0:00One notable issue addressed during the meeting was the impending search for a new superintendent. The board was presented with two primary options: employing a search consultant or conducting an internal search. The cost of hiring a consultant was estimated to be around $40,000, a figure that sparked considerable debate among board members. Some members argued that conducting an internal search could save the district significant funds, while others pointed out the potential for a consultant to expedite the process and facilitate community involvement through meetings and surveys.

The urgency to appoint a new superintendent by July 1 was a point of contention, with concerns raised about the timeline required for either approach. Board members recognized the competitive nature of the field, as other districts were also in the process of searching for superintendents. This necessitated a careful consideration of the timeline, as many applicants might already be pursuing positions elsewhere.

Community involvement was a recurring theme in the discussion, with emphasis placed on transparency and the importance of soliciting community feedback through surveys and forums. The board deliberated on the effectiveness of past community meetings, considering participation rates and the value derived from them. One member recalled that previous surveys had yielded substantial responses, highlighting the critical role of community input in the hiring process.

Despite the inclination toward an internal search, caution was urged against rushing the process. The possibility of hiring an interim superintendent was discussed if the search could not be completed by the target date. This raised further questions about the logistical implications of the timeline and the need for a thorough search process. The board grappled with balancing the urgency of hiring a new superintendent with the need for a thoughtful and inclusive selection process.

13:29The procedural aspects of selecting a search consultant were also examined in detail. The board considered the timeline for bidding and how to structure the request if they pursued the consultant route. A proposal was made to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit responses from potential consultants. The importance of learning from past experiences with consultants was emphasized, with a suggestion to compile a list of best practices to guide the selection process.

An ad hoc committee was proposed to manage the RFP process, with the aim of ensuring nimbleness and addressing time constraints. The board unanimously agreed to proceed with the RFP for consulting services, highlighting the necessity of technical specifications that reflect the district’s needs, including the consultant’s experience with similarly sized districts.

In addition to the superintendent search, the meeting also addressed a proposal for art classes in middle or high schools that could lead to mural projects. A representative from the community presented this initiative, describing it as a beneficial opportunity for students and a means of enriching community engagement. The board expressed interest in the proposal.

The board concluded the meeting by addressing items related to the Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying (HIB) report and the resolution to solicit proposals from executive search firms for the superintendent search. The session ended with a roll call vote on the resolutions presented earlier, and a motion to close the meeting was unanimously supported.