the board.
A recurring complaint from the board concerned what they termed as information overload through emails and texts or during caucus. Members of the board felt that ideas are being lost amid a constant influx of information and they requested better organization and fewer changes, including the introduction of new initiatives.
The hiring and treatment of personnel was another concern brought by the Rome Board of Education members. Decisions on hiring shouldn’t be rushed and requests need to be discussed with board members before actions are taken.
Hiring employees should be done with the students in mind, the review stated. Leadership should be “big-picture goal focused and thoroughly communicated with the board.”
Within the district, the board voiced concerns about micromanaging personnel that can lead to a toxic work environment. They stated that the superintendent needs to create consistent work environment expectations and ensure that preferential treatment is not given to certain employees.
The last of the ten areas Holland was evaluated on was the care and maintenance of school facilities.
The board rated his performance as needing development in this area. They cited issues with the HVAC system and cleanliness at certain schools in the summary and the board asked to review the five-year facilities plan with the superintendent.
Board members contacted on Friday declined or were unavailable to comment on the points of the review.
