Albert Lea board finalizes interview logistics, question set for superintendent search

The Albert Lea Public School District board and its search consultant finalized interview logistics for the district’s superintendent search, agreeing on an interview schedule, a set of round‑one questions and procedures for the second round of finalist interviews.

Barb, the search consultant, told the board the panel should follow clear selection criteria and avoid note‑taking that records protected characteristics. "Please don't write down something that is, a protected category," she said, urging members to keep deliberations professional and to call a recess if discussions become heated.

The board decided to hold round‑one interviews starting at 9 a.m. on a Wednesday at the Brookside Education Center in Room 109. Interviews will last about one hour with 15‑minute breaks between interviews, a half‑hour lunch at 12:45 p.m., and time reserved in the late afternoon to tally ratings; the consultant said the board should aim to begin deliberations by about 5:15 p.m. Round two of interviews is scheduled for Monday, March 31, beginning at 4 p.m.

The board selected a set of 12 questions to use in round one (identified by number in the packet). The consultant said she would incorporate a minor wording change to one question to add the phrase "what strategies did you use." The board agreed to reserve a substantive, illustrative question (referred to in the packet as question 28) for round two so it can be a tiebreaker or a way for finalists to provide concrete examples.

Members agreed the interviews would be open to the public but not live‑streamed. When asked whether streaming was possible, a board member said, "We don't have that capability at this time," and the board instructed staff to remove the live‑stream sentence from written materials.

The district will offer finalist tours on March 31. The board discussed several tour models: building administrators leading tours, district transportation for student hosts, or community hosts. The consultant recommended deciding hosts before the next meeting and said student hosts can be valuable but require district transportation and supervision.

The board also assigned follow‑up duties: Dave, the board chair, was identified as the member who will make reference‑check calls between round one and round two; the consultant said those calls often elicit different information than references give to the search firm. The board further agreed Dave, as negotiations designee, would begin contract negotiations on April 1 and aim for board approval of a contract by April 7 if a finalist accepts an offer. The consultant recommended preparing a model contract or starting parameters for the board to approve in advance so negotiations can proceed promptly.

On confidentiality and public deliberations, the consultant advised that Minnesota public meeting practice means much of the hiring process is in public for this district. She urged the board to avoid repeating or speculating about rumors in an open meeting and to forward any potentially factual legal concerns immediately to the search consultant for verification.

The meeting concluded with administrative steps: Norma was asked to collect the board members’ question selections and shred them after tallying to avoid giving candidates a heads‑up. The consultant said she will send a stakeholder‑report blurb to district staff and the 11 interested stakeholder groups to encourage public review of the search materials and Q&A recording.

The consultant closed by reiterating guidance on avoiding bias in deliberations and on practical steps to handle ties or deadlocks, such as rescoring candidates against the stakeholder leadership profile, taking a recess, or reconvening the next day.