School board in work session to review district priorities and upcoming initiatives

On Nov. 2, the Gunnison Watershed School District held a work session at Crested Butte Community Schools to discuss staff housing options, superintendent evaluation practices, school calendar and more.

Cathie Pagano of Abundance Community Advisors presented a proposal to help the district determine how best to address staff housing needs. She proposed helping the district build on its existing housing action plan and employee survey to identify ways to address staff housing needs. The district’s long-term goal is 15-20 units below 140% of area median income, primarily rental, while the near-term discussion focused on securing 3-4 units.

The proposed analysis would compare buying existing or planned homes, master leasing units, and developing housing either independently or with a partner. It would assess costs, timing, risks, use of district capital, and fit with the board’s priorities, while updating the staff survey and reviewing local housing projects and possible fund programs. She described the aim as an “apples-to-apples” comparison to help the board assess what its approximately $2 million could accomplish under different approaches.

“There isn’t one magical way that’s going to fix it,” said Pagano. “But we need to try to use all of the tools at our disposal.”

The analysis was estimated to take three to four months, starting in November, with an initial comparison and financial modeling followed by recommendations in January or February. The board raised questions about whether the analysis would be worth the cost and if findings could be outdated. Some members supported the proposal because they valued Pagano’s local experience; others stressed the need to make a timely decision and stay focused on the district’s priorities. The presentation was made as a consideration, and no decision was made.

George Welsh of the Rural Superintendent Academy advised the board on evaluating Superintendent Bill Summers. He praised this district for having a process underway and encouraged the board to use its current rubric for this first cycle rather than delay until it is perfect. The rubric includes 13 broad focus areas and Welsh suggested that future evaluations could narrow the board’s main priorities to roughly 3-5.

The discussion focused on gathering useful, fair feedback and making the process consistent over time. Welsh recommended a concise perception survey for staff and community members and sharing results with Superintendent Summers for self-reflection and having someone other than the board compile the responses. It was encouraged that the evaluation be completed on a regular annual schedule, with a late-January survey and results by March 1. No process was approved during this discussion.

“Ultimately, the most important thing you do is develop your relationship with your superintendent in a way in which they’re clear about your expectations, and you give them good, authentic feedback to get better,” said Welsh.

Lucas Gerlock, Director of Technology, presented a proposed district standard operating procedure (SOP) for generative AI, covering how AI tools are vetted for security and privacy, expectations for AI notetakers in online meetings, human oversight when staff use AI-generated content, and academic integrity in classrooms. The board discussed the need to train staff, protect sensitive information, and clarify the provision about AI use by students under 13. The board praised the document as a useful starting point though it may need regular updates as the technology evolves.

Superintendent Summers proposed holding a community training seminar in early 2027 for people considering running for the school board. The session would explain the board’s responsibilities and limits, potentially drawing on current board members and outside experts. The board supported making the opportunity accessible across the district and encouraging participation from diverse communities.

Summers presented a potential calendar-review process developed by the district’s current Calendar Committee, which includes school and district staff, teachers, association representatives, operation staff, and an athletic director. The review was prompted by calendar feedback in the superintendent-search survey and ongoing comments from families and staff. Possible topics included Wednesday early release, different needs across the district’s communities, and whether to revisit the four-day-week question. Summers emphasized that the committee’s proposal laid out a process, not a recommended calendar outcome.

The board debated whether to begin a full review now. Some felt the district had other pressing priorities, including strategic-plan work and housing, and questioned whether there was a specific, urgent problem the review could solve. They also noted that the calendar affects many connected issues such as teacher professional development, after-school programming, family schedules, and student needs. They emphasized that recent programming changes may need more time to take effect. Others supported having a clear process for future calendar discussions, while expressing concern about an emotionally charged topic without a strong reason. The board leaned toward not starting a major calendar review immediately, and did not make an official decision.