Special
Ed Director contract not renewed Is suing the District
By Elizabeth Prata
Gray-Christina Manikas was hired 6 years ago as Director
of Special Services for MSAD 15, Gray-New Gloucester.
As a Director, her contract has a term and at the
end of the term may or may not be renewed by her supervisor,
the Superintendent.
During the course of the contract's term, the Superintendent
conducts evaluations, acknowledges success and aids
where there are stated deficiencies. The Superintendent
must meet quarterly with the Director and also at
the end-of-year for a more intensive evaluation. A
template for the evaluation is used and all discussions
related to the evaluation process are conducted between
the two, together.
Ms. Manikas's contract expires June 30, and according
to the policy, notification must be made to the Director
60 days prior to the non-renewal. On March 2, Superintendent
Victoria Burns notified Ms. Manikas that her contract
would not be renewed. Ms. Manikas asked the SAD Board
for a hearing, and on March 10, Chair Alan Rich sent
back a letter denying her request, no hearing by the
Board would be conducted. He stated in his letter
that such procedures were strictly administrative
and the Superintendent has the authority under Board
Policy to make such recommendations for non-renewal
with no resulting hearing in front of the School Board.
Ms. Manikas lodged a suit in Superior Court alleging
"Breach of Contract" and that her due process
was denied since no hearing was to be conducted. Ms.
Manikas claimed that there was a mutual understanding
that her employment would be renewed unless there
was cause for not doing so.
She claims that the Superintendent had illegitimate
reasons for her failure to recommend a contract renewal,
and further states that there were no material deficiencies
in her performance. Ms. Manikas contends that the
Superintendent failed to meet criteria set out in
Administrative Policy 4.14, "Administrative Performance
Evaluations."
Legal representation for the District and for Superintendent
Burns, who is specifically named in the suit, state
that the Board policy is clear in that Directors are
employees at will and further that the Superintendent
sustains the procedures to evaluate and renew or not
renew a Director's term of employment. Bruce Smith
of Drummond, Woodsum and MacMahon contend that the
suit should be dismissed based on District policy
and State law, and lodged a motion to that effect.
Ms. Manikas's lawyer, Donald Fontaine, sent in a motion
for an expedited hearing and a jury trial.
There was a mediation held between the parties on
May 24. neither motion from either side has been decided
and the suit is progressing. The legal bills for the
defendants, the School Board and Superintendent in
this case, are covered by District insurance.
