BREWER, Maine — Whether the city should require the next school superintendent to reside in Brewer was discussed by the City Council earlier this month, and now a public hearing on the matter has been scheduled for March 13.
Councilor Larry Doughty requested the public hearing on changing the city charter to require the school superintendent to be a Brewer resident after learning that the current superintendent, Daniel Lee, is retiring next year.
The public hearing is scheduled for 6 p.m. March 13 in the council chambers, and written comments also will be accepted until 4 p.m. that day, City Clerk Howard Kroll said in the public notice announcing the meeting.
Under the proposed change, “any Superintendent of Schools contract beginning July 1, 2013, and thereafter” would require the superintendent to “become a resident of the City of Brewer within one year after his or her employment begins,” the notice states.
Any change in the city charter requires voter approval, Kroll noted Friday.
After the public hearing is held, “The City Council is going to set a date to actually put that in front of the voters,” the city clerk said. “That would be at the June election, the September special election or the November presidential election.”
Doughty would like the city charter amendment referendum to take place when residents head to the polls in June, Kroll said.
Written comments should be addressed to Brewer City Council, c/o City Clerk, 80 North Main St., Brewer 04412.
How did we get to a point where the citizens of Brewer should decide issues of this nature? Didn’t we elect a school board? Perhaps the Vice Principal of the High School should be rquired to live within 2 miles in case a student requires emergency discipline. The chief(s) of police and fire are required to live where? Just the fact that this is up for discussion will turn away some quality candidates before the process even begins.
I don’t have a dog in this fight but here’s a thought that adds to your last sentence. If the super lived in another, yet close town, maybe he/she would have a non biased oppinion of issues and be able to bring new/fresh ideas to the table.
I had made the folowing points when this appeared before: Let’s suppose that Brewer hires a Super with 4 children that will attend school in Brewer.What teacher wants to flunk the Super’s son in Chemistry, What drama coach wants to tell the Super’s’s daughter that she didn’t get the big part? What basketball caoch wants to cut the Super’s not so talented freshmen? What football coach wants to tell the super’s kid that he won’t be starting at QB. Most school employees in general- quite frankly- prefer to live outside the town or city where they work-for good reason.
Is it legal to require someone live in a certain town? It’s not like they’re talking about a town manager. Living within a certain distance happens with lots of jobs, but that is ridiculous.
Sounds like councilors may already have a future superintendent in mind. Good superintendents are difficult to recruit and by demanding that they live in Brewer further limits the pool of applicants.