Woodland Park board and consultant agree on front-loaded superintendent search, community survey and timeline

The Woodland Park School District RE-2 Board of Education met with a search consultant to plan a superintendent search that will emphasize front‑end community input, a stakeholder survey this fall and a planned job posting in November with applications closing before the Christmas break.

Consultant Chris, representing the search firm Grunmeyer, told the board, "This is your search," and said the firm would share every application with the board so trustees could review candidates as they arrive. He also reminded the group that "By law, we have to name finalists," and that candidate identities are confidential until that point.

Why it matters: Choosing a superintendent will shape the district's leadership, budgeting and community engagement. Board members focused on designing a process that gathers staff and public input, clarifies residency expectations and preserves flexibility on start dates and contract terms.

Board members and the consultant agreed on a staged schedule and procedures. The group planned to launch a stakeholder survey in early September (when school is back in session), keep it open for roughly four weeks, review results at an October board meeting and then craft the job description. The consultant recommended posting the vacancy in November and closing the application pool before the winter break; the board discussed leaving the new hire's start date “negotiable” on the posting to preserve flexibility.

Key policy and eligibility points discussed included a preference that the hired superintendent live in Teller County or a nearby community and be engaged in local life; superintendent experience was described as "preferred" rather than an absolute requirement, while school‑level or district administrative experience and the ability to obtain Colorado superintendent licensure would be expected. The board discussed asking the survey to weigh in on residency radius and desired candidate traits.

The board discussed the interim superintendent recruitment already posted; trustees said no interim contract had been signed as of the meeting and the interim contract length and financial implications (double salary overlap, etc.) remain unresolved. Board members expressed concern about budget limits if the district had to pay both an interim and an incoming permanent superintendent at the same time.

Contract length and benchmarks were discussed but not finalized. The consultant suggested a three‑year contract could be structured with measurable benchmarks and review points that would allow termination for cause if performance targets were not met; trustees indicated they would want contract terms tied to clear objectives and said they were open to a multi‑year agreement if it included rigorous evaluation provisions.

Other process details the board agreed to or asked the consultant to implement: run focus groups as needed, provide a sample survey for the board to review within two days, consider mixed interview panels that include staff and community members, permit virtual "speed‑date" Zoom sessions with semi‑finalists (with tech support present), and advertise the vacancy through education recruitment channels (CASB, AASA) plus LinkedIn and national outlets.

The board also discussed internal candidates. The consultant advised treating any internal applicants the same as external applicants and said the firm will contact potential internal candidates confidentially; trustees said internal applicants will be allowed to apply but that outside candidates sometimes decline to apply when an internal candidate is perceived as favored.

Salary and budget: trustees said a salary figure had been entered in the draft budget but the exact amount was not known at the meeting. The consultant reported that Colorado superintendent salaries vary widely; board members said they would wait for the district budget number before finalizing a posted salary range.

The meeting concluded with an adjournment motion that passed on roll call (Ayes recorded for Barkley, Bates, Kimbrell and Patterson); follow‑up items: the consultant will deliver a draft survey within two days and the board will bring budget/salary information to the next planning step.

Ending: The board and consultant left the timeline flexible so a strong candidate who emerged early could be hired before the district's target dates, but trustees emphasized they wanted to complete robust front‑end work — survey, focus groups and a calibrated job description — before moving to final interviews and contract negotiations.