Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Survey And Search Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board receives MSBA stakeholder report, narrows superintendent interview process and public input approach
Summary
The ISD 191 Board heard a 27‑page stakeholder and survey report from the Minnesota School Boards Association on April 23, learned the district received 23 applications and 489 public survey responses, and agreed to rely on the public summary report — rather than community interview committees — for round‑two public input.
The ISD 191 Board of Education received a public survey and stakeholder report from Barb Dorn of the Minnesota School Boards Association on April 23 as part of its superintendent search process. Dorn told the board the application pool held 23 applicants and the public survey drew 489 responses.
“We are about ready to go through. I'll tell you real quick though that it seems to be a very strong pool,” Dorn said, and later summarized the public response: “We had 489 people take the time to fill this out.”
Dorn walked the board through quantitative and qualitative results. Of the 489 respondents, 481 completed the survey in English, zero in Somali and eight in Spanish. Respondent self‑identification showed 45% staff, about 30% parents or caregivers and about 17% students of the total; Dorn said those numbers were notable because student participation was unusually high. Among the 23 applicants, Dorn said 16 have prior assistant superintendent or superintendent experience and 16 have doctorates (one is in process).
Survey respondents prioritized collaborative leadership, budget and finance, and diversity, equity and inclusion as top areas of expertise; personal characteristics that ranked highest included “honest and ethical,” “effective communicator” and “problem solver.” In open‑ended responses, respondents cited strengths in academic and extracurricular offerings and DEI work and flagged challenges including declining enrollment, financial pressure, recruiting and retaining staff and student behavior and mental‑health supports.
The board discussed options for public input in round 2 of interviews. Dorn offered three models: rely on the written public summary report; convene advisory interview committees of representative groups; or allow representatives to observe interviews and submit collated feedback through MSBA. Board members raised concerns about access, representativeness and unrealistic expectations for advisory committees and the administrative work involved in organizing them.
The board settled on the first option by consensus — relying on the public summary report as the voice of constituents for round 2 — and Dorn said MSBA would provide a highlighted list of recommended semifinalists by Saturday and the board would see a recommended list before Monday night’s meeting. Dorn also reminded the board of confidentiality rules for applicant names: “The names of applicants are private data except when applicants are considered by the school board to be finalists for public employment.”
Logistics finalized in the discussion included the interview venue (Burnsville Room, Diamond Head Education Center), that interviews would be recorded but not live streamed, and a plan to post recorded interviews for limited windows: round‑one interviews would be posted after the first round for a week and round‑two interviews would be posted after the second round and removed after the board approves and signs a contract for the person it hires. Dorn and the board also discussed legal and policy limits, including Minnesota’s three‑year limit on superintendent contracts and procedures for conflicts of interest when a board member is related to a candidate; Dorn noted that if a finalist is related to a board member “the full board needs to vote and it needs to be unanimous.”
Board members selected a set of interview questions and narrowed the round‑one plan to roughly a dozen to 14 questions covering leadership, curriculum and instruction, finances, equity and community engagement; they planned to reserve some deeper, scenario‑style questions for a shorter round‑two process. Dorn advised that boards often ask finalists for an entry or 100‑day plan in round 2 and that board members Abigail and Scott agreed to conduct reference calls between rounds.
Dorn reminded the board of MSBA’s vetting steps — further phone screening, reference checks and a social‑media sweep for highlighted candidates — and said MSBA guarantees searches for candidates it recommended: if the board hires a candidate from MSBA’s recommended list who leaves within the first year, MSBA will re‑conduct the search at no additional charge. The board will name the round‑one finalists Monday night and MSBA will provide the recommended highlighted list in advance for private review.
