At the forefront of the meeting was the superintendent search process, facilitated by Barb Don from the Minnesota School Boards Association. Two options were proposed: a faster timeline allowing community input during the posting of the position and a longer timeline to gather feedback before posting. Concerns were raised about community engagement due to the holiday season, with suggestions to extend the survey period to allow more participation.

The board also discussed the logistics of conducting interviews, considering whether a subcommittee should handle initial interviews to maintain confidentiality and attract a broader pool of candidates. The confidentiality of applicants was stressed, with only the names of those advancing to public interviews to be disclosed. The board planned to use a subcommittee, believing it would increase the appeal for candidates concerned about confidentiality. The importance of maintaining transparency while ensuring all board members had access to all applications was emphasized.

Compensation for the new superintendent was another topic. Members deliberated on a proposed starting salary of around $295,000, acknowledging the necessity of offering a competitive package to attract talent from similar districts. The possibility of introducing performance bonuses was raised, though concerns were expressed about the implications and community perception of such incentives. The board leaned towards establishing a straightforward salary range for the vacancy brochure, avoiding premature commitments to performance bonuses until further research and discussions could be conducted.

The vacancy brochure itself was a subject of discussion, with members suggesting it include key district priorities and the upcoming challenges. Emphasis was placed on creating a brochure that acts as a call to action, sparking interest among potential candidates while avoiding overwhelming detail. The board sought to balance highlighting the district’s needs with allowing the new superintendent to establish their own priorities once in office.

The board also addressed the need for a comprehensive community input process. Plans for a community survey, available in English, Spanish, and Somali, were outlined to gather broad feedback. The survey was to be distributed widely, including to high school students during advisory periods, and efforts would be made to ensure diverse participation through existing advisory councils. The board underscored the importance of clear communication and regular updates to ensure broad engagement.

Logistical details regarding the interview and selection process were also discussed. The board considered scheduling flexibility, potential conflicts with personal commitments, and the importance of conducting interviews in close succession to maintain candidate familiarity. The potential scheduling of community meet-and-greets and building tours during interview days was discussed, emphasizing the need for careful planning to accommodate all parties involved.

A confidentiality agreement was to be signed by board members. The board also reviewed the transition from the previous application system to a more customizable one, allowing for more specific, behavior-based questions to better assess candidates’ leadership styles and compatibility with the district’s needs.