Seattle Public Schools
Good afternoon.
We will call the meeting to order momentarily and SPS TV will begin broadcasting.
All right, the April 9th, 2025 board special meeting is called to order at 440 p.m.
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.
Director Clark has sent me a message.
She's about 10 minutes away.
Director Hersey.
Here.
Director Mizrahi.
Here.
Director Rankin is traveling and is unavailable.
Director Sarju.
Present.
And this is President Topp.
We're gonna move into our business action items for today.
As we discussed on our March 25th meeting, Superintendent Jones has announced his departure from the district.
This means we need to undertake a hiring process.
At our last special meeting, we developed a scope of work and evaluative criteria for an executive search firm to assist us.
And tonight our focus will be on reviewing proposals received in response to the request for proposals issued for that work.
First though, I want to try to orient us to how this fits into the initial stages of our search process by introducing a board action report that will come back to us for action on April 23rd.
The title of the Board Action Report is Authorization to Execute a Contract with an Executive Search Firm for the Superintendent Search.
As the sponsor of the item, I'll introduce it.
This Board Action Report, which we will amend to include our selected firm, will eventually provide the Board's authorization to enter into a contract with a search firm.
We received proposals from five firms yesterday and directors began their individual reviews of the proposals.
I appreciate board directors taking the time, carving out of the time in their day in order to read the proposals.
That was a lot of fun reading to do and tonight we're going to review that scoring together.
and consider how the proposals align with the evaluation criteria that we set.
The goal is to get to finalists who we can invite for interviews next week if needed.
And then on April 23rd, we will join back together during our special board meeting to finalize our evaluation and identify the firm we wish to move forward with.
We will vote on the board action report then during the regular board meeting also on April 23rd.
So two meetings on April 23rd, a special board meeting and a regular board meeting.
This schedule is also summarized on the board action report in a table on page two, which I find extremely helpful and informative, and I'm crossing things off as we hit the deadlines.
But before we move into the next section of tonight's meeting, evaluation of the proposals.
Do directors have questions or comments about the board action report or planned next steps?
Loosely.
Director Hersey.
Yeah, so just wanted to disclose that I have a professional colleague that is a consultant at HYA.
His name is Micah Ali.
For those of you who were on the board before, Micah presented the board through CAPSI, an organization that he's affiliated with.
with an award a few years ago.
As you'll see in my responses, I want to be super clear, it did not reflect in my evaluation whatsoever.
But just out of an abundance of caution, I wanted to make sure that I disclose that I do have a colleague that is a part of the organization that is applying.
And he was not a part of that organization when we received the award, to my knowledge.
So just wanted to keep everything as above as above board as possible.
I appreciate that.
Thank you Director Hersey.
Indeed.
Any other board directors.
All right, then I think we're gonna move on to the review or the evaluation of responses to requests for proposals number RFP 032503 search services for the superintendent of Seattle Public Schools.
Tonight we've got some staff who are going to help us.
We're joined by Assistant Superintendent of Finance, Kurt Buddleman, Dr. Kurt Buddleman, excuse me, as well as some additional staff from contracting services that Dr. Buddleman will introduce here shortly.
Contracting Services received eight proposals and after applying our minimum criteria, we had five firms remaining for our consideration.
For fairness and to comply with state law for the valuation of these proposals, we need to adhere to the following tonight and through the process.
We need to first comply with our conflicts of interest and ethic policies which have been provided for review and confirmation via DocuSign.
Got confirmation from staff that all directors have signed that.
We need to evaluate the proposals based on the criteria we previously set and included in the RFP.
Those are detailed in our scoring sheets.
And finally, we need to document our reasoning through the provided pro con sheets to support our scoring.
So I get to say more, okay.
In alignment with those process requirements, we're going to work through the following steps today.
I think there's roughly about five of them.
First, I'll look to staff to confirm that they have our individual scoring from the evaluation and each director submitted that.
Staff.
Wait.
We do have scoring from individual board members.
There's one board member who may request some more time for scoring, so we can address that as we get further into this.
Okay, and we can pause to complete if needed.
Second, once we've got all the individual scores, I'll ask staff to report back to us on our combined scoring.
Third, we're going to look at the scoring, and then our next step will be to move into a discussion about why we scored as we did.
After discussion we can change our scoring if needed but we will need to then further document in writing our reasoning for those changes.
Finally, we'll look at our combined scoring with any updates as well as pricing, which is scored separately by contracting services.
This will determine the top three firms to interview.
However, we also have the option of selecting our highest score without going into an interview.
If we do an interview, then we would do that on Friday, April 18th.
So there was a lot of information there.
Any questions before I pass it on to Dr. Buddleman?
Welcome, Director Clark.
It's wonderful to see you.
So I'm going to try to summarize.
First, we're going to look to see if all individual scores have been completed.
If not, we'll pause.
We're going to get a report from staff about what those scores look like.
That will give us then an opportunity to move into discussion of those scores and change our scoring if needed, as long as we document that.
We will look at the final score along with the pricing added into the scoring.
And we will have three firms that we can decide if we want to move forward with the highest score or go into interviews.
OK?
Any questions at this point?
If not, I'm going to hand it over to Dr. Buddleman now to introduce the staff team, and staff will support us as we move through this process.
Thank you.
I'll just briefly introduce the staff who are here with me.
All three are relatively new to the district, so this is a learning moment for all of us and for you, having never done this before with the superintendent hiring process.
So as President Topps said, I'm Kurt Buddleman, assistant superintendent for finance.
And it's my pleasure to introduce Nick Iona, who's our procurement manager.
I think the board met him at a meeting a week or two ago when this process began.
To Nick's left is Greg Brady.
Greg Barber.
Greg Barber.
He's been with the district since July of last year and has done a lot of work in tough circumstances.
He's been sort of the lone contracting services person for a long time until he was joined by Myla Eldridge, who joined us also in January.
So we brought all three of these professionals today just to have some continuity throughout the process in case one or some of us can't be here throughout the entire process without having you all get a first introduction to all three of us or all four of us would be prudent to keep the process moving.
WE ALSO THINK THAT OUR ROLE HERE IS TO HELP YOU ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, TO MAKE THIS OBJECTIVE AND FAIR PROCESS IN THE SELECTION PROCESS, AND AGAIN, BASING ALL YOUR INFORMATION ON WHAT'S REFLECTED IN THE ARFP DOCUMENTS.
SO WE'LL SIT HERE, QUIETLY ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY, PROVIDE GUIDANCE IF YOU NEED THAT, BUT WE'LL DEFER TO YOU AS THE BOARD TO DRIVE THE PROCESS PRIMARILY.
Perfect.
We are going to proceed to our first step, reviewing our preliminary scoring.
And I understand we have not yet received all our scores.
So we are going to take a 10-minute recess for folks finish their scoring if they would like to finish their scoring if scores aren't submitted directors are unable to participate in the selection process and I I have a question on the scoring sheet
I'm looking at it and I have to correct mine anyway.
I typed on the wrong line.
But there is no, there are no spaces for comments on this.
What are we doing on the, where do we put comments on the scoring sheet?
I'll leave it to staff here.
Hello, this is Nick Iota, procurement manager.
All comments should be entered on the pro cons form.
Is that a separate form?
That is a separate document that was supplied as part of the evaluation packet.
It is in the same document.
It's on the second page.
Oh, I see.
Okay, now I see it.
Now I have to scroll down.
Okay, and how many words are required?
There's no word like limit or requirement.
Just what you feel would be able to convey the complete thought, I think, would be the best limit.
Okay.
All right.
All right.
As long as my answer is acceptable, because you just stated that I don't have to have a lengthy answer.
I'm just confirming that that's the case.
So I would say it doesn't need to be a lengthy answer, but if a thought isn't able to be conveyed, if it's just like yes or no, that wouldn't...
Oh, no, it won't be that.
Okay.
It'll probably be like five words, but I think the thought will be clear.
Okay.
All right.
So we are going to take a 10-minute recess and convene again at 5.03.
We're going to take five more minutes to allow staff to add up the score.
We'll come back at 5.08.
Okay, it is 5.08, we are going to join back together here.
Staff has had an opportunity to calculate scores, so if we could have them walk through the scoring sheet and where that leaves us.
Any chance we can make that a little bigger?
Okay.
So we have five vendors that have been scored by all seven directors.
So thank you for participating in the process.
The first vendor on the sheet is Hawkins, and their total score is 64.29.
The next vendor on this scoring sheet is HYA at 72.29.
JG Consulting is 64.57.
Could you repeat that, please?
JG Consulting, 64.57.
McPherson Jacobson is 65.43.
And Ray & Associates is 66.71.
Clearly, some very qualified firms, tight grouping there.
These scores do not include the pricing components, so we'll apply that after your discussion and how you want to proceed on this part of the discussion.
So I'll turn it over to Dr. President Topp, to Dr. President Topp.
I think Director Clark may have a quick question.
Sure.
Yeah, could you just repeat the score for the first firm for me, please?
Hawkins, 64.29.
Okay, thank you.
Directors have any other questions?
So otherwise, we will move.
Now that we've received the combined scores, do directors have specific scoring criteria?
You want to walk through our criteria are listed on the scoring sheet and address the following.
If you all have a scoring sheet, you can read it.
If not, I can read it out loud, but it's quite a bit.
You want me to read it?
All right.
Alignment of the recruitment and selection approach and methodology with SPS values.
Next is a proven track record of successful placements.
Next criteria is a experience and expertise in educational executive searches.
Next is approach and methodology for engaging community and system stakeholders.
And finally, an understanding of our district context, challenges and opportunities, including our timeline.
So this discussion is an opportunity to lead us to for folks to update their scoring by hearing others perspectives or thoughts or how they scored things.
So do directors want to speak in on any of these areas?
And I'll open the floor up.
If there is no discussion, what we would do is move to the top three or we would apply the financial criteria to the selection and see what our top three is and decide if we wanted to move with our finalist or an interview.
But that wouldn't give us a chance to change our scoring in any way.
Yeah, I have a question for, I think, the contract specialist team.
If there are specific things in here that were like, oh, we like this firm, but really didn't like this one aspect of their bid, like how much of a back and forth Do we have to evaluate these as is?
I'll say specifically that I thought McPherson's timeline was a little too long.
I liked a lot of other things about McPherson.
Is that something that we can go back to them and say, hey, we liked you overall, but could you do this process by August, not September, or by July, not September?
That's a great question.
So the proposals have to be evaluated based on what is in there.
However, the RFP does allow for once we are at the selected vendor, we are able to negotiate with them.
And so some of those specifics can be negotiated at that time.
But I would say don't plan on like going forward through the process as like, oh, well, we can select them and then fix that then.
That's not the approach I would take.
So the proposals have to be evaluated as is what's in there.
But then there is a negotiation phase that will happen with the awarded vendor at that point.
Got it.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Director Briggs.
Director Hersey, can she borrow your mic?
Thank you.
Okay, I guess I'm just wondering if, can I be reminded, who are the top three scorers right now?
HYA is 72.29.
Okay.
Ray and Associates is 66.71.
And McPherson-Jacobson is 65.43.
So those are the top three.
Okay.
I guess I feel like if there's the way I would approach whether we need to continue and have a discussion about this is anybody upset that a firm that they liked didn't make it to the top three and feels the need to advocate for that firm?
Because I think if we're all comfortable with who our top three are, then I feel like we can just move right along.
But that top three could change once you, because the pricing is, the pricing is 20%, just to be very clear.
Right, right, right.
Okay, but it does mean that we're comfortable eliminating the two at the bottom, I guess.
But they could come back there.
Oh, they could come back.
Through the pricing, because the pricing is, so the pricing is 20%.
It's way, like,
So does that mean we, are we, do we have to choose the lowest bidder?
No, it's not a low bid.
It's a formula the district uses to try and factor out firms that are just trying to low bid a process.
And so it factors in the average bid plus what their bid is compared to the criteria.
So it is 20% of the scoring.
The top three from that point.
Can you give me an example of how that works?
I'm not understanding.
So if we just, like, for example, let's take the top, the one at the top, I think it's Hawkins, and let's just round them up to 65. What would the pricing, where does pricing come in to that?
Am I, did I not make sense or did no one hear me?
We're working on getting a microphone, Director Sarju.
Oh, okay.
Sorry about that, Director Sarju.
I can't, I can't see what's happening, so.
Yeah, my mic wasn't working, I apologize.
So what would happen at this point is the committee has the opportunity to discuss the initial scores that are presented on the screen right now.
If there is going to be no further discussions, then we'll add, if there's no further discussions and no changes to the scores, then we would go ahead and add the financial scoring component.
That would then create the final scores and the top three that result from the combination of the two, this initial preliminary scoring, and the initial financial scoring would then result in the top three that could potentially be interviewed.
But right now what you're looking at is scores without the financial component.
The financial component is determined separately and then added on after.
Does that help clarify?
No, it doesn't.
So let me ask the question a little differently.
Who decides, who decides, this is, pretty nebulous, and so you're talking about 20% of what?
So in the RFP document, each one of these categories that you see, like approach and methodology, that's worth 15 points, or 15%.
Yes, I see that, yeah.
And then cost is 20%.
Who decides the cost scoring is we use a formula, so it's very objective, it's not a subjective portion.
80% is subjective, and then 20% would be objective.
And this is on all RFPs that you...
This is the formula we use on all RFPs.
And it's 20% of what?
It's got to be 20% of something.
Of the total score here, so you had 80 points, it's an extra 20 points for a total of 100 per vendor.
Right now, if having a score on this would be 80, it would be another 20 potential points.
20 additional points per vendor.
Okay, and I'm still confused about how we, if, what are we scoring, if this is just, if this is objective, then what are we actually scoring?
Pricing.
I know, for the pricing.
Like, do, whether we think it's a good price?
A good price?
Yeah, I'm, yeah.
The committee isn't being asked to weigh in on the scoring.
We just take the scoring that the vendors proposed and we put it into this formula that the district uses to apply that 20% to the final score.
So you're not being asked to do anything with the scoring.
We've done that separately.
Okay, so we have no part to play in the pricing.
That's where I was going with this.
That's where I was going with this.
We have no say.
It's standard district policy.
Okay, that was the missing layer.
Okay.
Okay.
That, yeah, that wasn't clear.
That answers my question.
So we were in charge of 80 points total, and then this pricing segment is 20 points that we don't have control over.
There's a standard formula, which could change then the ranked three, but we don't know.
So this is the question, like, if we're, if there are folks who feel like we need to raise some scores for some of these folks, this is the time to make that argument.
Oh, okay.
Sorry.
Oh, no, that's probably me because I turned this on.
Is this mine that's doing that?
Okay, I don't know.
Okay, that's really helpful.
So I'll say this.
I felt that reading all of those was like an extreme exercise in parsing word salad for the most part, which is just how those things go.
But HYA stood out to me because they were the only ones who used the term student outcomes multiple times.
I had a couple other.
Oh, I also really appreciated how they delineated what the responsibilities of the board and the district were and just made it very clear like this is our responsibility and this is what the firm does.
I think that kind of clarity, role clarity is so important.
So for those two reasons they really stood out to me above all the other ones and then the bottom four were kind of like, you know, I didn't have super strong feelings about any of them.
I mean, some I liked better than others, but HYA is the one that was my clear favorite.
So if other people feel that same way, then I would love to bump them up a little bit, but only if other people are in agreement with me on that.
I'm not trying to railroad anybody.
Can somebody who's ever working the PowerPoint scroll H-Y, because I can't see the whole thing, and I just discovered a math error.
Director Sarju, Ms. Wilson-Jones has sent you the document as well, so you should have it in your email.
Has sent me the document?
Yes.
Okay, yeah, now I see.
She corrected my math.
Thank you.
I totally agree with what you pointed out about HYA.
That was what stood out to me as well.
I think my scores across the board are low.
It's a weighted score.
I just scored everyone a little lower.
Well, because I'll just say, the proven track record of successful placement was a really hard one for me to score.
How do you define successful?
How much data do we have on how happy people are with that?
Yeah.
which I did think that it was interesting on that point, the McPherson was the one that has the guarantee.
So I scored them a little bit higher on that.
It's like, okay, well that's like a little bit of like confidence on that one.
But I think I would be comfortable bumping up my approach and methodology for recruitment score from 20 to 25 for HYA in that vein.
I noted the same thing.
So looking to staff then for how that technically works, do you want, yeah, let's.
And I'd be willing to bump up mine because I, based on this conversation, I only, they scored 77 out of 80. And I'd be willing to.
say, okay, add three points.
But I'm not.
Let's figure out staff, how do we, because we have to have it written.
What is the best process here to make that happen?
I think if you want to have your full discussion about the different firms, do that.
As you're doing that, take notes on your piece of paper, and Director Sargi, sorry you don't have the piece of paper.
Could she send an email, if necessary, to Ms. Wilson-Jones with her notes of changes that she would like to see?
Yep.
Okay.
Director Sargi, does that work for you?
So basically what I would be sending is add three points to HYA for the first column.
And include your reasoning as well.
So you heard something maybe along the lines of you heard Director Briggs regarding some of her points she made on whatever you felt was pertinent to you.
And that's why I want to change the score.
Well, I think my reasoning stands as it is already.
There, it, there isn't much more to say.
And I don't need to necessarily change it, just to make up another point.
Yeah, so I guess we can see where this ends up in this random 20% that we don't have anything to do with, so.
Other, Director Briggs, I agree with you.
That was one of my pro comments was that they did actually talk about student outcomes, and that resonated with me really well.
I also appreciated their, what's the word I'm looking for?
Commitment or structure around engagement with community and that aspect of it.
Do directors have other comments about other firms?
And staff are taking notes on this conversation.
So, Director Sarge, you were documenting sort of the rationale of the discussion.
I guess I...
One firm that stood out to me was McPherson Jacobson.
I liked that, at least the way that I read it, they guarantee the outcome for two years.
And they have staff working for them that are located in our state with experience and knowledge of Seattle Public Schools, but also our state laws and our school system.
And I think their search philosophy aligns with our values and I appreciated that they talked about using like a consensus decision making process when working with us to develop the criteria for the search.
And that I think, we already talked about this, that the timeline is obviously a little bit behind the scope, but other than that, they, They didn't use the words like student outcomes, but they talked about academic achievement and that they would be willing to continue working with us until we had a superintendent hired and in place, even if that's beyond the timeline that they proposed.
I agree, Director Clark.
I also appreciated, as we talk about SBS's context, that the team that they had assembled were folks who are also maybe more familiar with Washington and our uniqueness maybe here in Seattle, or the uniqueness we like to think we have.
Yeah.
I also agree.
They were my, I would say they were my second choice for all the reasons that you stated.
I would bump my my big issue with them was the timeline because they were the ones that said like end of September I was like wait a second yeah what's superintendents starting at the end of September but I talked to them for that as well so did I I could I I mean I would I could bump them up in I could give him I'll give them five more points in the engaging community and system stakeholders category.
So I'll give them a 15.
Director Mizrahi.
Yeah, I think that you all are bringing up some really good points about the, that they may not have used the term student outcomes, but that they were talking about academic achievement in the right way.
I'm trying to remember exactly why.
I think I was a little too low on the approach and methodology.
So I would bump this 12 up to 20, so plus eight on that for me.
Any other directors with comments for things?
Then I'm going to say, because there are some score updates, we will get our score updates to staff to update our scores.
And then roughly do need 5, 10 minutes to do the 10 minutes.
So we'll take a recess again until 540.
Thank you.
going back together here we are four minutes ahead of when I said we were but all board directors are here so I'm going to ask staff now to walk us through scoring information now that the pricing component has been incorporated so I will hand it over
Ellie, can you put that on the screen?
And it will be on the screen here in just a second.
There it is.
I'm going to ask contracting specialist Craig Barber to read the results.
Okay.
the results for RFP zero three two five zero three superintendent search after the price analysis is ranked one McPherson Jacobson at eighty four point three one one points HYA was ranked second with 83.277 points.
Ray & Associates was ranked third with 83.217 points.
JG Consulting was ranked fourth with 81.077 points.
And Hawkins was ranked fifth with 79.984 points.
thank you so we get the opportunity now for discussion whether we want to move forward with interviews for all three we have that date scheduled already on our calendars for February 8 February April 18th or we can move ahead with the with the with the top scoring firm which would have been McPherson so I want to open in the floor up to discussion strong feelings from folks one way or the other.
Direct interview process would that be an appropriate time to act to ask McPherson about their timeline and if that was movable.
Yeah, so what we could do if we did want to move to interviews is we can collect some questions that you would like to ask the candidates ahead of time.
And if you wanted one of those questions to be about the timeline, we could include that as part of their interview.
Yes.
Perfect.
Joe, does that mean you're leaning towards wanting to do interviews?
one way or the other.
Need some thoughts here for folks.
Is hire McPherson.
Yes.
Or do interviews.
Or do interviews.
I think I'm inclined to do interviews then.
That's helpful, thank you.
Yeah, I'm curious about how the interview process could change the outcome.
So why is it like a, we have to go with the number one here, but if we interview them, then we can pick somebody else?
So there are criteria associated with the interview that would be added to these scores and then the total would be the successful vendor.
Okay, got it.
Yeah, I'm leaning toward interviewing as well.
I appreciate that.
Director Clark?
Yeah, I think I'm leaning towards going through an interview process as well.
Director Hersey or Sarju, any
I think we should do interviews.
Yeah, interviews.
All right, that's easy.
So we are going to move forward for our interviews for our finalists.
We're going to work on scheduling them for April 18th.
We will have 40 minute interviews.
to allow for logistics of swapping through the different firms, so roughly a three-hour meeting.
Prepare for that.
We're going to need to generate some questions, and contracting services is going to send those questions to the firm in advance.
just out of a fairness situation so we don't have to quarantine different firms.
Everyone's going to get the same questions in advance.
These questions should align with the interview scoring criteria included in the RFP.
Those criteria cover the vendor's approach to contemplating contract deliverables, professional qualifications, past performance.
Staff will email us the interview evaluation criteria and questions that were asked during the process in 2021, but we will likely want to update them.
So here's the step for directors between that.
Please email Julia any questions you want to suggest for these interviews, no later than Monday.
So Julia will be collecting questions, but we need to get the questions no later than Monday so we can compile the questions for the firms.
Director Clark.
Is there a certain time on Monday that we should get those into, Julia?
4 p.m.
4 p.m.
on Monday.
Thank you.
And then we will create a final list of questions by Tuesday so they can be sent to the firms on Wednesday.
Okay.
and we will then reconvene and continue this process with interviews.
Any questions?
All three, yes.
So it'll be like 40 minutes and like a roughly 10 minute transition, 40 minutes transition, 40 minutes transition.
And I believe those are set up as virtual interviews.
All right, Friday night fun, everyone.
That's the time when this board could all find time to take this next step.
Any other questions before we adjourn here?
All right, there being no further business to come before the board, the board meeting is now adjourned at 543. Thank you all, woo.
Thank you, everyone.
One more announcement.
Yes, since we concluded all our business today, our meeting for tomorrow is canceled.
So we have the night off.