Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Search topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Seattle school board narrows superintendent search to three finalists, schedules interviews April 18
Summary
Seattle Public Schools board reviewed proposals for superintendent search firm RFP 032503, applied pricing to combined scores, ranked McPherson Jacobson first, and agreed to interview the top three firms on April 18; final contract authorization will return to the board April 23.
Seattle School District No. 1 board members on April 9 reviewed five proposals for an executive search firm to lead the district's superintendent search and agreed to interview three finalists on April 18.
Board President Taap said the board's immediate goal was to identify finalists: "The goal is, to get to finalists who we can invite for interviews next week if needed," and described a process that will return to the board with a Board Action Report for final contract authorization on April 23.
The board's contracting staff reported that contracting services initially received eight proposals; after applying minimum qualifications five firms remained for evaluation under RFP 032503 (Search services for the superintendent of Seattle Public Schools). Directors individually scored proposals using criteria set at a March 25 meeting; staff combined the subjective 80-point evaluations with a separate pricing formula (20 points) to produce final scores.
Contracting specialist Craig Barber read the final weighted results: "The results for RFP 032503 Superintendent search after the price analysis is ranked 1, McPherson Jacobson at 84.311 points. HYA was ranked second with 83.277 points. Ray and Associates was ranked third with 83.217 points. JG Consulting was ranked fourth with 81.077 points. Hawkins was ranked fifth with 79.984 points." The board opted to invite the top three firms'McPherson Jacobson, HYA, and Ray and Associates'to interview rather than immediately award a contract.
Directors discussed aspects of several proposals: several members praised HYA for repeatedly using the term "student outcomes" and for clearly delineating board and firm responsibilities; others highlighted McPherson Jacobson's local staffing, two-year placement guarantee, and alignment with district context while noting its proposed timeline extended into September. Director Hersey disclosed a professional connection to a consultant affiliated with HYA and said, "I want to be super clear, it did not, reflect in my evaluation whatsoever." The board confirmed that all directors had signed the district's conflicts-of-interest and ethics forms via DocuSign before proceeding.
Staff explained the mechanics of the evaluation: directors provided the subjective scoring (80 points); contracting services applied a standard objective pricing formula (20 points) to produce a 100-point final ranking. Directors were permitted to revise their subjective scores during the meeting; staff collected those revisions and recalculated the combined totals.
The board set the interview process and next steps: contracting services will solicit suggested interview questions from directors and send the final questions to all three firms in advance for fairness. Directors were asked to email suggested questions to Julia (Wilson Jones) by Monday at 4 p.m.; staff will compile a final question list by Tuesday and send it to firms on Wednesday. Interviews are scheduled for Friday, April 18 as virtual sessions of roughly 40 minutes per firm with brief transitions between sessions. The Board Action Report authorizing the contract will return to the board on April 23 (special meeting and regular meeting) for action and a formal vote.
The meeting included introductory remarks from district finance staff overseeing procurement and contracting: Kurt Buttleman, assistant superintendent for finance, introduced procurement staff including Nick Iona, procurement manager, and Craig Barber, contracting specialist. The board recessed twice to allow directors time to complete individual scoring and to allow staff to calculate combined results.
The board adjourned at 5:43 p.m.; staff canceled a subsequent meeting that had been scheduled for the following day.
Ending: The board's next steps are a scheduled interview day on April 18 and a return to the board on April 23 to consider awarding the contract. The final selection will depend on interview scoring and subsequent contract negotiations with the awarded vendor.
