Methuen, Mass. — The Methuen School Committee on Nov. 19 agreed to open a request for proposals to conduct the district's superintendent search, settling on the RFP procurement route and establishing a $50,000 floor while preserving the option to seek additional funding from the mayor and city council.

Colleen, a district staff member leading procurement, told the committee the search is "not chapter 30 b exempt" and outlined three procurement paths: a request for quotes to a limited number of vendors, sealed bids or a competitive RFP process. "Most communities are using the RFP," she said, describing that technical proposals would be scored with a rubric and only the selected vendor's price would then be opened.

Several committee members pressed for the RFP route because outside firms have search expertise the committee lacks. "The reality is no one at this table is an expert in superintendent searches, but the people we're going out to are," a member said. Members raised cost concerns: one recalled that the district paid "about $38,000" to MASC for the last retained search eight years ago and recommended including a cap or "not to exceed" language so the committee would not be surprised by a very high fee.

Committee members proposed different targets. Some said $50,000 would be a reasonable starting floor because a contract above that amount would require city-council approval; others worried $50,000 could deter firms and suggested $75,000 or the ability to raise the cap to $100,000 if needed. Colleen said she would check with the purchasing department; purchasing staff have previously allowed RFPs with a "not to exceed" cap.

Members also discussed details they want the RFP to require: strong confidentiality commitments for interviews and screening, training for those on screening panels in legal and ethical interview practices, and explicit outreach plans for non-English-speaking residents. One member urged that firms explain how they will reach multilingual families, noting the community includes both Spanish-speaking and Haitian Creole populations.

The committee debated how screening committees should be assembled. Options discussed included a consultant-recommended screening group presented for an up-or-down committee vote, a blind screening committee (where names are not revealed to decisionmakers), or an open list with demographic data to demonstrate diversity. Several members said they preferred measures that would depoliticize the selection process.

On timing, the committee noted that the RFP must be posted for a minimum of 14 days and that posting immediately after Thanksgiving could push deadlines into the holiday season; members suggested extending deadlines or posting in January so responses would be available for the incoming committee to review. Colleen said she would work with purchasing to draft the RFP and circulate it to the committee for review before posting, aiming to produce materials promptly so the new committee could begin review in January.

No formal contract award or final financial commitment was made at the meeting; the action items recorded were procedural motions to accept the agenda at the opening of the session and to adjourn at the end. The immediate next step is for Colleen to prepare the RFP draft with purchasing and distribute it to committee members for comment before it is posted.

The committee adjourned at 6:53 p.m.