Cave Creek trustees weigh hiring search firm versus interim superintendent after HYA raises price
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Board members debated whether to accept a higher-than-expected HYA proposal (~$25,000), seek revised quotes from other firms (ASA, McPherson/Jacobson), or hire an interim superintendent to allow incoming board members input; trustees agreed to request additional quotes and calendar a special meeting.
Trustees of the Cave Creek Unified School District revisited the superintendent search on Oct. 28 after members raised concerns about HYA’s revised proposal and increased cost. The board previously voted to move forward with HYA but had asked follow-up questions; at the Oct. 28 special meeting members said the firm’s updated quote nearly doubled to about $25,000 from the earlier figure (approximately $14,000), prompting debate about next steps.
"There's a lot going on...We could spend a ton of money, $25.35 grand with these people and end up with a bust given where we're at," a trustee said, voicing concern about spending district funds on a search when operational priorities (transportation repairs) were pressing. Others warned that delaying the search risks hiring from a weaker applicant pool. One board member proposed pausing HYA and asking the remaining firms on the district’s list—ASA and McPherson/Jacobson—to respond to the same questions and confirm their total costs and potential add-ons such as travel fees.
Options discussed included: (1) proceeding with HYA if trustees felt confident, (2) seeking competitive quotes from ASA and McPherson/Jacobson based on HYA's scope, (3) engaging an interim superintendent (internally or externally) until new board members seated after the November election could participate, or (4) negotiating the HYA price or limiting contract scope. Trustees also asked staff to check firm responses for asterisks such as supplemental travel fees.
District staff and trustees agreed to ask ASA and McPherson/Jacobson to provide their responses to the board's questions and to schedule a special meeting in the coming weeks to review those responses. No firm selection was made Oct. 28. The board recorded that the concerns were both fiscal—whether $25,000 is a prudent use of funds while transportation needs exist—and strategic—ensuring a stable, long-term superintendent rather than a short-tenure hire.
Votes at a glance: the board unanimously adopted the special meeting agenda and unanimously approved field trips on consent. The work-study and special meetings were adjourned by unanimous voice votes.