WESTERLY - While school officials met for a second time to plot their search for a new schools superintendent, some members of the public continue to press for answers about the last one's departure.

School Committee members made no public announcements Wednesday about the process they plan to undertake to hire a new superintendent. The district had received six unsolicited inquiries from applicants as of late last month.

On Wednesday, a crowded meeting agenda pushed closed-door talks on superintendent candidates to start around 10 p.m., and board members plan to report their progress at a special meeting scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Monday in the Westerly High School media center.

Former Schools Superintendent Steven Welford's roughly two-month employment with the district ended Oct. 7 because of "a differing philosophy about the operation and direction of the school district."

The district agreed to pay him a total of $64,500 in salary and health insurance on a biweekly basis through mid-April, according to records provided to The Sun on Tuesday.

Chairman James Murano Jr. attempted to answer some public questions expressed at last month's meeting, although he said, "I know it's not the answer you're looking for."

To resident Christine Misto's inquiry of how Welford's philosophy and core values differed from that of the school district, Murano said he could not provide a specific answer.

Legal counsel has advised that answering any questions or making further comments "would put this district both in a legal and financially risky situation," he said.

"It would be irresponsible of this committee to do that," Murano added.

The chairman gave a similar answer to resident Mario Celico, who had called for board members to reveal how they voted on "ending the relationship between our former superintendent and the School Committee" - not on the publicly reported unanimous vote on Welford's severance package.

Murano said, "We cannot comment any further, again, based on the agreement we entered into. I know that doesn't satisfy you or anybody else. I don't expect it to."

Celico, who serves as chairman of the Planning Board, later said he could not understand why the board would publicly report one vote, but not another.

He said he suspected the unanimous vote was a "self-serving proclamation" to make the committee look good.

Murano replied, "All I can say is your assumption is not accurate at all. If anything, if this committee wanted to be self-serving, we certainly wouldn't be sitting up here issuing no comment, getting beat up week after week after week, knowing that we're going to take the hit that we're going to take."

Board member Mary Raftery agreed: "The way I rationalize it is we gave that 6-0 vote because we could and we didn't give the other because we couldn't, according to our attorney. That's why we didn't. It wasn't public."

Schools Solicitor William Nardone said legal counsel's advice is based on "the current status of the law as it's applied to the facts they have to deal with."

"It isn't as though they are reporting something, and not reporting something else. They're reporting everything that the law allows them to report," he said. "And I know that sounds like a lawyer making an excuse for a client, but it happens to be fact."

Resident Jay Goodman suggested that the district's inactive Superintendent Evaluation Process Subcommittee review how the advertised superintendent expectations align with district and school board's goals. The subcommittee could also review the screening and interview process, he added.

Board member Jack Carson said they must appoint a new superintendent before activating that committee: "We believe strongly that the superintendent to be appointed should be a participant in helping develop and evaluate any instrument that is going to be used in measuring his or her success."

But board member David Patten said he was open to exploring the screening and interview process. He added of the New England School Development Council, the $13,252 consultant retained by the board in the previous superintendent search, "they owe us some services at no cost to conduct another search. That would be my preference."

Murano said he believes the outcome of Welford's employment had nothing to do with the screening process.

"The process that we undertook with NESDEC was a very thorough process," he said, but, added it does not mean they can't revisit the process.

ARTICLE: Board discusses successor to Welford

ARTICLE: Welford affair: $29K for lawyers

ARTICLE: Board tight-lipped on Welford

ARTICLE: Welford ouster at issue tonight at public meeting