Port Angeles School Board approves timeline, confidentiality for superintendent search

Port Angeles — The Port Angeles School Board on Jan. 16 accepted a consultant’s plan for a superintendent search that sets a compressed recruitment and interview timeline and keeps the names of finalists confidential until the board is ready to enter contract negotiations.

Hank Harris of Human Capital Enterprises told the board the district’s search will open to applicants in mid-January and include an online community survey, targeted outreach, virtual first-round interviews and in-person finalist visits. “This is a very important body of work and a very important time in the history of your school district,” Harris said during the work session.

Board members said the process should gather broad community input but protect candidates’ privacy. Board members present agreed not to publicly reveal the names of finalists during the confidential stages of the search, a practice Harris said increases the pool of candidates who will apply or stay in contention.

Key dates and process steps Harris and the board discussed and agreed to at the meeting include: - Recruitment window: open Sunday, Jan. 19, 2025, and close Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2025. - Board criteria session: a public work session to review and finalize superintendent criteria, Thursday, Jan. 30, 2025, 5:00–6:30 p.m. (virtual option offered). - Slate meeting (executive session + brief open session): Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2025, roughly 3:00–5:15 p.m. (board will evaluate applications in executive session and then use letter proxies in open session to select first-round interviewees). - First-round interviews (virtual): Saturday, Feb. 22, 2025, targeted 8:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m., with each candidate interviewed and evaluated during the day. - Finalist visits (in person, off-site): Thursday–Friday, Feb. 27–28, 2025, with a follow-up deliberation session Saturday, March 1, 2025, 9:00–11:00 a.m., then a short public open session (about 11:00–11:15 a.m.) to record the board’s action to enter contract talks with a lead candidate. - Public announcement: a later open meeting in early March (the consultant suggested around March 7, 2025) to move to award a negotiated contract in open session.

Harris described the search tasks and candidate flow: board member one-on-one interviews and an online survey to define criteria; a recruitment window and active outreach (Harris’s listserv was described as having about 40,000 readers and ~50% open rates); prescreening of applications by the consultant; presentation of a recommended slate to the board; virtual first-round interviews; reference checks and investigator background checks on finalists; and finalist site visits and finalist interviews in person.

The board agreed to two small focus-group steps in addition to the public survey: (1) a group of labor leaders and (2) a staff focus group composed of one staff member pulled from each school (selected by lottery at each site). Harris indicated a per-session fee for those focus-group Zoom sessions of about $200 each if the board chose to add them. The board also agreed to offer a community-facing opportunity tied to an upcoming board meeting: a 4:00–5:00 p.m. drop-in session at the Wildcat Cafe ahead of a regular meeting so community members could speak directly about superintendent criteria.

Budget and vetting: Harris said his firm’s base fee in the proposal is $19,000. He estimated travel for the consultant at roughly $2,000 and recommended investigator background checks for each finalist; with travel and background checks the project budget would likely approach $25,000 (Harris estimated a plausible total in the $25,000–$27,500 range depending on travel and number of background checks). Harris also noted an option for a more comprehensive investigative package that adds a news‑media search for a higher fee; the board deferred that procurement decision until finalists were selected.

Structure of interviews and candidate assessment: Harris described a standard structure for the finalist interviews—an initial study/planning hour for the board, a roughly two-hour finalist interview (about 90 minutes of Q&A led by the board and 30 minutes where the candidate ‘‘owns the agenda’’ and engages with the board in a demonstrative way), and a debrief period afterward. He said the consultant would prescreen and recommend a slate (for example: if 25 applicants were submitted, he might recommend 13 for closer review and 5–6 for interview), but that the board is the decision maker at every step.

Other items discussed: the board voiced a preference that finalists be district residents or live very near the district, though members allowed some limited flexibility around “a little squish” for nearby neighborhoods because of local housing constraints. Board members asked Harris to handle direct candidate outreach and to be the primary point of contact so board members are not lobbied directly during the active search window.

What happens next: Harris will open the recruitment window (Harris recommended Sunday, Jan. 19), distribute the online survey and begin outreach. The board scheduled a Jan. 30 work session to finalize criteria; the slate meeting is Feb. 18; the board plans virtual first-round interviews on Feb. 22; finalist site visits Feb. 27–28; deliberations March 1 and a public contract award meeting soon thereafter. The board also agreed that Harris will provide a list of recommended prescreened applicants and that staff (Casey and others) will post the public materials and publicize the survey and timeline.

The board asked staff and the consultant to return with salary-comparison information at the next routine board meeting so the district can publish at least a salary range before the recruitment window draws significant interest.

Ending The consultant closed by thanking the board and noting the search’s speed and community stakes. The district’s next public steps are the Jan. 30 criteria work session and the consultant’s formal opening of the recruitment window on Jan. 19.