Beloit board discusses interviewing two finalists for assistant superintendent role; trustees debate scope and board involvement
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Interim Superintendent Dr. Anderson recommended two internal finalists, Emily Pels and Leah Mallett, for an assistant superintendent role retitled to strengthen internal superintendent pipeline; trustees debated whether the full board should interview candidates, potential legal implications, and whether to combine interviews with a workshop on a donor proposal. Staff will poll members for meeting dates.
Dr. Anderson told the board he had interviewed four internal candidates for the role retitled from director of teaching and learning to assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction; he said two candidates—Emily Pels and Leah Mallett—"rose to the top." Dr. Anderson said his intent is to prepare a potential internal candidate who could be a viable future superintendent and asked for board input on final interviews so the chosen candidate would have board support. (Dr. Anderson.)
Several board members expressed support for internal development but raised concerns about process and optics. Trustee Megan Miller said she appreciated the mentorship Dr. Anderson offered but worried that board-conducted interviews could send mixed signals about whether the district intends to run an external search for superintendent in the future. Trustee Amy Levy asked for legal guidance on whether the full board interviewing a non-employee could create legal issues and said she preferred administration-led employee recommendations unless specific issues warranted board involvement. (Megan Miller; Amy Levy.)
The board discussed logistics and recommended staff coordinate dates. Board President Tia Johnson asked Missus Schoep to contact all seven board members to find dates for a special meeting; Dr. Anderson suggested a minimum of 90 minutes for interviews and allowed that interviews could be combined with a community discussion of the Hendricks Family Foundation proposal but that meetings longer than three hours should be avoided and splitting into two sessions might be preferable. No formal vote was taken on whether the board as a whole will interview finalists; the board agreed to gather availability and get legal feedback. (Board discussion/direction.)
What happens next: Staff will poll board members to identify available dates for special meetings and will obtain legal guidance about board involvement in interviews before scheduling final interviews or deciding a format (public workshop, closed evaluation, or administration-led recommendation).