By Jennifer Mrozowski
The Cincinnati Enquirer

A rift between Cincinnati school board members has exposed mounting frustration some of them have with the district's superintendent, just as the district was recovering from contentious teacher negotiations.

Some board members say Superintendent Alton Frailey, on the job less than two years, hasn't followed through with several requests, such as one they made to establish a new pay plan for teachers.

Frailey said he tries to meet their demands, but the expectations aren't always clear.

While some say they'll withhold judgment pending the final results of student tests, their dissatisfaction could affect Frailey's review in August.

"When we ask the administration to do something, we expect it to be done," board member Jack Gilligan said.

Gilligan said the board wants Frailey to succeed, but "the woods are on fire. One of the things we need him to do is step out and take a leadership role."

Last week two board members threatened to campaign against the district's $65.5 million, five-year tax levy renewal in November unless the board adopts a reform plan.

The district faces declining enrollment while trying to manage a $1 billion school construction project and improve poor student achievement under high-stakes federal legislation.

Some board members criticized Frailey for:

• Not providing detailed information about a proposal for a group of firms to oversee the construction. The board in April rejected Frailey's plan, estimated at $16.4 million over the 10-year project, saying it didn't describe what the firms would do, how they would be accountable and how much money would go to each company.

The board asked him to develop a new proposal. They say they haven't received one.

• Not negotiating a new plan to pay teachers based on performance. The board says it directed Frailey and his staff to negotiate such a plan during teacher contract bargaining.

They say Frailey's team never submitted a pay-for-performance plan.

• Not regularly meeting with them. Board president Florence Newell and Vice President Harriet Russell have not had a joint meeting with Frailey since March 3, Russell said, despite attempts to schedule with him on six dates. Newell has since had meetings with him.

• Not publicly stating his support for the levy.

Russell also said she believes the superintendent collaborated with at least one community group that announced that it may withhold support for the levy unless the district adopts a reform plan.

"When I heard it, it was extremely disturbing because the levy renewal is needed in order to serve all students throughout the district," she said.

District officials warn of drastic cuts if the levy fails.

Board members Melanie Bates and Rick Williams also said they would oppose the levy unless the district commits to hold fewer board meetings, adopts a performance-based pay plan for teachers by October and meets other demands.

They said they made the demands, in part, so the superintendent could do his job without micromanagement from the board. The other five board members have issued a rebuttal.

Frailey said he did meet with one of the groups advocating a reform plan before its press conference, but he did not encourage them to oppose the levy.

Bates said she doesn't think the criticisms of Frailey are productive "because then we'll get a new superintendent, and in two years that one will be gone."

Gilligan said the superintendent should state whether he supports a levy. "I can understand him not wanting to have a battle with anyone on the board and have a head-on confrontation with (Bates and Williams)," he said. "At the same time, we cannot afford to have them running around town spreading a lot of misinformation. It seems to imply maybe he agrees with some of this stuff."

Frailey said he has not spoken with the board about the levy, and he learned about the board's plans by watching the nightly news. He said he meets with board members weekly and finds it difficult to meet separately.

Regarding the construction project, Frailey said it took his staff months to develop the proposal to have a group of firms oversee it.

"We delivered what we understood at the time was what the board asked us to deliver," he said. "We didn't have the resources to go back and redo it."

E-mail jmrozowski@enquirer.com