11:30The decision to invite Brookens, Daniels, and Broadier for further interviews was a focal point of the meeting. Members exchanged views on the candidates’ qualifications, noting their diverse approaches to leadership and education. Brookens was praised for his strategic support of struggling staff and his impactful analogy of using gardening to describe sustaining improvements. Similarly, Daniels’ emphasis on collaboration and her inclusive approach to general education were highlighted as key strengths. Broadier was recognized for her focus on empowering staff and her commitment to transparent communication, particularly regarding budget processes.

The board’s deliberations revealed a consensus that all three candidates were viable options, with some members initially suggesting a preference for two, only to acknowledge that the decision was a close one. This sentiment of having “three really strong candidates” was echoed throughout.

01:04:31Conversations then shifted to the logistics of the upcoming interviews, scheduled to begin on May 7th. The proposed framework included a structured timeline, with each candidate allotted a one-hour slot, potentially extended to an hour and 15 minutes to ensure thoroughness. The board was keen on maintaining a fair and comprehensive evaluation process, debating the inclusion of candidate presentations and the potential impact on interview duration.

The organization of interview questions was another key aspect of the meeting. The board reviewed and selected questions. Some questions were highlighted for their importance, such as those addressing community engagement and curriculum considerations.

There was also a focus on ensuring candidates were evaluated on their prior responses and public survey reports. The board discussed the necessity of reviewing candidates’ previous answers and reference checks to aid in making an informed decision.

42:36To maintain transparency, plans were made for a press release detailing the candidates’ information, including headshots and résumés, to keep the community informed about the selection process. This step was part of a broader effort to ensure that the community remained engaged and aware of the proceedings without exposing sensitive data.