The decision to adopt option three followed discussions about how best to incorporate public feedback in the superintendent search while maintaining an efficient and manageable process. The board deliberated over several options, ultimately voting against “option one,” which would have relied solely on the summary report to represent stakeholder voices, and opting instead for a more participatory approach. The chosen method involves inviting representatives from groups such as teachers, administrators, parents, and community partners to provide their insights via an electronic form. This feedback will then be shared with the board prior to making any hiring decisions.

To ensure fair representation, the board decided to limit group representation to one member per category. This strategy is intended to provide a comprehensive yet streamlined collection of community perspectives.

Suggestions were made to allow groups to nominate their own representatives, potentially using random selection if needed, to avoid perceptions of bias. This approach was proposed to ensure diverse and equitable participation, addressing potential dissatisfaction among those not chosen to participate directly.

The board’s emphasis on inclusivity extended to the discussion of personal characteristics and areas of expertise desired in the new superintendent. Survey results revealed that the community values collaborative leadership and financial management as top priorities. Additionally, honesty, effective communication, and ethical behavior emerged as key traits across all respondent categories. These insights will guide the board in evaluating candidates.

To facilitate effective engagement, the board plans to send formal communications to all potential representative groups, outlining expectations and deadlines for participation. This formal approach is intended to maintain consistency and clarity across all communications.

Beyond the superintendent search, the meeting touched on various challenges faced by the district, including declining student enrollment, budget constraints, and recruitment and retention of qualified teachers. The board recognized these issues as critical areas requiring attention from the new superintendent, highlighting the need for a leader capable of navigating these complexities.

Further discussions centered on the logistics of the interview process. The board decided against live streaming interviews to prevent any potential advantage for candidates scheduled later in the process. Instead, the board plans to host interviews in a public setting, allowing for community observation without compromising fairness. A proposal for an audience input forum was also accepted, enabling individuals to provide anonymous feedback after observing interviews, which will include strengths and weaknesses without linking to personal identities.

In preparation for the interviews, the board reviewed and selected questions to be used during stakeholder input sessions. Emphasis was placed on crafting questions that address diversity and engage stakeholders effectively.

The meeting concluded with a focus on interview training, where board members were briefed on legal considerations, including the confidentiality of applicant names and prohibited questions during interviews. The board was encouraged to maintain professionalism and adhere to legal standards throughout the hiring process.