Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Search topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears two superintendent search proposals; NASB and McPherson Jacobson present differing timelines and fees
Summary
The board heard presentations from the Nebraska Association of School Boards and McPherson Jacobson on how each firm would conduct a permanent superintendent search; board members asked about stakeholder surveys, student involvement, screening depth and cost differences and agreed to check references before a Sept. 8 vote.
The Norfolk Public Schools Board of Education heard two proposals for a permanent superintendent search: the Nebraska Association of School Boards (NASB) and national search firm McPherson Jacobson.
Sherry Becker, director of NASB’s search service, outlined NASB’s process: an initial board work session to develop a leadership profile, an electronic stakeholder survey and optional in‑person forums, a comprehensive screening and reference process, assistance with interview logistics, contract negotiation guidance and a two‑year guarantee if the board completes a retreat within the early contract year. NASB’s fee for the search was listed at $9,000 with customary billing of 60% up front and 40% after contract negotiation; travel expenses would be billed separately, Becker said.
John Neal, NASB consultant, and NASB colleague Doctor Veil described NASB’s “comprehensive screening” that extends reference checks beyond candidates’ listed referees: “We reach out to numerous individuals that are either currently working with the candidate or have worked with the candidate, and talk to them about their perspective of that candidate’s work and their strengths,” Veil said.
Dave Barker, representing McPherson Jacobson, described a five‑phase search model that also emphasizes stakeholder engagement, customized criteria, layered reference checks and a leadership‑profile approach. McPherson Jacobson presented a higher fee estimate (approx. $13,500 plus travel) and said more extensive analytics and third‑party survey partners (K12 Insight, Innovate K‑12) could be used for stakeholder surveying and analysis.
Board members asked about survey content and whether students would be surveyed. Becker said NASB typically asks stakeholders about strengths, long‑term challenges, and desired superintendent attributes; she noted that student surveys often produce limited, non‑actionable results and that districts sometimes omit students from the process. Barker said his firm’s partner K12 Insight would handle larger survey administration and provide compiled analytics; he added that stakeholder meetings can be conducted in person or online and surveys can be made available in multiple languages.
On screening depth, both firms described multi‑layered reference approaches. Barker described a short video interview tool (three questions, three minutes each) to give the board an initial sense of candidates’ thinking; NASB described in‑depth phone references beyond submitted letter writers.
Board discussion focused on comparability, cost, local knowledge and reference checks. Several board members said they planned to call references provided by NASB and requested comparable references for McPherson Jacobson to evaluate both firms fairly. The board agreed it would decide on a search firm at its Sept. 8 meeting and that individual board members would check references in the interim.
Ending: No contract award was made. The board scheduled a formal selection vote for its next meeting and directed members to gather reference input beforehand.
