Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Search topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cumberland County board given two finalists for director of schools; TSBA outlines interview process and timeline
Summary
Tennessee School Boards Association presented two finalists — Dr. Rebecca Farley and Dr. Randy Shannon — and recommended interview procedures and dates; board members discussed scheduling and whether to expand the finalist list.
The Cumberland County Board of Education heard on a work-session presentation from the Tennessee School Boards Association on its screening of the district’s superintendent applicants and was given two finalists for interview: Dr. Rebecca Farley and Dr. Randy Shannon.
TSBA consultant Tammy Ganger told the board the association had screened eight applications and “selected the ones that we thought best met the criteria that this board adopted.” She said the committee’s written materials, including cover letters and resumes, were provided digitally and one hard copy was left with the board secretary. “Our finalist that we are recommending is doctor Rebecca Farley,” Ganger said, and she summarized Farley’s experience as the district’s interim director of schools and chief academic officer and as a school administrator and teacher in the county. The committee’s other recommended finalist, Ganger said, was Dr. Randy Shannon, described in the packet as a supervisor of college and career readiness and a former career and technical education director and center principal.
Why it matters: the board voted earlier to hire TSBA to screen candidates; the presentation and packet are the committee’s recommendations but not the board’s selection. Board members pressed procedural questions about how many finalists TSBA would refer and whether local candidates not selected by the committee could still be interviewed.
Discussion and next steps: Ganger reviewed recommended procedures for interviews: TSBA typically refers up to three candidates, the board should ask the same set of questions of each candidate, and the interviews and related community and staff meet-and-greet sessions should be held in public meetings. The packet included a sample day schedule that TSBA recommended — time with principals and staff, a community luncheon, a faculty meeting, and an evening interview with the board — and sample interview questions tied to the board’s criteria.
Board members discussed dates on the established timeline. The packet referenced interview dates in mid-June and a follow-up meeting on June 20 to discuss interviews and begin negotiating with the selected candidate. One board member noted a county commission scheduling conflict for June 17 and the group discussed holding interviews on June 16 and June 18 instead. No final board vote on dates or finalists occurred at the work session.
Board members also asked about a local applicant who did not make the committee’s finalist list. Ganger and the TSBA representative reiterated that screening produced the committee’s recommended finalists and that the board could interview additional applicants at its discretion. The board chair and members said they would confirm interview dates and provide questions to follow TSBA’s suggested process.
Ending: The board did not make a selection at the work session; it kept TSBA’s recommended interview procedures under consideration and signaled intent to set interview dates and follow the packet’s public meeting schedule. TSBA said it will refer the recommended candidates to the board and provide supplemental materials already submitted by applicants.
