Seattle school board authorizes RFP to start superintendent search; directors voice concerns about timing and scope

The Seattle School District No. 1 Board of Directors voted unanimously March 25 to authorize the board president, with assistance from district staff, to finalize a statement of work and evaluative criteria and to initiate a request for proposals for an executive search firm to help identify candidates for superintendent.

The vote authorizes the board president to finalize the RFP materials and directs procurement to post the solicitation promptly; Vice President Briggs moved the motion and Director Mizrahi seconded. Board members discussed a compressed timeline, whether the current board should select a long‑term superintendent given four seats will turn over after the November election, and whether the firm should be treated as a “process” vendor rather than the sole source of candidates.

Board President Taub told directors that the procurement process would post the RFP immediately, with proposals due April 8 and an initial board review scheduled April 9. The board plans to identify three finalists for interviews the week of April 17–18 and to select a firm at a special board meeting on April 23, with a formal vote at the board’s regular meeting on April 23. Vice President Briggs read the motion on the record: "I move that the school board authorize the board president with the assistance of district staff to finalize a statement of work for a request for proposals for an experienced executive search firm to assist the board in identifying candidates in the spring of 2025 to assume the position of superintendent of schools and authorize the board president with the assistance of district staff, to finalize evaluative criteria for use by the board in reviewing the proposals prior to selection by the board."

Directors outlined several substantive concerns during discussion. Director Sarju said the timeline “doesn’t seem realistic” and argued that the next board — noting four seats will change — should have a role in selecting a permanent superintendent, adding, "I do not support this iteration of the board making the final decision on the next superintendent." Director Hersey and others echoed worries about recruiting high‑quality candidates during a period of budgetary uncertainty and negotiations, and all asked that the process leave open the option of appointing an interim leader.

Director Rankin and others framed the search firm as a capacity‑building partner, saying firms provide infrastructure for outreach, scheduling and candidate coordination but do not have a monopoly on candidates. Director Rankin said board members should continue to use personal and organizational networks and that the firm should coordinate with those efforts. Director Rankin also emphasized that prior community vision and values work should inform the search criteria.

Procurement manager Nick Iona explained two proposed minimum screening criteria for proposers — at least three years in business and demonstrated experience with superintendent recruitments — and said the three‑year threshold is commonly used to balance small‑business outreach and demonstrated capacity. Several directors questioned whether the second minimum (experience with at least two superintendent recruitments that resulted in "successful placements") was too low and asked to define what constitutes a "successful placement." General Counsel Greg Norver noted the board sets the substantive hiring criteria, and he reminded directors that he advises the district while the board may retain separate counsel for its selection and contract negotiations.

Directors also sought clearer wording in the draft materials to make explicit that the board (not district staff) will develop the superintendent profile and exercise final hiring authority. Liza (Director Rankin) asked that references to "the district" be changed where appropriate to reflect that the board serves as the RFP evaluation committee. Procurement and legal staff said district procurement would administer the solicitation and screen proposals to ensure responsiveness to minimum criteria, but that the board will evaluate and select among responsive proposers.

After the roll call, the board voted: Briggs, Clark, Hersey, Mizrahi, Rankin, Sarju and President Taub recorded “aye” and the motion passed unanimously. President Taub said the authorization does not lock the board into a specific outcome and called the step the "next logical" one to provide process infrastructure and transparency for community engagement.

Next steps the board recorded on the public timeline are: post RFP immediately, proposals due April 8, directors individually review proposals on April 8 with a joint evaluation session April 9, interviews of top three firms the week of April 17–18, and final selection/vote in the board’s April 23 meetings. Directors requested staff and procurement refine the minimum and evaluation criteria (including a clearer definition of "successful placement") and to explicitly state that the board — not the search firm — will develop the superintendent profile.

The board adjourned at about 4:00 p.m.