Washington Elementary board approves scope and timeline for permanent superintendent search

The Washington Elementary School District governing board voted Thursday to approve a scope of work and timeline authorizing staff to issue a request for qualifications/proposals for a permanent superintendent search, with proposals to be advertised Sept. 12 and applications due Oct. 3.

Board approval directs procurement to advertise the search firm RFQ immediately and establishes a small review committee to score responses and recommend finalists to the full board. The board’s action came after district staff summarized how other districts structure searches and after members pressed for outreach and accessibility measures.

“We will need to go out for a request for proposal for a search firm,” district staff member Miss Tucker said during the discussion, describing the RFQ process and how procurement and a review committee would evaluate respondents.

Governing Board Member Tamilia Gosa Chapa urged the board to require search firms that can communicate in multiple languages, saying the district must reach a broad, multilingual community: “I would actually like to make sure that whatever organization we decide to go with, that they do have the capacity to be able to communicate in multiple languages.” Several board members and staff discussed offering both in-person and livestreamed community listening sessions and candidate forums to widen participation.

Procurement procedures and open-meeting restrictions shaped the committee structure. District staff and procurement staff told the board that, because of procurement law and open-meeting rules, the working review group typically includes two board members and a procurement or other staff representative; that committee would be trained on confidentiality requirements; and it would score proposals using a rubric provided by procurement. Staff explained that the committee would forward top-ranked firms or finalists to the full board, with further review in executive session as required by law.

Miss Seger, speaking about schedule constraints, told the board that procurement was prepared to advertise the RFQ the day after the vote: “They are prepared to advertise tomorrow,” she said, explaining the rationale for the Sept. 12 advertising date and the Oct. 3 application deadline. Board members discussed the possibility of reviewing proposals at the Oct. 17 board meeting or calling a special meeting so the committee could meet and forward recommendations in time for that date.

A board member suggested the board interview finalists in February 2026 and consider approving the final candidate around April 2026 to allow overlap with interim leadership and give the candidate time to transition into the role. Staff and members characterized those later timeline dates as planning targets rather than final deadlines to be set by the eventual firm and the board.

Two board members volunteered to serve on the procurement review committee; staff said volunteers will receive procurement training and must sign confidentiality forms before scoring applicants. Staff described the committee’s duties as scoring proposals against the RFQ rubric, recommending top vendors to the full board, and participating in follow-up interviews or presentations if the committee requests them.

Votes at a glance: The governing board approved the RFQ scope and timeline for the superintendent search; the motion carried. Earlier routine votes during the meeting included adoption of the Sept. agenda, approval of the Aug. 28, 2025 regular meeting minutes (one board member abstained), approval of the consent agenda, and the board’s vote to move into executive session.

The board’s approval now allows procurement to advertise the search and begin collecting proposals; next steps include committee training, proposal scoring, and scheduling of stakeholder input sessions and finalist interviews.