Green Bay school board directs staff to prepare RFP for superintendent search

The Green Bay Area Public School District Board of Education discussed options for its upcoming superintendent search and directed district staff to prepare a request for proposals to solicit outside vendors to manage the search process.

Board members debated four options presented by staff: conduct the search internally; accept a no-cost redo from BWP and Associates (costs limited to travel and expenses); hire the Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB) under its service model; or issue an RFP to seek other vendors. After discussion and questions about cost, timeline and engagement model, a majority of board members raised hands in favor of issuing an RFP and staff said they would draft and circulate a request for proposals.

Why it matters: The board is preparing for a labor-intensive superintendent search while also facing other major district tasks. Board members said they wanted transparency about engagement models, access to application materials, and cost estimates before committing to a vendor.

Board members and staff noted differences among the options. Staff described BWP and Associates as offering a no-cost redo of the prior search, with the district responsible for travel and expenses (staff estimated travel might be roughly $5,000 but said that was an estimate, not a firm quote). WASB’s estimate to provide superintendent-search services came to about $21,000–$26,000 in staff’s initial conversation; WASB’s model gives districts immediate access to application materials after the window closes and expects district leaders to take a hands-on role in screening and interviewing candidates. The board also discussed the practical time and labor costs of managing a search internally, including spikes of heavy staff work when the application window closes.

Several board members said they favored a short RFP process to ensure due diligence and to clarify whether any other firms with different models or local ties might be available. One board member recalled a prior RFP that began in July and concluded with selection in September, and staff said a similar calendar could be used so an RFP would not necessarily delay the broader search timeline. Other board members said they preferred a known partner with local connections and expressed concern about repeating past unsatisfactory experiences with outside firms.

The board did not take a formal roll-call vote on the choice; rather, the chair asked those in favor of issuing an RFP to indicate by raising hands. The chair said staff will draft the RFP, circulate it for board review and return with responses and a recommended scope for vendor selection.

Next steps and clarifications: Staff will draft and publish an RFP using district resources; staff told the board that preparing and publishing the RFP itself would not require an external consultant fee. Board members asked that the RFP clearly specify the engagement model the district seeks (for example, the level of board access to applications, interview design, and reference-checking responsibilities) so respondents can provide comparable proposals.

Context: The board discussed prior search costs and models: staff provided past total search costs (2020: $33,880; 2022: $38,960) and board members recalled a prior search that exceeded $40,000. Board members emphasized the tradeoffs among cost, transparency and operational support when selecting a vendor.