Cumberland County board hears three superintendent-search plans; consultant details costs, timeline and community outreach

Ben, a search consultant, presented three options for conducting a superintendent search to the Cumberland County Board of Education during a work session. He described each plan’s outreach and screening steps, estimated candidate pools, recommended timelines and what the service fee covers.

The consultant said the firm offers three plans. Under plan 1, the service posts the vacancy and forwards all applications to the board for screening and selection. "If you go with the plan 1, we take in all the applications, we advertise, and we send that in to board. The board screens the candidates, and you select the candidates," he said.

Plan 2 adds a community survey and preliminary screening by the consultant. The presenter said the service analyzes survey results to help the board develop candidate criteria, conducts reference checks and performs background and education verification. "We call references, we call, former employers ... We verify criminal backgrounds, we verify education, Do they actually have the education that they claim to have and the transcripts reflect? We verify their current employment," he said. He said the consultant will present up to three recommended candidates under plans 2 and 3, but the board retains the decision about whom to interview.

Plan 3 includes more intensive community engagement: the consultant described up to six community meetings in addition to the survey, meeting with teachers, staff, elected officials and community members. He said plan 3 combines that input into a report and a distilled set of attributes for candidates.

On cost, the presenter said verification and advertising are included in the fee for the higher-tier plans: "We don't charge anything extra for that. It's just all part of the 7,500." He tied the guarantee on candidate recommendations to plans 2 and 3 only: the guarantee does not apply to plan 1 because the consultant does not recommend candidates under plan 1.

The consultant gave guidance on outreach and timeline. He recommended keeping a community survey open about a week, saying most responses arrive quickly after launch, and suggested keeping application windows open three weeks to a month. He said typical applicant pools run "on the low end about 10 to 12 applicants and on the high end of around 20 for each search," while noting not all applicants necessarily meet district minimum qualifications.

Board members asked procedural and substantive questions: about whether use of the service affects director longevity or district performance (the consultant said he had not seen a measurable difference), whether the service could reopen the applicant pool if recommended candidates were unsuitable (yes), and how quickly the process can move if the board meets more frequently than monthly.

Earlier in the meeting the board approved a motion to reconsider the agenda so that committee comments would follow the TSBA work session. The motion was seconded by a board member; a board member called for the vote and said, "Aye. So the ayes have it." The board noted that community comments would be heard before the remainder of the agenda.

Next steps discussed included the board determining whether to engage the search service, selecting a plan level, approving candidate criteria or authorizing the consultant to run community surveys and/or meetings, and setting a timeline for posting and review of applicants.