Tonganoxie board narrows superintendent search plan, schedules Nov. 6 characteristics meeting

The Tonganoxie USD 464 Board of Education met in a special session Oct. 21 to advance its superintendent search, asking consultants to fast‑track early steps and setting a special board meeting for Nov. 6 at 7 p.m. to finalize candidate characteristics and other logistics.

Consultants introduced two timeline options — an earlier schedule and a later schedule that would push finalist interviews into December and January — and outlined how either track would include community surveys, focus groups and finalist interview days that typically combine building tours, administrator lunches and an evening board interview. “It’s one of the biggest jobs you do as a board of education,” a consultant told the board, urging them to consider which schedule best fits members’ calendars and community involvement.

Board members weighed trade‑offs. Several members said a later timeline (the consultants’ Option 2) could make the district more attractive to experienced candidates who prefer a holiday break before committing; others said an earlier timetable reduces the chance that delays push the process months farther out. After discussion the board endorsed a hybrid approach: begin the top four recruitment steps immediately while reserving final interview dates under the second option when appropriate. Consultants said they would deliver an updated timeline to the district.

The board and consultants also discussed whether finalist interviews and the identity of finalists should be public or confidential. Consultants described pros and cons: public finalist announcements and community events increase transparency, while confidential searches can attract sitting superintendents or other highly qualified leaders who do not want public exposure while they still serve their current districts. Several board members said they would accept a confidential search if the district is proactive about communications and provides meaningful opportunities for stakeholder input before finalists are selected. “You can be very transparent about why it’s a closed search,” a board member said, stressing that robust outreach before finalists are named could help manage community reaction.

To gather that input, consultants proposed a seven‑question survey plus focus groups (one at each building and a possible student group at the high school) to produce a characteristics report of six to eight priorities for the next superintendent. The consultants recommended teacher feedback forms during finalist visits and suggested the board clerk could tally that feedback for the board’s deliberations. The consultants also said they would create recruitment marketing materials, social posts and a search landing page on the district website to route community members to the survey and timeline.

Consultants said they are seeing a broad candidate market: about 22 districts have notified their boards of upcoming openings, which could enlarge the available pool. The consultants committed to vetting candidates (background checks, social‑media scrubs, licensure checks for out‑of‑state applicants) before bringing finalists forward. They also said they would bring salary comparables and draft contract language — including suggested residency language and possible relocation windows — to the Nov. 6 characteristics meeting.

Next steps set at the Oct. 21 meeting include: the board will work with communications staff to distribute the survey and a draft outreach plan; consultants will revise and send the timeline and sample materials; and the board will finalize the community/focus‑group list. The special board meeting to finalize characteristics and scheduling is set for Nov. 6 at 7 p.m. The consultants said they will post the position and related materials as soon as they are ready.

The meeting adjourned after the board confirmed assignments and consultants offered to answer follow‑up questions as they complete the timeline and communications materials.