Superintendent Tucker's contract renewed by school board

LACONIA — A three-year contract renewal for superintendent Steve Tucker was approved by the Laconia School Board at its June 7 meeting. After public comment both in support of and criticizing Tucker, after concern from board members that there ought to be further evaluation of Tucker before approving his contract, and after a more than 30-minute-long nonpublic session on the matter, the board voted 5-2 to approve a three-year contract. 

Board member Laura Dunn said that she felt “uneasy” about voting on Tucker’s contract without further review of its terms and evaluation of his performance. Dunn said that all other administrative contracts had evaluations prior to approval and that there was insufficient evaluation this year of Tucker compared to past practice by the board. She expressed support for tabling the contract vote to allow for further meetings about it or instead approving a one-year contract. 

Board Chair Aaron Hayward noted that Tucker’s contract expires June 30 and allowing it to expire by delaying the vote, without having made the required advance notice of non-renewal or termination, put the district at risk of being in breach of contract.

“It has been a long, difficult year with a lot of long, difficult questions,” Hayward said. “My thought is, what more do we need to know at this point? We’re not going to learn anything new.” He suggested that, if Dunn wanted a board meeting on the contract, she motion to enter a non-public session for immediate discussion rather than delay the contract vote by tabling. According to the board, Tucker’s last evaluation was in August 2021, within twelve months of his contract renewal. 

“But a lot has happened in the last twelve months,” said board member Dawn Johnson. 

“The discussion we had last year… was that we were going to dipstick along the way and be able to check in with the superintendent to provide ongoing feedback,” Hayward said, describing how the events of the last year had prevented the board from being able to perform those evaluations as regularly as it intended. “There is a point at which being able to walk and chew gum at the same time is an unreasonable request.”

Dunn said she felt it would be against her responsibility as an elected official to vote on the contract, including the 3% raise, before having the appropriate “mindful discussions.”

Board members Jennifer Ulrich and Jennifer Anderson also noted that the compensation increases in administrative contracts, including Tucker’s, were standard for district administrators and are not tied to merit or performance. The concern of the board, Anderson emphasized, is not in the minutia of job performance but rather whether the contract for the administrator in question will be renewed, with the standard increase, or not. 

“It’s a cost of living increase, really,” agreed board member Heather Drolet. 

Public commenters in favor of Tucker argued that those opposed to him – such as signatories to a petition in favor of his immediate removal – were part of a loud minority with an agenda against the board. 

Mark Townsend said that the petition to remove Tucker should not be considered by the board. He said that the petition came from a group who had opposed Tucker for some time – according to Townsend because “they are opposed to teaching in our school that is against sexism and racism. They were opposed to measures to keep our kids healthy and safe” – and were leveraging controversy about the non-renewal of Pleasant Street Elementary Principal David Levesque to sway public opinion. 

“I don’t know about the principal of Pleasant Street; I don’t know if he should stay or go,” Townsend said, “but they jumped on that.”

Public comments against approval of Tucker’s new contract focused on the Levesque’s question, which has yet to be publicly addressed by Tucker or by the board. 

Liana Crowell, who identified herself as the author of the petition, said, “It is in the best interest of the district, the board and the community for the board to resolve these [personnel] issues before considering a contract renewal for the superintendent. His indiscretions could be costly and detrimental to the city.” In an interview, Crowell said that someone associated with the Laconia School District informed her that multiple lawsuits concerning Tucker would be brought to the district in the near future. 

Liane Clairmont said that, in the past, she had been a supporter of Tucker and the board, noting especially that she appreciated their approach to the pandemic. The non-renewal of Levesque’s contract, she said, made her concerned for the “ethics, morals and motivations” of Tucker. 

“What I’ve witnessed has made me very concerned for our district and our community,” Clairmont said. “Seeing a valued principal get pushed off long enough that we essentially handed him off on a silver platter to another district was very upsetting to me.”

“I am respectfully asking for the board, if you can, to table this vote,” Clairmont said, voicing support for Dunn. “I don’t take lightly a request for you to take someone’s job away. That’s a big deal. But what I am asking for tonight is to just take a beat, take a minute.” 

Dunn motioned for the board go into a non-public session, after which it voted to approve the contract as proposed, with Johnson and Dunn voting against the majority.

“I am honored to serve in Laconia School District as superintendent for another three years,” said Tucker on Wednesday. When asked about remaining questions by the public about the situation with Levesque, Tucker said, “I am staying focused on serving the students, parents and faculty of the district. I wish Mr. Levesque the best as he transitions to his new role at Franklin High School.”