School board committee narrows superintendent interview process, moves to executive session to select finalists

At a committee meeting of the School Board on the superintendent search, members agreed to conduct a single, in-person round of interviews (with the option to call a second round if needed), set a target of 60 minutes per interview and about 15 pre-ranked questions, and voted to convene an executive session to review confidential applicant materials and select finalists.

The interview process matters because the committee’s choices will produce the finalists the full school board will consider and negotiate with; members discussed scheduling, question selection, scoring and whether to require tours for finalists.

Committee members discussed logistics for the search and interview timetable. The group agreed to tentatively hold the first round of interviews during the week of March 17. Committee members will submit proposed questions into an online survey; the committee chair (Taylor) will distribute a ranked list to the committee. The group set March 12 as the target date for committee members to return ranked questions and planned a committee meeting during the week of March 24 for the committee to make a recommendation to the full board. The board’s regular meeting date of April 7 was identified as the likely time for the board to consider instructions for negotiations after finalists are presented.

On format, members generally favored a one-round, in-person interview with the option to invite a second round only if candidates were closely divided. As one committee member put it, “I am strong at one interview,” arguing a single session should suffice for the current applicant pool. HR-experienced board member Kilgore said the applications she had seen suggested one interview should be adequate but agreed a second round could be used if candidates were difficult to separate: “I am still, I mean, based off of the people who have applied, one should suffice.”

The committee agreed to limit live interviews to about 60 minutes and to move toward fewer, conversation-focused, open-ended questions rather than a long list of quick yes/no items. Members discussed producing a pool of candidate questions (some drawn from previous searches) and using a ranking system so the highest-ranked items become the interview questions. Kilgore and staff said they would help prepare a scoring matrix; the committee discussed using a point scale (for example, 1–5) and potentially weighting categories such as leadership, finance and community engagement.

The committee also discussed logistics for finalists, including a prospective district tour after interviews so finalists — particularly out-of-area candidates — would see schools and community sites. Members noted there are five applicants, and that one submission appeared to have been filed for a different position (a teaching role); the committee said it would clarify candidate eligibility during the closed review.

The meeting concluded with a motion to go into executive session to discuss confidential applicant information and to select three or more finalists. The board member motion to enter executive session was seconded and the governing body recorded unanimous approval. The chair noted the executive session would be recorded and that any final actions would be taken in open session following reconvening, in keeping with the legal exemption cited by staff.

The committee’s next procedural steps: committee members to submit and rank questions by March 12; committee meeting during the week of March 24 to select finalists and forward a recommendation to the board; the board to consider negotiation instructions and any formal action at its April 7 meeting unless scheduling changes are made.

Notes: the meeting discussion referenced an internal legal citation for closing the meeting (as read on the record) and stated the executive session would be held under that statutory exemption; the committee did not vote on any hire in open session during this meeting.