Updates on Superintendent Search from the School Board Office
Update 2:
I kinda got an answer on "selection of candidate."
- The Board could select more than one person or just one person.
- Again, they may not pick anyone if they cannot reach consensus. I think that an outside possibility but it could happen.
- I could not get clarity on if the Board will have forums if they pick someone or more than one person as a finalist. Given how things turned out with Jones, I think it vital to have forums for the public.
end of update
Update: I read this timeline too quickly. The last notation says "selection of candidate." As in one person, not a couple. It is too late in the day for me to ask about this but, in the past, the Board would choose 2-3 candidates and "introduce" them to the Seattle Schools community with opportunities to hear from them.
That notation of a singular candidate makes me uneasy. Is the Board going to pick with zero public input? Stay tuned.
end of upate
Key Dates Ahead
- Thursday, October 9, Finalist Interviews
- Friday, October 10, Finalist Interviews
- Wednesday, October 15, Board Discussion (tentative)
- Wednesday, October 15 or 22, Selection of Candidate (tentative)
Comments
A road show would mostly identify which candidate is most charismatic and best on stage, and/or put in play the intersectional score of each candidate. That's fine if the finalists were otherwise interchangeable, but it gets complicated if real differences exist, along with significant disagreement among board members.
Cmon
It could only reasonably be called a fix if a minority of the board somehow contrived to narrow down the list of finalists to their preferred "fix" candidate plus a bunch of straw candidates. In that case, the candidate really preferred by a majority of the board would never have made it to a vote. That's why I wondered earlier if the board got to review all candidates. It seems that they did, and every board member had the opportunity to push a candidate into the final round (as Briggs seems to have done). Where could the fix be?
However, my problem is with Director Hersey. He is friends, not just colleagues with HYA lead Micah Ali. If he and Mr. Ali collaborated behind the scenes, they certainly could push certain candidates. Every director was allowed to say what candidates they wanted to see. My impression was that Hersey was not there for that meeting but it's unclear to me.
What could be problematic is if a couple of directors were on the fence between two candidates and one was the one Hersey/Ali/Rankin wanted to push. They could argue that all things being equal Candidate B is just as good as Candidate A (B being the one Hersey wants and A being the candidate that others want). And Hersey might say, "well, I don't like Candidate A as well so if you want a united vote, it has to be Candidate B."
Well, the Board HAS to have a unified vote so I wonder if some directors might be forced to go with a candidate they would have picked second.
Someone who attended the superintendent meetings said that HYA had recommended 6 candidates and the Board chose two more. What is unclear is how many candidates were submitted to the Board. I do not think they went through 41 portfolios.
And Sarju has some bee in her bonnet about not revealing names. At the finalist phase, they have to release the names. That's how it works everywhere else. Sarju said maybe a few members of the public could know but would be sworn to secrecy. What?!
Some on the Board have stated if they are not satisfied, they are okay going back to the drawing board.
It's not good that this process is unclear.
I do believe they went through 41 applications. And I wish they picked more for the next round. Maybe 12.
And I support going back to the drawing board.
Fed Up
- Lost Trust
Cmon
I am a bit surprised that no one on the Board has challenged Hersey on his HYA connection; maybe they did that privately.
Just totally guessing, but I would guess that when HYA "recruited" candidates, they had to say up front whether the process would include public auditions. If they promised no at the beginning, forget it, can't happen now. Or else they would need to go back to potential finalists, and revoke that promise, and see who is still willing to participate.
I remember last round one of the candidates was sitting superintendent of a district in a major city in Michigan. It seemed awkward -- wouldn't auditioning for the Seattle job affect her working relationships with staff, teachers, and parents in her current job? Perhaps that particular woman's back was already full of knives, and they would be happy to see her looking for an exit. But you have to assume that some candidates would refuse to be considered if the process included a public audition. Especially one-fer type candidates who know they have no chance of being selected and could never be more than window dressing in the finalist round. What would be their incentive to participate? Except perhaps considering the Seattle audition as really an audition for jobs outside Seattle.
Having a public audition for finalists would tend to limit the pool of candidates to 1) those clearly angling for a big promotion, who could be forgiven in their current job for being ambitious; or 2) those between jobs or in temporary or loosely attached positions such as consulting or foundation work. The latter group, if experienced, would have to be candidates who were pushed out of their previous administrative role, calling into question the track-record and accountability criterion. It's simply harder to poach someone who is currently succeeding in a high-level position if the selection process includes a public audition.
Also, you are wrong. Many superintendent finalists get named. I know this because at least two former SPS senior staffers went on to become superintendents in WA state and their names became public when they were finalists.
From Fresno SD:
"However, one thing is clear: Board members will not conduct a public forum of the top candidates even though community members and leaders are calling for that very thing."
If the Board is going to do this, they should SAY IT.
". “You either find someone who’s either currently out of a job and so isn’t worried about it, or you just lose people who might be great candidates.”
But community leaders say an open search process is essential given the board’s past desire to keep the superintendent search behind closed doors.
Retired Fresno County Judge Robert Oliver has served on several selection committees, including the search for a Fresno State president. He described the process as “unclear and confusing.” He said the public should be able to expect a thorough search with a list of finalists."
"However, more and more, districts are opening up their search processes, including open forums with finalists. So much so that every one of the outside finalists applying to become Fresno Unified’s new superintendent has participated in one elsewhere — either taking questions from board members or from the community before getting the job."
I also note this:
"“The board brought the superintendent search timeline to open session for comment and feedback multiple times. This was never brought about as a request by the public. The board will stick to the search plans they transparently voted on in open session.”
Okay, I didn't attend the superintendent search sessions - did this ever get raised? Also, that last sentence above? The Board only voted on HYA but I don't think there was any vote on the process except redacting portfolios.
If the Board thinks the Times was mad when Jones was installed, I think they'll see worse if there is no public option.
I can't say that the "fix was in", though that could be the case. i am convinced - given my personal experience - that the "deck was stacked" in the hidden process, prompted either at the direction of the board, or at the insistence of a single/small number of board members, or independently by Mr. Ali, simply applying his own license and lens, the board either oblivious or simply allowing the "expert" to manage candidates.
I shared this previously - I was eager to apply, but after twice reaching out to Mr. Ali and receiving no response, I decided not to complete the application. After listening to Mr. Ali in one of the earliest meetings with the Board, hearing how he differentiates between candidates that he knows and are on his existing list, versus outliers he does not know – “passive candidates” was his phrase – I had to conclude I simply would not be given any consideration, and I have no doubt others would have been similarly dissuaded.
I do think a public vetting yields the best results; a school district should not be shackled by any given candidate's squeamishness about openly applying. If a candidate wants this job, they need to want it confidently and openly and bravely enough to actively seek it, and not hide. I just don't buy the idea that good candidates shy away from an open process.
Insider62