Board discusses community-conversation facilitation for a new strategic plan, agrees to revisit in June

Board members discussed whether to hire an external facilitator to run community conversations intended to shape a future strategic plan, and agreed to revisit the proposal during the board’s June planning session.

The presenter said the consultant would aim to run community sessions in April or May and estimated a fee “around $25,000,” including facilitation and embedded data work. The presenter described the consultant as a professional facilitator and author who would run the sessions externally so participants could speak without concern that comments would be interpreted as praise or criticism of district leadership.

Board members broadly supported the community-conversation approach but raised several caveats. One board member said they were “a huge fan of the community conversations framework” but cautioned that the role of facilitators should “empower our leadership” and that the board should be clear about internal versus external facilitation and how equity of voice would be handled. Another member asked whether the consultant would provide “conflict resolution” tools and whether the district’s current charged atmosphere could make the sessions unsafe for some community members.

Several trustees urged caution about timing. Multiple members noted the board was coming off a contentious period and that an election cycle and recent referendum could affect who chooses to participate. One trustee said they were “not at all convinced that this spring is the time” and worried that “people of color and parents of color” might not feel safe attending in the near term. Others replied that the district recently received 65% voter support for a referendum and argued that continuing engagement could build on that momentum.

Board members suggested alternatives short of immediate action: delay the sessions until after the election season, ask the consultant for a detailed written proposal (dates, sample session agendas and a concrete schedule), or prepare groundwork—logistics and outreach—so sessions could proceed later with stronger protections and outreach to underrepresented groups. No formal motion to contract the facilitator was made.

The board agreed to revisit the proposal during the June planning period to allow time to gauge community response to the referendum and election-season dynamics and to request a clearer written proposal from the facilitator before any authorization.