First Board Meeting on Superintendent Search - March 25, 2025

This meeting ran an hour and that's because President Gina Topp is so good at running meetings. Agenda

Only Topp and Director Michelle Sarju were in person and the rest of the directors - Rankin, Mizrahi, Hersey, Clark and Briggs were virtual. 

I am going to state upfront that this is an aggressive schedule that may not be able to happen as laid out. Some directors expressed this same thought and some of it is timing. This is NOT the time of year that district normally go looking for superintendents. Usually it starts in fall and ends in spring. So Seattle Schools may have missed that window for the best candidates and may get a line of candidates who were rejected by other districts. That doesn't mean they weren't good candidates but probably not a good fit for a certain district. 

But I have also seen candidates who apply for post after post and not get selected. The Board may get some of those. 

Topp said interested firms should have their applications to the Board by April 8th and THEN on April 9th, the Board would go over them and select three firms. That means, overnight, the directors have to give all their time to this effort to keep on track. This is not something that can be shifted to the Consent agenda. 

Topp went on to say that there would be a special April board meeting to select the firm and then after that special meeting, there would be the regular Board meeting to vote to approve. To be clear, this would all happen in April 23rd. 

 

Topp opened it for discussion and boy, was it fascinating and somewhat disturbing. 

Director Evan Briggs started. She asked if only the search firm selected could find candidates and couldn't other "entities" like the Council for Great City Schools? I'm hoping they heard my NO from Arizona. 

Look, the district does actual business with CGCS. It's not like the Alliance for Education or the NAACP;money changes hands between SPS and CGCS. I do not think they should be part of this and, because of that financial arrangement, they have an vested interest to find someone that fits THEIR profile. 

Topp said they should use their networks and pointed out that Rankin was in Washington, DC for some kind of CGCS get-together and that Rankin had spread the word there. I have no problem with anyone - parent, teacher, administrator, "entities" - putting names out there. But no entity should have a bigger voice than anyone else.

Then Director Sarju spoke up, saying she said she wasn't on "her A game" but didn't explain. I guess she was coming after an illness but it was unclear. 

She said, "As I look at timeline, it doesn’t seem realistic to me and we are behind the eight ball." And, that it wasn't a good time to recruit.

She doesn't feel it leaves enough room for public engagement and "we need to do that." 

Then, she dropped something of a bomb - "I don't think this iteration of the School Board should choose the next superintendent because the majority of seats is up for election. It seems prudent and wise and fair. I don't support us making the final decision."

She also said she wasn't excited for a search firm and it might be a waste of dollars.

She seemed to think the search firm could find an interim.  

She ended with, "Y'all gonna do what y'all are gonna do." It was unclear to me what she meant by that in context to this discussion.

Director Liza Rankin said the schedule seemed too fast. She said they should be prepared for it to take longer. She also pointed out - having done this before - that the search firm will definitely ask Board members if they know a good candidate. She said the process should be transparent. (Well, if you ask the CGCS and have major discussions with consultants like AJ Crabill, that's hardly going to be transparent.)

Director Brandon Hersey said he shared Sarju's concerns. He said it was "not a good time to be recruiting a good candidate." He also said he wasn't "stoked" for an interim. He said the Board should not "box" themselves into a corner.

 He mentioned how difficult it could be for either a new permanent super or interim one with the teachers contract. Well, I'm confused because Jones WILL be here to work on that. He knows when school starts and knows it has to get done before that. 

Director Joe Mizrahi wished the Superintendent the best. He said that he looked at the state directors' timeline suggestion and that this schedule is not so different from what they suggest except for time of year. 

Director Sarah Clark, recovering from a knee operation, said she had concerns about the timeline and there should be "a robust community engagement process" with transparency. 

Sarju came back in to say that she feels the Board officers should have a big role in the process. 

The vote was taken and the motion passed.

SPS Procurement Manager Nick Ioanna came forward as some directors did not like the two minimum requirements for search firms and wanted to ask him about it. Sarju wanted to have clarity on what a "successful placement" looked like. She said when she got a hysterectomy "I asked questions." Poor Ionna was trying to look as serious as he could.  

Staff said those were just minimums and the Board should look for firms that have more qualifications.

Legal Counsel Greg Narver came up to say that the Board will have outside counsel helping with the process especially around the contract negotiations. He said he is counsel to the district. 

He also pointed out that it is good to have firms with experience but that there are smaller firms that may be very good but with less experience. He said they shouldn't discount them.

 

 Analysis

 A concern for me is the Board has a lot of VERY hard work ahead. Two directors could not find the wording for the motion to go forward. Directors need to read ALL the documentation. They need to come prepared. It does not look good when they are fumbling around and expect staff to come and point to a page for them. 

I realize they have jobs and lives but this single thing is the MOST important work they can do.

No one took up on Sarju's suggestion to wait until after the fall elections. I have mixed feelings on this point. Sarju's point is valid. But waiting would mean an interim for possibly close to a year. Is that a good idea? 

Hersey made a number of statements but offered no clear idea about where he stands. 

To again state, the teachers' contract negotiations will start in, what?, June? And needs to get done before the start of school. Jones will be here that entire time. 

 

Any thoughts?