A primary focus of the meeting was the establishment of a competitive salary range for the incoming superintendent, a key factor in attracting qualified candidates. The board debated various figures, ultimately agreeing on a range starting at $125,000 and capping at $160,000. This decision aimed to ensure that the district remains competitive with comparable districts while addressing internal salary dynamics. A board member highlighted the importance of not setting a lower salary than what current principals earn, as this could potentially deter qualified applicants. The potential ceiling of $160,000 was deemed necessary to attract candidates with valuable experience and to compete with other districts offering similar remuneration.

The discussion also touched on the implications of salary negotiations, with a consensus that while the ceiling would be set at $160,000, this figure would serve as a guideline rather than a fixed offer. The board acknowledged that the final salary would be subject to negotiations based on the chosen candidate’s qualifications and experience. This flexibility was deemed critical to securing a strong leader for the district.

In addition to salary considerations, the board delved into the timeline and process for the superintendent search. Representatives from the Minnesota School Boards Association (MSBA) provided a detailed outline of the search process, emphasizing the importance of adhering to a strict timeline to maintain a robust candidate pool. Key dates included the application deadline of March 3, with preliminary verifications and pre-interviews scheduled before the board reviews candidates. The first round of interviews was tentatively set for March 30 and 31, with a subsequent round on April 2, aligning with the district’s spring break.

The board also discussed the role of community input in the search process. Plans were made to distribute a public input survey, available online and in hard copy at district locations, running from January 27 to February 8. A Zoom Q&A session was scheduled for January 30 to address any community questions and encourage survey participation. The survey results would be used to shape interview questions and assess candidates’ alignment with the community’s expectations.

Another topic was the potential dual role of the superintendent as the community education director. The board debated whether to advertise the position with this additional responsibility, with concerns raised about the workload and its impact on attracting candidates. Ultimately, the consensus was to keep the roles separate to broaden the candidate pool, allowing the new superintendent to decide on the structure upon arrival.

The board also navigated the complexities of maintaining data privacy and confidentiality throughout the search process. It was emphasized that board members should avoid conducting independent research on candidates and refrain from providing references or recommendations, especially for internal candidates. The MSBA representative reiterated the importance of protecting candidate privacy, noting that candidate names should only be disclosed once they become finalists.

The meeting concluded with a review of the vacancy brochure draft. Corrections were suggested to enhance the document’s accuracy, with the final version set to be shared alongside the survey and vacancy announcement on the district’s website.