The primary agenda item was the selection of an interim superintendent, a topic that took center stage due to its immediate implications for the school district. The board emphasized the necessity of quick action to mitigate anxiety within the community and maintain stability in school operations. The Minnesota School Board Association (MSBA) was consulted for guidance on whether to seek candidates internally or externally, with a preference expressed for candidates with prior experience in similar roles.

Concerns were raised about the potential complications of selecting an internal candidate, as it could lead to further disruptions by creating additional vacancies that would need filling. A board member highlighted that an external candidate could offer a fresh perspective and stability without the learning curve that might accompany an internal appointment. Despite these concerns, another member advocated for a comprehensive search, suggesting that all viable candidates, regardless of their current affiliation with the district, should be considered.

The urgency of the situation was reiterated, with a focus on ensuring the interim superintendent is in place by the time students and staff return. Board members discussed setting a deadline for internal candidates to express interest by December 27.

The board decided to proceed with a motion allowing for the consideration of both internal and external candidates, supported by the MSBA’s expertise and board member recommendations. This motion passed unanimously.

Transitioning to the broader superintendent search process, the board acknowledged the importance of community involvement, with plans to conduct forums to gather input. The MSBA was identified as a potential partner to facilitate this process, given their extensive experience in conducting school board searches across Minnesota. A timeline was proposed for posting the superintendent opening by January 2025, with a hiring decision anticipated by April.

A discussion on the costs of hiring a search firm was brought up, with one member noting that previous searches had cost around $25,000, which was deemed more economical than employing a private firm. However, some members expressed concerns about rushing the process.

Counterarguments highlighted the risks of instability if multiple interim appointments were required, stressing that a timely search could prevent such scenarios. The board ultimately voted on the proposed timeline, resulting in a roll call vote with five affirmative votes, one abstention, and one dissent, thereby approving the motion.