The Cullman County Board of Education has released the findings from the recent evaluation of Superintendent Dr. Craig Ross’ first year in charge of the system, though the most interesting piece of information might be what wasn’t included.

Ross received a satisfactory evaluation from the school board overall, and exemplary marks from a dozen school officials also surveyed. Considering Ross is the first appointed superintendent since the system changed in 2013, the board should be commended for making a point to evaluate his first year in office.

But, in commissioning the evaluation, the board chose not to include a public stakeholders component that would allow parents and civic leaders to offer input on Ross’ eventful first year in Cullman County. Why was public input not commissioned? School officials told The Times they made that decision because they knew the feedback would likely be negative, so they decided not to seek it.

Ross’ first year has included the controversial decision to purchase a $1.2 million piece of Smith Lake property to connect the existing Section 16 land; the very public suspension of high school principal Chris Gambrill who was eventually reinstated with no official explanation given; the closing of Garden City School due to structural concerns; and most-recently a cost-cutting decision to move all non-tenured teacher and special education aides to an outside staffing firm that was met with public opposition.

Those actions — most of which attracted some loud criticism from the public — likely distracted from less controversial developments like long-awaited momentum for a 1:1 technology initiative for students and teachers, and an ambitious new strategic plan meant to guide the system as a whole over the next several years.

The school board was riding high on public goodwill and trust when former elected Superintendent Billy Coleman, who championed both the passage of a new sales tax and the change to an appointed superintendent, left office in 2014.

Just one year removed, we worry the board is quickly losing that hard-fought public trust.

Regardless of how the board believes the public may or may not have responded, stakeholders should have been included in the evaluation. The fact that an opinion might be negative does not make the opinion any less valid.

The fact that the board chose not to solicit input on the superintendent’s performance because they assumed it would be negative represents both a frightening degree of tone deafness to the opinions of the voters who elected them, and a general lack of transparency.

If anything, stakeholder input could have provided board members with feedback and guidance from their constituents as they move forward in creating goals and parameters for the superintendent.