The superintendent search emerged as a primary focus, with the board deliberating on the best approach to find a suitable candidate. They considered initiating a Request for Information (RFI) process to gather insights from various search firms before committing to a specific Request for Proposal (RFP). This strategy would allow the board to understand the processes and costs associated with different firms without prematurely defining the scope of work. The timeline for posting the RFI was discussed, with aims to align it with typical hiring schedules in education, acknowledging that many superintendents transition into new roles during the holiday season.

The board also debated how to involve newly elected board members in the superintendent search process, which was set to begin before they officially take office in January. While current members stressed the importance of moving forward to avoid delays, there was recognition of the value in integrating the perspectives of the incoming members. The board considered inviting them to participate in preparatory discussions to ensure a well-rounded and informed search process.

Simultaneously, the board tackled the issue of appointing a new member following a resignation. The debate intensified around whether to appoint the fourth highest vote-getter from a recent election or to engage in a more formal application and interview process. Concerns were expressed about the implications of appointing someone who was not directly elected, as this could be perceived as undermining the democratic process and community choice. The board members deliberated on the fairness and transparency of the appointment process, striving to balance procedural norms with community representation.

The appointment process was planned, proposing a timeline that included a three-week window for applications, followed by candidate interviews conducted with a standardized set of questions. Each board member would have the opportunity to include a candidate of their choosing in the interview process, using a “wild card” option to ensure diverse representation. The board aimed to finalize their decision by early January, following thorough interviews and deliberations.

They acknowledged past experiences where board decisions had not been well received, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and community engagement in the current process. The board members collectively recognized the need to address community concerns.