Quick Board Special Meeting Yields Two Superintendent Candidates

Update 2:  Over at The Seattle Times' article there has been this back and forth about whether the Board should have allowed public testimony. 

The pertinent citations seem to be RCW 42.30.240 Public Comment and RCW 42.30.110(1)(g) Executive Sessions.

OSPI Retired Professional, a long-time commenter on public education, added this court case:

West v. Walla Walla (2025) is now a leading Washington case underscoring that:

• Governing bodies may discuss candidate qualifications in executive session,
  
• But they may not narrow, rank, or vote in private,
  
• And special meetings must stick strictly to their noticed agenda.
  

Members who knowingly participate in unlawful meetings may face personal penalties (RCW 42.30.120).

This meeting was likely so short because for the two days previous - the Executive Sessions where they went through the eight candidate portfolios - they had narrowed the list. Did they rank them in some subtle way? Probably. 

Because I find it hard to believe those seven directors ALL landed squarely on the same two candidates. And not a single director wanted to add anyone else but those two. 

Also, it is difficult to know whether they should have had public comment. One RCW states "regular meetings" must have comment but this was a "special meeting." 

The directors did stick to their one agenda item. 

It's hard to know what to make of all of this but I think there was some sleight of hand going on. Hmmm.

end of update

Update: here's what HYA says at their website about "community participation:"

Decide if the community or committee(s) will be part of the interview process. It is best practice to keep the search process as confidential as possible (dependent on state law) to get the best pool of candidates. If community participation is desired beyond the development of the leadership profile, forums to meet the candidates and provide feedback for each candidae via an instrument is most common. This can be done in real-time using technologies.

I honestly cannot think of a good reason why the Board wouldn't want the community to meet these two candidates. At this point in the process, the candidates are all-in so it seems like they would have the courage to stand up to scrutiny.

Here's what the group, Effective School Boards, says:

Interviews

While application screening should be left exclusively to whomever is accepting the applications — either a search firm or external law firm — all additional screening should be conducted by the board itself using the previously crafted screening instruments. This screening by the school board members should utilize completely sanitized and anonymized information about the candidates – no names, no race, no age, no dates of graduation or service, no gender, no photos, no fraternity/sorority indicators. Nothing but the previously agreed upon screening-relevant information and a letter or number to indicate them. 

Once the board members have determined whom to interview, then – and only then – the school board should receive all of the appropriate information about the candidates whom they have agreed to interview. Ideally no more than ten candidates are included in the first round of interviews. Ideally no more than three candidates are included in the final round of interviews. It’s also at this stage that background checks should be conducted and references should be contacted.

end of update

The meeting started at 4:31 pm with all Board directors present. President Gina Topp said there is a Mariners playoff game tonight and they hoped to be done before it got started. 

Topp thanked the over 3,000 people who gave input on superintendent attributes desired. She said the directors had two days of interviews with the eight candidates who came out of the 40-person candidate application pool. 

The finalists selected tonight will have their background checks done and more interviews with directors. She said that they had, "a strong pool of applicants including sitting superintendents in this closed process." 

She asked if directors had any questions. Silence.

Topp moved on and said that she favored Candidate 7 and Candidate 8 and that both "currently hold leadership positions." She asked directors for any other candidates they favored. Silence.

Topp stated that both candidates will remain "confidential" in final interviews. She said both finalists were asked for a "100-day plan" that would "set their priorities" from the start.

All the directors voted yes for these two candidates. 

Given they all voted yes for both candidates is a good sign.  In the end, they may argue over which one but that they all settled on the same two is good. 

The meeting ended at 4:41 pm. 

Questions

1) The Board is being very coy about this process and I'm beginning to think all the public will get is an announcement, "It's this person." I would be VERY unhappy with that. I believe students and staff and parents should get a chance to hear from each candidate. 

2) It is unclear to me if the directors actually know the names of the candidates and where they currently work. 

3) Topp did not state when these two candidates would be interviewed - maybe next week? With an announcement the week after? 

What questions do you have?