The Times had an editorial today about the superintendent search. I have to give the Times credit. They actually said - in print - that they wished it could take place AFTER the School Board elections in the fall. I'm sure they and other power players have been tearing their hair out over this. I'll have to write a lengthier explanation on my take on School Board elections (very different from other elections) but this is a fun piece to read and certainly made me laugh out loud.
On a serious note, I do believe the Board will select one of these people. I'm not sure any of us wouldbe able to find enough wrong to convince the Board otherwise. Are we going to get the person best suited to help us find our way? I don't know. These are the 2 best people out of 39 that the Board selected. So the Times saying "We don't have to settle." isn't going to work. In already stating their case that they wished that the Board would have waited until after the elections, they have played their hand and the Board would never grant them that wish. But the main reason someone will be selected is because it's time and the Board knows it.