Pulaski County SSD board approves interim superintendent contract, accepts resignation and discusses search process

The Pulaski County Special School District Board of Directors voted Jan. 7 to approve an interim superintendent contract for Dr. Gess and to accept the resignation of Superintendent Dr. McNulty, then spent the remainder of the special meeting discussing how to run a permanent superintendent search.

Board members emphasized completing a thorough search while keeping a target start date for a permanent hire of July 1, 2025. The board discussed soliciting presentations from search firms on Jan. 14 and possibly scheduling additional special meetings to review proposals and refine a timeline.

The board first moved into executive session to discuss employment matters. At the end of the executive session the meeting resumed and Dr. Tait moved to approve "Dr. Gess' interim contract," a motion Miss Maynard seconded. The board voted in favor; the transcript records the motion, second and an affirmative vote but does not list an itemized roll-call tally.

The board then took a separate motion to accept Dr. McNulty’s resignation. Miss Maynard made the motion and Miss Potter seconded; the board approved the resignation by voice vote.

Following the formal actions the board held an extended, nonbinding discussion of superintendent-search firms and related tasks. Board members and staff said they had solicited at least one firm, McPherson Jacobson, and were attempting to secure a second presenter (a local search consultant, Mike Poor, was mentioned as a possible presenter). The board discussed whether to prioritize firms with offices or representatives in Arkansas so the consultant would be more familiar with state licensing and legislative issues.

Members raised several practical considerations for the search: whether to allow both internal and external candidates (the board previously approved an open search), how many firms to interview, the number and format of community input sessions, and how extensive to make background checks. Board members repeatedly noted the district's geographic breadth — four distinct feeder communities — and urged more than a single community meeting and robust surveys so staff, parents, classified employees and students could provide input. One board member said surveys should be tailored and separable by constituency so results could be weighted rather than aggregated into a single undifferentiated result.

Board members also discussed cost drivers in search proposals: an out‑of‑state firm that must send a consultant in person for multiple meetings would likely increase travel and expense billing; additional items such as extended advertising, more robust surveys or background checks could increase charges beyond a core fee. The board discussed options such as Zoom interviews for semifinalists and in‑person interviews for finalists, and noted that contract clauses for finalists already employed elsewhere could affect start dates (some superintendents must provide 30–60 days’ notice to current employers).

The board flagged two related governance items for future consideration: revisiting the district's mission statement approved in 2019 and reviewing the superintendent-evaluation rubric that has remained unchanged since 2018. Board members said neither item would be acted on at the Jan. 7 meeting but that the topics could be paired with the search firm’s work or scheduled for a future workshop once a search firm or superintendent is in place.

The meeting closed with scheduling discussion: the board planned to hear presentations on Jan. 14 and acknowledged the likelihood of additional special meetings and daytime candidate interviews as the search progresses. No formal decision on a search firm was made on Jan. 7.