One school trustee rates James as near-perfect
By SCOTT POWELL Ledger Staff Writer spowell@gaffneyledger.com

The Cherokee County School Board paused for a photo Monday, Nov. 12 following a board reorganization. Pictured are (front row, left to right) Sandra Greene, Lindley Auton, and Amanda Knowles. (Back row, left to right) Willie Crosby, Barry Bailey, Donnie Lee Smith and Mike Ellis.

Numbers are the only insight local residents will gain on how school trustees feel about the job performance of Cherokee County School Superintendent Dr. Bill James.

James has been superintendent since February of 2001. At its Oct. 30 meeting, school board members gave James a one-year contract extension to June 30, 2010.

James saw his salary increase from $124,808 to $128,939 annually when all district employees, including administrators, received the state's 3.31 percent raise in this year's $58.6 million school budget.

School board chairman Donnie Lee Smith hand-delivered copies of the board members evaluations to The Gaffney Ledger on Tuesday afternoon in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the newspaper Nov. 9.

Dr. Bill James

James was evaluated by board members on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest score possible. He was evaluated on job knowledge, quality of work, initiative, handling of personnel and curriculum issues and financial management.

A perfect total score would be 65.

James received a high score of 64. Two school trustees gave him a score of 60. The superintendent's other evaluation scores were 57, 51, 49, 47 and 41.

School board members did not sign their names or provide any written comments on their evaluation forms.

At the Oct. 30 meeting, trustees requested board attorney Ken Darr provide the school board with a minimum of three different options for a superintendent evaluation format.

School trustee Amanda Knowles said there was no place on the evaluation form for board members to provide more specific comments on the superintendent's job performance.

"I am one of several board members that would like to see the evaluation format changed," Knowles said. "I think the current evaluation form is based more around the overall performance of the district and the district administration that has been put in place rather than an evaluation of the superintendent's job."

Darr scored the superintendent evaluations and shared the results with board members after an hour-long closed session. This year, school board members were asked to circle a number based on the description that best fit their opinion of the superintendent's performance in a specific area.

For example, James received a "5" from most board members in the area of organizational structuring. The evaluation form described a "5" in this category as "provides innovative proposals for restructuring or supports the existing structure with thorough reasons."

James received high marks in the areas of job knowledge, curriculum development and quality of work.

The superintendent received mixed reviews in the areas of his interaction with community groups and "disposition," which described his professional attitude towards working with district employees.

One board member gave the superintendent a "2" rating for disposition. A "2" in this category was described as "has difficulty working with others; some tendency to be indifferent to others."

This was one of the few negatives on the superintendent evaluation.

Most board members gave James "outstanding" and "very good" ratings for his overall leadership in efforts to improve the district's student achievement.

"Dr. James had a good evaluation," school trustee Willie Crosby said. "We are pleased with the job he has done as superintendent. We are glad he is coming back for another school year."