In the first evaluations for Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Steve Thompson and Superintendent Michael Robinson, released this week, the Akron Board of Education highlighted the need for the two leaders to have a better working relationship.
Robinson and Thompson, who have worked together for nearly a year, should be meeting at least twice a week, Thompson’s evaluation said.
“The goal of the meetings is to improve communications and to begin to build a strong working relationship,” the evaluation said.
Together, the evaluations paint a picture of a pair of executives who have not prioritized their working relationship.
Robinson’s evaluation, under opportunities for improvement, said the superintendent should “Continue to build strong, collaborative, and cooperative relationships with the treasurer, board of education members, staff, and community.”
That language was altered before the 6-0 vote Monday to approve the evaluation. The original language said Robinson should build stronger relationships; “continue to” was added to the review document; and “stronger” was changed to “strong” after board member Bruce Alexander offered an amendment to the existing review.
Chrystal Morris Harry, managing partner at JBM Strategic Partners in Las Vegas, said such issues shouldn’t have made the employees’ evaluations at all.
Instead, Harry said, the school board should have hired an executive coach to help Robinson and Thompson build a stronger working relationship. She said it’s unfair to put such an issue in a review because it’s not clear if one party is making efforts.
Strengthening relationships an improvement opportunity
In public meetings, Robinson and Thompson have often exchanged pointed remarks. At a June meeting of the finance committee, Robinson said a presentation Thompson made about the potential cost of improving athletic facilities shouldn’t have occurred since the levy voters will consider this fall won’t include money to pay for those upgrades.
“Right now isn’t the time to talk about [it],” Robinson said, saying he was not aware Thompson planned to make the presentation.
“I wish the presentation had been given to me so that I could’ve looked at it before it came to the meeting today. Moving forward, we will not be bringing items to you that right now wouldn’t be prioritized by the board.”
Thompson said the intent of the presentation was to discuss the need for a comprehensive athletics plan; issues regarding athletics have come up at multiple committee meetings in recent months. Rene Molenaur, a member of the school board, asked leaders when it would be appropriate to talk about the district’s athletic needs.
“The timing of nothing seems to be about right,” she said after Robinson’s remarks.
In the section of his review that lists opportunities for improvement, two of Thompson’s three goals related to his relationship with the superintendent. One said he should “Strengthen relationship with superintendent, staff and community-at-large,” while the other calls on him to “Consult and collaborate with superintendent specifically on presentations to the Board of Education and community.”
Morris Harry said opportunities for improvement should have been clearer, offering specific examples of what the leaders should do, particularly in terms of their communication, if it was not acceptable.
Digging in to Thompson’s review
Robinson, through a spokesperson, declined a request for comment for this article. In a statement Tuesday regarding his evaluation, the superintendent said such reviews “keep us on track with our mission.”
“I will continue to foster strong relationships with community leaders and seek innovative solutions to move the entire community forward through continued and ongoing dialogue with all stakeholders,” he said in the statement, which did not mention his relationship with the CFO/treasurer.
“As a superintendent, I will continue to work and collaborate with our board, union leaders, teachers, staff and community. There is no way I can move the district forward without the collective work of our board, union leaders, staff in diverse capacities, scholars, parents and families, and our wonderful community that I am happy to call home.”
Thompson did not return two phone calls seeking comment about his evaluation. That review, released Wednesday, is fewer than 350 words.
The evaluation is based on five goals, but two of them are listed as new and one, ensuring the Kenmore building project is completed on time and on budget in 2026, is no longer relevant, since the duties were transferred to the superintendent.
Of the two relevant goals, one required Thompson to maintain two months of cash reserves and prepare a financial recovery plan if he did not. The other requires Thompson to keep the school board fully apprised of the district’s finances so board members can make sound financial decisions.
The district’s cash reserves exceed $100 million, the review said, while reserves to cover expenses for two months are about $60 million. Thompson consistently provides the board with a detailed financial report, the evaluation said, and had a clean audit.
In addition to building his relationship with the superintendent, Thompson was reviewed on a new goal that said he should create a work culture “that is one of mutual respect, trust, and competence.” A blind survey supports that he is succeeding in that goal, the review said.
Like Robinson, Thompson’s review does not yet have goals listed, though there was a suggestion that the pair collaborate to create an equity dashboard.
In addition to improving his relationship with Robinson, Thompson’s review said he should “Provide professional leadership to inform and engage the public, enhance the image of APS, and highlight its goals and accomplishments.”
His strengths, the evaluation said, are that he is competent and capable, displays professionalism, has a solid understanding of school finance and communicates to the school board and the public regularly and effectively.
‘More robust’ evaluation would be appropriate
For leaders at that level, Morris Harry said, she would expect “more robust” performance reviews and goals.
The reviews don’t include SMART goals, she said — those that are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound. She said nothing in the reviews ties back to boots-on-the-ground employees or to how the work of leaders advances the mission of the organization, from leadership on down.
“They’re goals you would expect to see for more of an entry-level-type role,” Morris Harry said of the evaluations. “The length of the review is not as important as what the review is actually capturing. It should really tell a story about what all has been accomplished. There are not enough comments to understand what this person was truly being tasked with.”
She said the evaluations are written in such a way that it’s difficult to show employee improvement. The reviewers — in this case, members of the school board — needed “a little bit more assistance” to create meaningful goals to evaluate the leaders against, she said.
“Overall, I would expect much more,” she said.
Diana Autry, the school board president, did not return two phone calls Wednesday seeking comment. Tuesday, before Thompson’s evaluation had been released, she said the school board had help creating the evaluations from a consultant with the Ohio School Boards Association.
A lot of the information between the two reviews was similar, Autry said Tuesday. She added that both leaders were still getting acclimated to the way the district runs.
“Those two roles have to work collaboratively together,” she said. “I don’t expect everyone to be in love with either of these employees. If the work is being done, that’s all that matters.”
Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story mischaracterized the Akron Board of Education’s employment relationship with employees other than the superintendent and chief financial officer/treasurer. The superintendent and treasurer are the only employees supervised by the board.