Good afternoon.
We will call the meeting to order momentarily and SPS TV will begin broadcasting.
One two three.
There we go.
All right.
The March 25th 2025 board special meeting is called to order at 3 0 1 p.m.
I would like to acknowledge or we'd like to acknowledge that we are on ancestral lands and the traditional territories of the Puget Sound Coast Salish people.
For the record I will call the roll Vice President Briggs Here.
Director Clark.
Present.
Director Hersey.
Director Mizrahi.
Director Rankin.
Here.
Director Sarju.
Present.
And this is President Topp.
So we are here today because as board directors are aware, and I think the public is also aware, Superintendent Jones announced last week he will be leaving the district, meaning we need to undertake a superintendent hiring process.
As board of directors, one of our primary responsibilities is to hire the superintendent to serve as chief executive officer and chief administrative officer for the district.
Hiring the superintendent is a significant body of work.
We will need to stand up a robust engagement process with our community to hear insights from them about what the board should be looking for.
In our next district superintendent, we'll also need an effective recruitment of the best candidates, diligent vetting, knowledgeable counsel throughout the process.
For that reason, I brought us tonight an action that would start the contracting process, initiate the contracting process and really just start setting us up.
And so the contracting process would be for an executive search firm to support our board as we undertake the selection of the superintendent and lay out the work ahead.
The title for today's action is authorization to initiate requests for proposals, process for an executive search firm to be selected by the board to assist the superintendent search process.
We'll have discussion, but first can I get a motion for the item?
I move to,
Yikes, I don't have...
Director or Vice President Briggs, I believe there's language in your email.
In the chat?
Sorry, where did you say it was, Gina?
It should be in your email from Ellie earlier today from Ms. Wilson.
Okay, motion for today.
Great, I'm finding it right now.
um okay i move that the school board authorized the board president with the assistance of district staff to finalize a statement of work for a request for proposals for an experienced executive search firm to assist the board in identifying candidates in the spring of 2025 to assume the position of superintendent of schools and authorize the board president with the assistance of district staff to finalize evaluative criteria for use by the board in reviewing the proposals prior to selection by the board Immediate action is in the best interest of the district.
Is there a second?
I got this so much easier.
Second.
uh thank you both uh so as sponsor um i'll introduce this item and then we can move to a board discussion so really i think uh this action does two things first you'd authorize me to finalize the statement of work detailing the services we're looking for in a search firm a draft of that should be in your packet hopefully folks have had an opportunity to look at it i believe it starts on page like nine or ten and because this request for proposals is for a search firm to support us as a board we will that we as a board will be the rfp evaluation committee so you would also be authorizing me to finalize the criteria that we'd be used to evaluate the proposals we get from the firms in this process and the draft for that is also in your packet after the statement of work.
Hopefully folks have had an opportunity to look at that as well so that way we can have a discussion to see what additions, edits may be necessary to these documents before they are finalized.
That's one of the main goals I hope tonight is to get that input from board members so we can finalize them.
That's what this action does.
But before we move into discussion, I want to just add a little bit of context about the sort of complementary steps in the process.
assuming that we move forward with tonight's actions and that these materials can be updated promptly after this meeting to incorporate the feedback that we hear our procurement process will issue a request for proposals on our behalf tomorrow moving very very quickly we would ask interested firms to submit any question to submit by next week and proposals would be due April 8th.
That means that directors, as directors, we would then receive those proposals to individually evaluate them on April 8th before joining together the afternoon of April 9th to work through the proposals as a body.
So that is a quick turnaround from the 8th to the 9th.
And then my goal for our meeting on the 9th is to identify our top three for interviews.
Interviews with the top firms would then be scheduled the next week, looking and calendar holds have been sent out for the 17th and 18th to board directors.
Following those interviews with the three finalists, we would work to identify and select the firm at our board meeting, during a special board meeting on April 23rd.
And then we would make a selection official by voting, oh, sorry.
Let me clarify that.
Following these interviews with the three finalists, we'd work to identify a final selected firm during a special board meeting on April 23rd.
And then we would make the selection official by voting on it during our April 23rd regular board meeting.
We got to get really complicated there.
But in the last part of your packet, it has sort of detailed out this timeline for folks so you can follow along a little bit easier.
The firm would be under contract then by the end of April or so, and we would be able to move sort of into the engagement steps and building out our shared vision for what our next leader would be with what we would want in the next leader.
What I've shared is in the board outline.
What I've shared is the board outline for what we're anticipating being our next steps, but we reserve the right to change the process or modify it through the discussion and it's just a general outline to help guide us.
So folks are aware all these materials today were developed advice from our procurement department.
and other staff.
I've also had our outside counsel to the board, Buzz Porter, review these documents and confirmed that we will have counsel or he will be able to support us as we move through this process and are selecting and negotiating the contract with our next superintendent.
So a lot of information, a lot of paper in front of us, but I want to go to directors who may have questions or comments.
If it is a procurement question, I believe I have someone from the procurement department as well here who will be able to help us because that is definitely outside of my area of expertise.
Comments, questions from board directors.
I have a question.
Yeah, Vice President Riggs.
Thanks.
Yeah, I'm just wondering if using a search firm, does that preclude us from using other entities in our search as well?
Like the Council for Great City Schools, for example, or just do all the candidates have to come through the search firm, I guess is my question.
So I'm going to respond, but the way I would believe it would work is that we can find candidates anywhere, and we should all be working and using our networks to find candidates to apply, and then they would go through a process that we set out in conjunction or in coordination with the search firm.
So, for example, Director Rankin and I were just in D.C.
I believe Director Rankin is still there.
She's had a busy day on Capitol Hill meeting with legislators from Washington, but she is also with the Council of Great City Schools and had already made an announcement in front of the entire group that we will be starting a superintendent search.
And so already making those connections, and I think we have a responsibility as a board to be doing that work.
Does that answer your question?
Yeah.
Yeah.
So just to clarify, the search firm is just one possible avenue for attracting candidates, but They could come from anywhere, essentially.
Yeah, they can come from anywhere, and I think mainly they're providing the infrastructure for us and the capacity for us to be able to, like, what's the process?
When are the dates?
Coordinating with candidates for interviews.
All of that backbone work.
that I don't think staff has the capacity for and I definitely know board does not have capacity for.
Director Sarju and then Director Rankin.
I don't know who had their hand up first.
I'm sorry.
Go for it, Director Sarju.
Yeah.
So Evan answered one of my questions.
As I look at the timeline, and first of all, full disclosure, I am not on my A game, and so it may take me a minute to get my thoughts together.
So as I look, and feel free to say we'll talk about this later, but as I look at this timeline, it actually doesn't seem realistic to me given the fact that we're behind the eight ball in terms of when normally when schools districts are recruiting superintendents you know for example I believe North Shore superintendent has been selected and they're going to start in the fall but that started happening last year.
And so when I think about the timeline I first of all we're not really leaving room for engagement and the families in this district have not felt like we've actually been doing engagement.
And so it behooves us to take that into consideration.
The second point is I don't actually believe that this iteration of the board should be choosing the next superintendent.
We have four seats open.
four seats, that means four new directors have to live with the decision of us short timers.
That does not seem like it's in our professional best interest.
And sure, would I love to be, I will say I'm not excited about the search firm, because I've been there, done that, and it actually didn't work out.
So I'm worried about wasting taxpayer dollars related to that.
But I feel pretty strongly that the next group of elected officials given that four of them will be serving for four years, should really be in the decision-making seat.
That seems prudent.
It seems wise.
It actually seems fair that someone like me who's, you know, I got a counter on my phone.
I got 36 weeks left.
First Tuesday in December at 5 o'clock, I'm done.
And I don't feel comfortable making that decision for the person who's gonna take my place and have to live with that decision for four years.
So I would like us to think about that.
That doesn't mean we couldn't find an interim or appoint an interim through this process, but I want it to be on the record for the families and the voters.
I do not support this iteration of the board making the final decision on the next superintendent so that a majority of the board, and we're talking a majority, four people, a quorum, have to live with that decision.
So I would like to reconsider the timeline.
I am willing to I don't know if the word is support, but I think for those of us who went through this once already with a search firm, I can say in the rear view mirror, we did not spend taxpayer dollars well.
And in this budget time, It is our responsibility to make sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that we're spending taxpayer dollars well.
We're mortgaging our child's future by wasting money.
And so I want that to be on the record.
We need a new superintendent, and I don't believe we have to rush, rush, rush, and possibly not make the right decision.
It's possible we could get lucky.
Seattle thinks we think we're special, and we can do things outside of normal channels.
That's always been the Seattle way.
I don't.
And I really want to set up our kids for the next four years to actually stand a chance.
And so that's where I stand.
It was important for me to come out even though I know I'm going to hear about my coming out.
I should have my butt at home on the couch.
But it was important for me to be here and say that in person.
I didn't know how many people were going to come.
But I want us to, I'm not trying to influence any board members.
Y'all going to do what y'all going to do.
Period.
And I want the public to know I do not support this iteration of the board making the decision on a final superintendent.
I would support an interim.
I think that is a reasonable way to go given where we're at in the cycle of recruitment.
So that's all for now.
Move to Director Rankin.
Thanks.
Can you guys hear me okay?
Yes.
Okay.
Yes, I am still in D.C.
and kind of on a plane at a disgustingly early hour tomorrow to come back home.
So I have a couple questions slash comments.
I think My wonder about the contract with the search firm is, is our contract with them for time taken or for deliverables, no matter when they are?
And the reason I'm asking that is because I am fine with the search process taking longer and maybe we find that we need an interim or something.
I want to make sure that we have all possibilities open to us.
Um, so I would be comfortable, you know, starting this process with the search firm and everything now, as long as, um, if it does take longer and we do go into the next iteration of the board for whatever reason, um, we're not just stacking up the expense, um, or having to start over because I think, uh, the, having been through this once before with SPS, And having just been through this as a board director with WASDA, hiring our executive director over there, obviously a different type of organization, but similar, board having to find an executive.
I think it's helpful to think about the firm less as the search firm.
They're not going to find some magical person that only exists through them.
So less as the search firm and more as the process firm, what they're going to do is help us.
And any good firm is also going to say, do you have anybody you'd like to recommend to all of us?
So they're not only going to be willing to do that, they're going to expect.
that we are going to make some suggestions and throw some names their way.
So it's not some, they don't have access to some magical source of people that only they can provide.
And also they don't know our community and we do.
And so they're going to have all kinds of recommendations that we are going to need to be the experts on who meets our criteria, not who meets their criteria.
So I'm hoping that's helpful framing, that the search firm doesn't tell us who to hire, and the search firm doesn't have some kind of monopoly over what candidates are out there.
So I'm comfortable starting this process now as long as we're not limiting ourselves and saying, you know, it has to be done by such and such, or, you know, we can't have an interim.
I think we need to be ready for the possibility of learning about some great people we may not have found ourselves, having the firm help support, making sure the process is really transparent, making sure that they're adding the capacity into our system for us to plan different engagements and whatnot and help the process, but I would be really hesitant if we were locking ourselves into any specific end point or any definitive, like the choice has to be made in September or we have to start over or something like that.
So yeah, that being said, the timeline is tough and I have questions about, I mean, given that on the timeline, the search firm is selected not for another month or two.
I can't now I can't find it.
That doesn't give a whole lot of time to for them to analyze candidates and for us to interview them before the school year just you know.
So I do have a lot of concerns about the work being done to lead this district between now and September.
and how we transition to either a new superintendent or an interim.
Just the timing is making me a little nervous.
I will say being here, we do have a ton of support.
People were really supportive and, you know, thinking about who they could send our way.
You know, our fellow urban districts want our success, want Dr. Jones's success, want, you know, good stuff for our kids.
So that's exciting.
The other thing I will say is we just, our community's values are not going to dramatically change.
We just did.
vision and values listening.
I'm not saying that we don't need to hear from anybody again, but we went through a process where our community told us what was important.
We voted on that as a board.
And I think that needs to be the sustaining focus, regardless of who is occupying our seats in a couple of months, that the values and the vision of our community are not going to suddenly change because there are different people.
I also completely understand, um, director Sarju's concern that the majority of the board could be totally different people.
Um, so that was a really, really long way for me to just say, I think we should be open to doing whatever is the next best thing we need to do.
And if starting the search process now opens that and doesn't limit us, you know, we know we need a new person.
So.
director hersey okay yes we can hear you um i just wanted to express like share concern for uh kind of the topics that Director Sarge brought up for slightly different reasons.
I just think that we're in a really, timing-wise, a not optimal time to be recruiting a really quality candidate given our budgetary situation, the fact that we're going to be going into a negotiation potentially, and a myriad of other things.
And at the same time, I'm not super stoked about an interim, right?
I think the more I think about this, having been through this at least 1.5 times, is what I would say is we need to be really thoughtful about the process and not box ourselves into a corner.
I think that utilizing the search firm and seeing what's out there is probably the best option that we have available to us.
I also don't want to close off our minds to what appointing an interim could look like.
And I know that there's oftentimes conversation about, well, if you're appointing an interim, make sure that You know, you put something in there about them not being able to apply and take a position, da-da-da-da.
I just want to make sure that we are not putting too many boxes around the process at the beginning just so that we don't back ourselves into a corner and potentially, like, miss out on appointing the best person to lead the district, right?
That being said, I think that...
we need to do a far and wide search.
Like we need to unturn every rock possible, right?
And those rocks could be in Seattle.
My hunch is that they're probably somewhere else if I'm keeping it a buck.
Because the types of challenges that the district are gonna be facing are very well steeped.
And I have serious concerns about the situation that we are asking a really strong candidate to step into and potentially buying some time and seeing what the legislature is going to do getting a clear understanding of what the terms and timeline for negotiations will be because bringing a new superintendent into a situation to where they need to negotiate a contract feels to me untenable um and really just setting you know both our Education Association, ourselves and our families up for a lot of discord, which, given everything that we've already been through, does not feel like the best option.
That being said, There's also the argument that many would make about having stability and getting a person in as quickly as possible.
I don't have the answer to that, and I don't think we fully know what our community wants in that regard.
I think I agree with Director Rankin in that we can lean heavily on a lot of the information that we gleaned from our conversations around vision and values, but in terms of process, i think that that's a big question mark for me i think that some folks would say you're the board that's your main job go ahead and get it done others would probably share the sentiments of director sarju um i don't know if that's a question that we want to tease or if we want to um kind of take this one step at a time my gut instinct would be to begin with the like fledgling steps of the process that you've laid out president top um but not bind ourselves to making a decision or call by any type of like specific date um i think we need to really ensure that whoever we find is a strong fit for both the short and long term and like not be afraid for that to be two people, not be afraid for that to be one person and not be afraid for that to be one person for the short term that could end up being the same person for the long term, right?
I don't know.
I just don't want to put us like Having led us through the previous process, there were so many different permutations and restrictions that we put on ourselves that I think we need to really be unburdened by as we are trying to do a really thoughtful search.
So that's my two cents.
Director Mizrahi.
thank you uh so first of all i just want to say that uh obviously because of the public meeting rules we can't uh meet beforehand but i'm like so happy that we're all i think relatively on the same page and all four directors that have previously spoken i'm like nodding my head at the things that are being said that i think that we're um all coming uh if not exactly in the same place all coming from the same direction um okay first of all uh just being the first public opportunity to do so i want to thank dr jones for his service and obviously for for me wishing the best in his future.
And then just to echo a few things that I heard.
So I really like the way that Director Rankin framed it as being a process firm.
And I think that that's my understanding of what I would like the search firm to be.
One of the questions that I asked that made sense to me is that a lot of the work that if we were to say we don't want to hire a search firm, a lot of that work, because we still need to you know post jobs and vet candidates and set up interviews a lot of that work would just fall on district staff which obviously due to budgetary cuts is like very depleted and also um hopefully doing a lot of work to build the strategic plan and do all the other work of the district.
So I think that adding that capacity, even if we're not relying on this search firm to be the ones doing the searching and finding all the candidates and we're going out to every network that we can, just doing that basic nuts and bolts work I think is super important.
On the timing, I think I share everyone's concern.
The one thing is that looking at the WASDA recommended timeline, it looks like it looks like the steps that we're taking and the time that we're doing take those steps, we're not in like a very condensed process.
We're not changing what that process looks like.
What is unfortunate is that we are just doing it later than obviously would be ideal.
So the timeline is, I think, within the realm of what is recommended.
It's just that we're doing it at a later period, which obviously, as previous board members have mentioned, may impact the candidates that we're able to find.
So with that, I mean, I think that the balance between interim versus finding a full-time person, I mean, I think that you all said it, but I want to make it clear from my perspective too, that if we are going forward with this process, it may be that we are finding the person that we think is the right fit, but it may be just as likely, if not more likely that we end up with an interim, but that we've gone through these steps to develop our criteria, to engage the community.
And those are all valuable steps, even if we are just hiring an interim for now.
And I think that for the benefit of transparency and folks seeing that we are doing as much engagement as possible, I think it's important to go through that process, even if the outcome of that process is that we're getting to an interim.
So my understanding of the motion is that it does not lock us into hiring a full-time person, does not that decision or say that we have to do it on any certain timeline but that actually we do have the opportunity to say if we feel like the candidates are lacking or even if we feel like there are some great candidates but we're hearing from the community that they want us to go through a different process that we could still opt for an interim at the end of that um at the end of that process and then the last thing i'll say just to echo what director hersey said you know at work a lot of times when we have like a a moment of indecision we just say well the next step is the next step and it seems to me like even if we're not sure what the outcome is or where we end up it seems like the most logical next step is engaging this firm going forward and then that still gives us as i understand it i think as every other director so far has expressed that still gives us the leeway to make a different decision later director clark
Thanks.
Good to see you guys.
Sorry I don't have my camera on.
I'm still in bed recovering from knee surgery.
I don't know that I have a lot new to add to the discussion at this point.
I did want to say a couple of things.
First, just thanking Dr. Jones for his service and commitment to Seattle Public Schools and to our kids.
I really enjoyed listening to Director Hersey and just some of the things you were sharing about the process that you guys went through or processes and a half that you guys went through before.
And I think that having folks on the board who have been through a search process right now will actually be very helpful to those of us who have not.
And so as I've been thinking about some of the pros and cons of the options that we have before us, and the reality of new board members coming on board next year, I think starting this process now while we have some wisdom in the room to help guide us is actually really beneficial.
And I also am hopeful that, you know, This timeline, I guess I also have some concerns about it.
Just I wanna make sure that we do a robust community engagement process.
I think transparency is probably one of the most important parts of the work that we're embarking on bringing in someone new at a time when our community trust is low is going to be a challenge.
And so I just want to make sure that we take the time that we need to take to do that part of the work.
But yeah, I agree with some of my colleagues that this seems like the logical next step as long as we're not, you know, I'd like us to keep as many options open as we possibly can at this point.
And we'll make decisions as things become more clear later on down the road.
So that's all I have to say.
Any other board directors have questions?
I'm gonna, before I call the roll, and then after that, I will go through some of the statement of work pieces.
Director Sarju.
It's about I think the motion that's on the table, which I can't find at the moment.
One of the things I was thinking about is I don't know if this is capacity-wise as possible, but I do think that there should be at least two of the three, what do you all call yourselves when you're vice president and member at large?
What's that called?
Board officers.
The words are just not coming.
I think there should be at least two people involved in the process.
And I don't know whether the motion needs to reflect that or not, but that's my ask.
And it could be three.
It could be all three of you.
But I think minimally there needs to be two.
Yeah.
Are you saying for the statement of work and the search room criteria?
well is that what we're yes yes so whether on the statement of work yes that's what we so that's what i will work with staff right after this meeting to finalize so any comments board directors may have uh like let's try to incorporate that that's what i would like the next part of the discussion to be is let's incorporate any of those feedback there so we're not taking a vote on just giving you exclusive monarch monarch It's just on these two documents.
But Director Sarger, if you want to stay with me and work with staff, would love your help.
I am not a board officer.
So there.
But after we vote, I would like to see if folks have any feedback on these documents so we can make sure we incorporate them so that way staff can get it out tomorrow is the goal.
Any other board directors?
Sorry, this is for clarification.
Because I do have something I want to ask about the criteria.
But you're suggesting that we take the vote first and then add?
That would be my suggestion, yes.
We don't get too confused with all the stuff.
All right, then could staff please call the vote on this motion.
Vice President Briggs?
Aye.
Director Clark?
Aye.
Director Hersey?
Aye.
Just to confirm, that was an aye?
Yes, it was an aye.
Thank you.
Can you hear me well?
Yes.
OK.
Director Mizrahi?
Aye.
Director Rankin?
Aye.
Director Sarju?
Aye.
And President Topp?
Aye.
This motion is passed unanimously.
OK.
Thank you, everyone.
I appreciate it.
I think this is the next logical next step.
I don't think it locks us into anything.
And I think it provides some of the infrastructure in the process to make things transparent so we can do some of the engagement and setting up of processes that we need to.
I want to now talk about the two documents that you have, both the statement of work document as well as the superintendent search firm criteria, seeing if there are concerns, edits, or things that you want to see that aren't in these documents.
My goal will be to sit with staff here right after to finalize them so they can get out tomorrow.
Excuse me.
Director Clark.
I have a question if we're looking at the search firm criteria among age 12 of our packet.
At the top, there are two minimum criteria for selection of the firm.
And I was, I guess, just curious how we came up with that criteria.
Yeah, it's gonna be, hang on.
I'm wondering, Ms. Wilson-Jones, if we can have someone from procurement office come and talk a little bit, and then I'm gonna be right back.
Good afternoon.
My name is Nick Iona.
I'm the procurement manager for Seattle Public Schools.
Just to address the question about the two minimum criteria, three years in business is typically what we do use for various types of RFPs, all different types of processes through my networking with small businesses and community outreach.
We found that three years in business is typically a good number that kind of hits that sweet spot between new enough where we can still outreach to a lot of small businesses, but has been in business long enough to actually know what they're doing.
So that's three is a very common number we use.
And then for the other criteria, it was clear there was some desire to make sure that this specific firm that we're looking at can or has had successful recruitment specifically for superintendents before.
So that's how we landed on the two minimum criteria.
Director Clark, any follow-up questions?
Oh, yeah.
Thank you.
I guess I'm just wondering if we were to end up with a firm that has only had two successful searches, is that a level that you feel comfortable in us placing our confidence in?
I guess that number seems a little low to me.
Is that a question for me?
I don't think it's a question for you.
I think it's a question for fellow board members, and I see lots of hands up.
Director Sarju, and then we'll go to Director Rankin, but let's stay.
Are we staying on this thread?
Okay, Director Sarju.
So to echo what Director Clark said, the other thing is when I read this, it says having experience work with at least two school districts on superintendent recruitments for which both searches resulted in successful placements.
What is the criteria for successful placements?
Just putting somebody in the job does not define success.
If the person they put in the job actually ends up staying for whatever measure of time, it's not just putting a butt in a seat.
That's not a successful recruitment.
I think we need to have We need to understand what we mean by successful, and we can define it.
We as a board can define it, but I'm not comfortable with the two district requirements.
That seems really low.
And without a definition of what success looks like, we have measures of success in our academic goals right we have percentages we have you know kids passing tests so on and so forth we need to get to that level of specificity not just having the word successful because the firm found somebody and they were able to sign a contract so i'd like to get more clear on that director sarju will you work on language for what you think would be helpful there Well, so what's your name?
What's your name?
Nick.
Hi, Nick.
I think I'd be willing to have a phone call with you to think about how maybe other procurements have been more defined.
I am not a procurement expert, but this doesn't, you know, when I decided to get my hysterectomy, I asked very direct questions like, oh, I've done 100 of them.
Well, my next question was, well, how many women died?
How many bladders did you nick?
I wanted specific questions answered because that was important to me.
And I think for this search, successful is very vague.
I don't know if Greg and Ellie are over there.
They're over there whispering.
So we'll let them come up.
I think part of this goes to how the minimum criteria and the evaluation criteria will be used in conjunction.
Your minimum criteria are intended to really be screening criteria by which the threshold that for it to be a serious proposal for the board to consider they would need to be in business for several years.
That makes sense.
Success with superintendent searches a little bit of flexibility there in the term I guess we would be deferential to how they would frame it up in their materials.
And then in the evaluation criteria, these are the ones that we have the board teed up on April 8th to receive the materials and sit with them and spend some time with them to evaluate them based on these criteria and then to come together on April 9th and also April 10th as necessary.
And included in here is that experience and expertise in educational executive searches.
So you would be looking to the proposals and how folks have demonstrated to you that they have had that experience, so them speaking to those successful placements.
And then also, I'm sorry, the other point is the proven track record of successful placements.
So the board will have more opportunity to look for more robust evidence of search firms ability to successfully recruit and place a superintendent.
I guess my thank you for that.
I still have the question, though, of someone who's responding to the RFP having vague language.
I've evaluated many RFPs at a government level at the county, and you have to have specificity.
Otherwise, you don't know really what you're getting.
And so I don't know where that would go, Ellie.
That's really my question.
Would we decide that as a board as we're reviewing, or are we putting it in the RFP, the language, the specific language?
Like, for example, Director Clark brought up the low bar of just two school districts like is that what we put in the rfp is that can we change it can we make it four can we make it six and if we can do that then can we not define what successful looks like within the context of the rfp
so part of my question though is we get to define it when we're scoring it like when we are when we are scoring each rfp we get to look at the evidence and see if it was a successful placement or not right yeah i think maybe i'm not being clear like i don't understand what a successful placement looks like
I understand what you're saying, Director Sarju.
I think it's important that we all, all of us, the procurement team, the board, staff, that we are able to define what a successful search is so that we're all on the same page as we are going through this process and looking for candidates and it would seem to me that it should be possible to say a little bit more about in the rfp itself what we mean when we say successful yeah yeah and maybe this isn't a place to work that out but i think we need to be real clear going in
So what I'm hearing as I'm finalizing some of this criteria with staff today is that we want to better define successful placements and we want maybe something higher than two.
Yes.
Yes, I heard.
And I'm seeing, I'm seeing nodding heads and I'm going to go to Liza and then Evan who put her hand, our director Rankin, sorry.
And then vice president Briggs, sorry about that.
It is fine.
Yeah, I have just, oh gosh, I mean, I've just learned so much about so many things since the last time this, this happened.
Um, I, with the profile, the scope on the scope of work document, um, I would like to suggest that, you know, the executive search firm isn't developing the profile of a superintendent.
The board is with the assistance of the search firm.
Um, and, and, So at a minimum, interviewing board directors, interviewing staff, soliciting community input, that should be my belief is that, you know, according to state law, hiring the superintendent, hiring the most qualified superintendent to lead the district is the sole responsibility of the board.
And the board is the decider of what most qualified means.
So not saying that we don't need anybody's input, but I don't want the executive search firm to tell us what our profile of a successful superintendent for Seattle Public Schools will look like.
You're looking under scope of work on page one, where it says the executive search firm will develop a profile.
So making it clear that it's the board that will develop the profile with the help of the search firm.
Yep, and the search firm will support us by interviewing staff and doing the other things, but it should be the board's profile, not the search firm's profile, I feel.
And then kind of in that same vein, I would like it to be really clear that where it says district and where it says board, this is really, I mean, we are the owners.
So the superintendent is completely up to us to run the organization that we own as representatives of the community.
So there are some places where it says the district will enter into contract fiduciary.
Can you show me?
Well, at the top it says the district will review these proposals and select the firms.
I'm seeing at the top of page one of two it says, The title is Attachment B, Draft Evaluation, Seattle Public Schools Superintendent Sir Firm Criteria.
The district will review all proposals and select the firms.
I think that's the board.
Yeah, so that's exactly what we're talking about.
The district reserves the right to conduct interviews with top three firms.
That should be the board.
So I think what I hear Liza saying is that we need to, because the district is not the board.
It's the staff.
I'm looking to staff real fast to say, does that preclude you from doing sort of the minimum criteria work that you need to do in order to get us
For this procurement process, the board serves as the RFP evaluation committee.
I don't think there's any issue with substituting in the board for the district.
And I'm happy to now, when it's the right moment, kind of review the edits.
I'm tracking them on the document here for things that have been suggested.
Okay.
So what I'm hearing, Liza, is going through the documents and being very clear in those places.
Yes, extremely clear.
And, and for further clarity too, that the, the agreement with the search firm and with eventually a superintendent, um, is fully the responsibility of the board and that we should be owning those decisions and that we obviously, um, direct, uh, the district to provide the resources to fund the search.
But we run all of these processes.
I feel like of all the places to be really, really, really clear about ownership is this.
So even the procurement department is being engaged to support the board.
The district is not doing the procurement process.
And I even have questions about why this would go through district procurement and not just be through our attorney.
But I'm not gonna make a big deal out of that.
I just want it to be super duper clear that the district procurement department is assisting and providing a service to the board.
It is still our procurement as the board.
It's not a district process.
Miss Wilson Jones.
And then I'm going to go to Vice President Briggs.
I wanted to confirm one piece to ensure that we're understanding how the board would like the minimum criteria to operate.
So the way the minimum criteria generally would operate in a RFP process looking to general counsel and procurement manager here are that they are the screening criteria.
So you will not receive proposals that are not responsive to these criteria.
So I'm thinking And these would be screened by district staff on your behalf.
So if this language were to say the board directs that the district, you implement the following minimum criteria for selection of a firm on the board's behalf is something more succinct, but is that the intent of directors?
And Greg and Armour may have something more.
Hi, good afternoon.
Greg Narver, general counsel.
And I do want to emphasize the board will have its own outside counsel advising it through this process up through and including the negotiation of a new employment contract.
I remain counsel to the district, so I'm keeping an eye on the overall process to make sure that we're following our procurement roles and things like that.
I do just want to emphasize the minimum screening is simply to ferret out those applications, those proposals that don't even come close to meeting a qualified firm.
And the board will never see those.
Once you have the ones who have passed that minimum criteria, how you want to dig into that and see, I don't care that you've placed five superintendents.
They were all gone within six months.
that's a good opportunity to do that.
It's up to you if you want more stringent minimum criteria.
Do be aware, and we go through this all the time when we post positions for hire, the more stringent you make it, you may screen out some smaller companies that are just getting a foothold in the market.
Just be aware that it's sometimes tempting to say, we don't want to hear from you unless you've had this huge long track record.
And then you may The board may never even see some firms that could be players, but they're just starting to move into that area.
Just something to be aware about how that plays out.
Thanks, Greg.
I think that's helpful to my point, too, that it's really clear that the board is making this decision, that we're not having a decision sort of.
So having the minimum criteria of like, let's not um spend time reviewing uh people that are firms that don't meet the minimum criteria what you're saying greg as i understand it is that the definition of successful would be ours to make based on anybody who has who has met this
for and my further understanding is that we'll get to have a in-depth discussion about that on april 9th having received the materials on april 8th which is a quick turnover for for directors so really flagging that now like be prepared put away put some time aside on april 8th to review materials so we can have a productive conversation on the 9th together about that
Yeah, just to emphasize, of course, this is the board's process.
Only the board can hire a superintendent, and the criteria that you use are yours to develop.
We're probably not doing you any favors if we write the minimum criteria in a way that you get 35 firms you're supposed to look through, some of whom have never even worked with the school district.
So the idea is just to set a couple of initial gatekeeping inquiries, you get the ones that, yeah, these are real players in the school district search process, and then it's your call as to who you want to go with.
Vice President Briggs.
Thank you.
Oh, Vice President Briggs, you're on mute.
whoops um sorry about that so uh actually i think i'm good i everything that i was going to say has already been addressed by previous speakers at this point so i do not need to say anything further other edits
Okay.
Well, we have a lot of work ahead of us.
This is an additional piece of work that we will be taking on as a board, but my expectation is that we continue marching forward with our other board work, but there being no further business to come before the board this evening, the board meeting is now adjourned at 4 p.m.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you.
Thanks, bye.