To the Editor:

I am deeply disappointed and upset by the Cranston School Committee’s decision to appoint the current assistant superintendent to be the new superintendent without a formal search. When Judy Lundsten announced her retirement, I thought that this would be an opportunity for the district to bring in new blood from outside the district.

To quote the Cranston Herald article announcing Lundsten’s retirement on January 22, 2015, Janet Ruggieri said that the school committee “would proceed with a search for the new superintendent, following ‘same process that we did when Superintendent [Dr. Peter] Nero left’ in 2012. That process involved a national search, an interview process, public vetting of the hopefuls and three finalists, resulting in Lundsten’s promotion to the district’s top job.” Those comments gave me hope that they truly would perform a broad search for a replacement.

Now in the April 15, 2015 Cranston Herald article announcing Nota-Masse’s appointment, the article says: “Ruggieri on Tuesday said the committee is not required by law to conduct interviews for the superintendent’s post. In the past, she said, vacancies have been filled both by appointment and search processes.” Also: “Ruggieri said Nota-Masse stood out as a clear choice to succeed Lundsten for several reasons.”

Is the Cranston public school district really performing at such a level that it can assume that there is nothing better out there without even looking outside its own leadership? To me the answer is clearly “no.” And was it so urgent to announce Nota-Masse’s appointment that it had to be done without any transparency and public discussion and added to a public meeting agenda posted on a Sunday only two days before the meeting? Working in this way only serves to underscore the feeling that there is no transparency to the decision-making process and that public input is effectively unwelcome.

Jon Wiening

Cranston