Conroe Independent School District trustees voted 5-2 to select Texans for Excellence in Education as the district’s first-ranked firm to conduct the search for a new superintendent, and authorized the board president and Chief Financial Officer Karen Garza to negotiate and execute contract documents on the board’s behalf. If those negotiations fail, the board instructed staff to proceed to the second-ranked firm, Walsh Gallegos, and continue through the ranked list until an agreement is reached.

The vote followed a half-day of presentations from six finalist firms that answered a district request for proposals. Board members heard pitches and asked about candidate vetting, contract negotiation, community engagement, timeline, and technical expertise related to Conroe ISD’s curriculum priorities, including Bluebonnet high-quality instructional materials.

Why it matters: The board is beginning a multi-step search that will identify a lone finalist under Texas law and lead to a negotiated employment agreement. The chosen consultant will manage recruiting, screening, community input and interim transition work; the process and contract terms the board approves will shape the district’s next top executive and the first months of that leader’s tenure.

Trustees reviewed competitive presentations from the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB); BBAC Headquarters LLC (BBAC); Walsh Gallegos, P.C.; McPherson & Jacobson; Texans for Excellence in Education; and Ray & Associates. The district’s purchasing director, Brian Broussard, told trustees the district received nine RFP responses, eight met the scope of work, and six firms presented in person. George Kazanis of TASB told trustees “the majority of all of the services we provide, our fee is all inclusive.” Melanie Charleston of Walsh Gallegos emphasized the firm’s legal role, saying, “It is completely a turnkey. There is no finger pointing.” The Texans for Excellence team emphasized community engagement, a customized trustee dashboard, and curriculum-aligned screening.

Trustees pressed firms on several recurring issues. Board members asked how firms would verify candidate effectiveness using district performance data and audits, how advertising and recruitment would reach national candidates, and whether firms accept placement fees (several presenters said they do not). Trustees also asked whether finalists would have experience with Bluebonnet high-quality instructional materials; Texans for Excellence pointed to team expertise and said the firm would screen for Bluebonnet-related knowledge and early-literacy experience. Walsh Gallegos highlighted its capacity to vet candidates and to take the lead on contract negotiations for the board; the firm’s presenter described an approach aimed at finalizing contract expectations before naming a lone finalist.

Several firms offered guarantees or re-search provisions if a placement does not work out: TASB described a two-year replacement guarantee; other firms offered varying guarantees and timelines. Firms described different timelines: BBAC proposed a six- to eight-week process; McPherson & Jacobson suggested eight to 12 weeks as typical. McPherson & Jacobson’s written materials included an expense ceiling “not to exceed $49,700” for a sample scope. Presenters said vetting typically includes criminal background checks, credit checks (if requested), social-media review, reference checks and financial-oversight screening.

After trustees completed scoring in the district’s e-bid evaluation system, a trustee moved that Texans for Excellence in Education be named the first-ranked proposer and that the board president and CFO Garza be authorized to negotiate and execute the contract; the motion included fallback authority to the second-ranked Walsh Gallegos if negotiations failed. Trustees amended the motion to assign negotiation authority to the board president and CFO to avoid a potential conflict because the interim superintendent could be a candidate. The board approved the motion by a 5-2 vote. The motion text and vote were recorded in open session; the board did not provide a public roll-call vote with individual board member names attached in the meeting record excerpt.

Next steps: Under Texas law the board will name a lone finalist (a statutorily confidential step that becomes public) and then has a 21-day waiting period before a formal hiring vote. The selected firm will begin the search process, including a planning/launch workshop with trustees to finalize profile and timeline, community forums and surveys, candidate recruitment and screening, interview rounds and assistance during contract negotiation and transition planning, as directed by the board.

Trustees and staff asked firms to prioritize clear, timely communication (a trustee asked for weekly updates and shared deliverables), strong vetting on candidate finance and performance records, and transparency for trustees and the community. The board publicly preserved flexibility over the process and the timetable, making clear scoring guidance would inform but not bind a final hiring vote.