Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Search topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woodland Park board discusses superintendent search firms; no firm selected
Summary
At a work session, the Woodland Park School District RE-2 Board discussed two executive search firms, comparing outreach, assessment and timeline options but did not vote to hire a firm; the board will consider a motion at its next regular meeting.
Members of the Woodland Park School District RE-2 Board of Education spent a work session reviewing two executive search firms’ proposals for a superintendent search but did not make a formal selection.
Board members compared McPherson & Jacobson and a smaller firm identified in the discussion as the Grundmeier group, noting similar candidate pools and overlapping services. Board members said both firms would provide candidate profiles and stated they could begin outreach in October with a November start to active searching; neither firm was chosen during the session.
The discussion centered on differences in post-hire follow-up and marketing. Board members noted McPherson & Jacobson offered video interviewing at an additional charge and that one firm proposed producing promotional video material through an outside team. Several members said they valued that both firms offer post-hire check-ins and guarantees for a period after placement.
Panelists also discussed candidate screening and assessments. Members reported that one firm includes a DISC personality profile at no extra charge while the other may charge separately for some assessments. The firms’ social-media screening practices drew questions: board members said one firm described a system that scans up to 10 years of social posts and flags content algorithmically, and members expressed concern that flagged items may lack context and require manual review.
Board members discussed timeline trade-offs. One firm told the board it could begin searching immediately and had candidates “waiting now,” while the other described a more conventional schedule that would begin deeper outreach in October and proceed through the winter. Members observed that an earlier start could capture candidates who might otherwise be hired elsewhere, while the later timeline could produce a broader, more vetted applicant list.
Cost and logistics also came up in the discussion. Members referenced base contract figures in the range of about $13,000 and described per-candidate charges—specifically, roughly $50 per additional video interview—if the board wanted more recorded interviews than the firms typically provide.
Board members explored how candidate lists would be presented to maintain objectivity. Several suggested initially reviewing anonymous resumes or relying on firms to filter applicants, then reviewing full profiles and video interviews for finalists. Members also discussed background-check responsibilities; the board reported firms would deliver social-media screening results but that federal or official background checks would remain the district’s responsibility.
No formal hiring motion was made during the work session. The board did take a procedural vote to end the work session; members said a motion to select a firm would be made at a subsequent regular board meeting.
The work session drew multiple board participants who asked detailed questions about screening, marketing, timeline and costs; the board plans to take formal action at its next regular meeting.
