Search consultants gave the Beaverton School District 48J Board of Directors a detailed timeline and outreach plan for the district’s superintendent search during an Oct. 14 work session, and the board signaled support for keeping finalist names confidential.

Hank, the lead search consultant, told the seven-member board the process will combine a public engagement window of focus groups and an online survey, a targeted recruitment and screening period, and staged interviews that narrow a hypothetical pool of applicants to semifinalists and finalists. “There’s a lot of communication between your consultants, the entire board, the subcommittee, the staff,” Hank said, asking board members to forward any candidate suggestions to the consultants rather than engaging directly with applicants.

The consultants said the engagement phase (focus groups plus the online survey) is designed to produce two outcomes: “one is to school us up, on this point in time in the Beaverton School District,” Hank said, and the other is to produce community-informed criteria that will guide recruitment. Kathleen Rotten Nord, a search consultant, warned board members they will be contacted about candidates and advised them to forward such contacts to the consultants and staff: “It’s really a when, you will, for sure, be contacted either by folks who feel strongly about a possible candidate or a candidate themselves,” she said.

Why it matters

The board’s approach determines who applies and how community input shapes the next superintendent’s selection. The consultants said a confidential finalist stage tends to protect prospective candidates — particularly sitting superintendents — from disruption in their home districts and can increase the quality and diversity of applicants. The board’s decisions on outreach, confidentiality and calendar will shape the pool of candidates and the public’s opportunity to weigh in.

What the consultants proposed

- Engagement: A concerted outreach window of focus groups and an online survey to collect community priorities and produce a draft “next superintendent criteria.” The consultants proposed conducting focus groups and the survey in November (a draft calendar lists a focus-group window roughly Nov. 3–19) and using those inputs to craft the criteria presented to the full board in early December.

- Screening and interviews: The consultants described a staged screening process they use commonly: publicly posted application period (they proposed opening recruitment in mid-December and closing applications on Jan. 14 in the draft timeline), an initial application review, a preliminary round to identify about a dozen strongest applicants, virtual semifinalist interviews with recorded video and single telephone reference checks, and then a confidential executive-session review by the board to name semifinalists and finalists. As an example of how the consultants typically manage numbers, Hank noted hypothetically: “let’s say 35 applicants…we have agreed on 12 that we think are the highest…we will then move forward with the 12…invite those 12 to participate in a virtual interview with us.” He said the board would then select about six semifinalists for a long day of interviews and ultimately narrow to two or three finalists for district visits.

- Community panels and finalist visits: Consultants recommended a confidential “community stakeholder” panel — typically about 12 people chosen by lottery from defined constituent groups — to interview finalists and supply structured feedback to the board. That panel is confidential (members sign non-disclosure affidavits) and is not asked to pick the superintendent but to inform the board.

- Reference checks and background checks: The consultants recommended structured reference checks and investigative third-party background checks for finalists. The board discussed that it would likely require an investigative background check for each finalist and expressed support for doing so.

Communications and logistics

The consultants asked the district to create a central superintendent-search email address and a page on the district website to post updates. They asked board members to forward any candidate suggestions, grievances or outreach to the consultants via the designated staff contact (Carrie) rather than to handle candidate communications themselves, to avoid creating the appearance of impropriety or an improper serial meeting.

Confidentiality and public release of finalist names

At the meeting the consultants recommended — and board members expressed support for — keeping finalist names confidential until a lead candidate is selected and publicly announced. The consultants argued that confidentiality reduces professional risk to applicants who are currently serving in other districts and can produce a broader, higher-quality applicant pool. Dr. Truong voiced agreement: “I completely agree with your recommendation because I think confidential protects, not just the candidate, but also allows us to have a fair, look into who's out there,” he said. Other board members voiced similar support during the discussion.

Calendar and next steps

The consultants and board discussed tentative dates in the draft timeline: a work session to review the draft superintendent criteria in early December (the consultants and board flagged Dec. 3 as a possible pre-meeting and Dec. 9 as a likely approval date), an executive session in late January to identify semifinalists (a Jan. 28/29 window was discussed), and a finalist interview week in early February (Feb. 5–7 was discussed with contingency planning for time-zone challenges for board members). The board asked staff and the subcommittee to circulate a poll to finalize exact dates. The consultants said they will provide the board a confidential link to view all applications and will post recruitment materials before the winter holidays if scheduling allows.

Who will do what

The board agreed the subcommittee will work with the consultants to design focus-group parameters and logistics, run lottery selection processes where appropriate, and bring recommendations to the full board. District staff (Carrie Delf was named as the district staff contact) will support scheduling, manage the proposed special email address, and monitor public-facing materials. The consultants said they will provide templates for reference-check calls and an upload process for board members to submit reference-check notes into the applicant tracking system rather than using email.

What the board decided or directed at the meeting

- Consensus: Board members expressed support for the consultants’ recommendation that finalist names remain confidential prior to a public contract vote. Several board members explicitly voiced support for confidentiality as a way to encourage a strong and diverse applicant pool and to avoid disrupting other districts.

- Direction for staff and subcommittee: The board asked staff to publish a Google form for board members to recommend focus groups and constituency parameters; the subcommittee will finalize focus-group composition and the consultants will craft the survey and engagement materials. Board members were asked to forward candidate contacts to Carrie rather than engage in direct candidate recruitment conversations.

What was not decided

There were no formal votes recorded in the transcript. Exact dates for finalist interviews and finalist visit schedules were left to a follow-up availability poll and subsequent scheduling by staff.

Ending

The board and consultants agreed on next steps: finalize focus-group parameters with the subcommittee, post a draft next-superintendent criteria for public feedback ahead of the Dec. 9 meeting, open the application period once the criteria and timeline are finalized, and prepare logistics for semifinalist interviews, confidential stakeholder panels and finalist visits. Consultants reiterated the importance of forwarding candidate outreach to staff and consultants and of keeping deliberations compliant with public meeting laws.