Lovelace wrote in an e-mail Oct. 10 that the 3% reflects an annual cost-of-living adjustment and there is no other additional method for earning more compensation.

She wrote: "The essential details that were discussed during executive session were the length of the contract, the compensation structure and methods for measuring the superintendent's performance.

"After substantial discussion and a respectful sharing of opinions, the committee voted, 4-3, to offer the superintendent a three-year contract. I have the utmost respect for my colleagues who voted against the extension. They raised a number of concerns that I believe the committee must continue to grapple with and work through during the superintendent's tenure."

Those members who voted no have been asked to detail their concerns. None has responded. The statements of those voting yes are below.

The committee went into closed session about 10 p.m. and came out sometime after 11 p.m.

The public vote was taken at 11:30 p.m., and the committee adjourned 3 minutes later, Lovelace wrote.

The move to extend the contract came after the School Committee voted, 4-3, Sept. 25 to establish a subcommittee to work out contract details. The subcommittee was made up of Lovelace, Spangler and Burns. Lovelace said Sept. 25 she expected the panel to meet "two or three times to gather comparative data on superintendent contracts in the Commonwealth and to discuss terms with Levenson, and then report about the negotiations to the full committee in a closed meeting Oct. 9."