Northshore board notifies intent to award superintendent search to Ray and Associates

The Northshore School District Board of Directors voted by voice Monday night to notify an intent to award the district’s superintendent search contract to Ray and Associates and to begin contract negotiations.

Board President Cass and other trustees discussed cost, candidate diversity and whether the board should meet the proposed lead consultant before signing a contract. The board directed staff to attempt to schedule a brief meeting between a two-member subcommittee of trustees and the consultant lead if feasible before final execution of the agreement.

The vote followed about 25 minutes of review and comparison of three finalist firms. Staff summarized proposals that included McPherson and Jacobson, HYA, and Ray and Associates (also referred to in the packet as RAIN/ Ray), noting differences in base costs and specific deliverables. Staff described a base cost of “31.3” for McPherson and Jacobson and a base of “41,000” for HYA (the latter described as “31 plus 10k for the travel guarantee”). Staff also noted an additional $2,000 fee quoted for a more detailed research survey from one firm and confirmed that all finalists proposed human translation services for Spanish-language outreach.

Trustees framed the decision around fit and implementation capacity. Several trustees said the finalists’ presentations and written materials that referenced Northshore-specific planning and equity work influenced their rankings. One trustee said Ray and Associates demonstrated a “solid foundational process” and that the representatives present could serve as a reasonable proxy for the lead consultant in assessing likely performance. Other trustees said they were uncomfortable advancing without meeting the proposed lead consultant, identified in the packet as Dr. Chestnut, and asked staff to try to arrange a short meeting with him, ideally as part of an existing coordination meeting the next day.

During discussion trustees also noted reference checks reported positive feedback from districts that had worked with Ray and Associates. Trustees weighed those references, the firms’ stated outreach and diversity metrics, and the firms’ included background- and credential-verification services in making their choice.

A motion to "notify intent to award to Ray and Associates" was made and seconded; Director Zotac seconded the motion. The board carried the motion by voice vote with no opposed voices recorded in the meeting transcript. Trustees discussed forming a two-person subcommittee—composed of trustees who had expressed the most concerns—to meet with Dr. Chestnut if he was available; staff was directed to pursue that meeting and to proceed with contract negotiations if the subcommittee or staff did not identify blocking issues.

The board clarified that the intent-to-award notice is the start of negotiation under the RFP language cited in the packet, and that any final contract would return to the board for approval according to the district’s procurement process and applicable public meeting laws.

Next steps: staff will attempt to schedule a short meeting between the subcommittee and the proposed lead consultant and will report back to the board as negotiations proceed. If the meeting with the consultant cannot be scheduled within the timeline needed to begin negotiations, trustees said they expected staff to proceed with negotiations under the board’s intent-to-award direction or to identify an alternate finalist, as appropriate.