Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Search Firm Presentations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Search firms pitch outreach, vetting and timelines in Palo Alto Unified superintendent search
Summary
Three finalist search firms presented different approaches to outreach, candidate recruitment and vetting; student engagement, diversity in candidate pools and timeline trade-offs were central themes during the boards March 30 meeting.
Three search firms presented competing proposals to the Palo Alto Unified School District board March 30, each stressing different strengths as trustees pressed on timeline, outreach and fit.
HYA (presented by Von Fabercer and Dr. Vivian Ekshian) outlined a four-phase search (engage, recruit, select, transition) and emphasized active recruiting and a large candidate database. HYA described a flexible approach to scheduling focus groups and surveys and said it could adapt timelines to the boards July 1 preference while noting that compressed schedules reduce the recommended time for community engagement. During Q&A HYA referenced a numeric price figure verbally as "29.05" without clarifying units; trustees flagged that point for later follow-up.
Leadership Associates (Mark Ecker, Eric Andrew and colleagues) emphasized a partner-owned model with 23 partners and in-state networks, executive assistants to handle Brown Act logistics and a track record of placing finalists who stay in their roles (the firm cited an 85% five-year retention figure). The firm stressed its California experience and its local connections in Santa Clara County as potential advantages, and described tiered candidate recommendations and inclusive interview structures.
McPherson & Jacobson (Daniel Marrero and Nicole Anderson) put student voice and authentic engagement at the center of its pitch. "Student voice is the center of all of it," Nicole Anderson said, describing extensive listening sessions, verbatim notes and a public executive summary for the board and community. McPherson also described post-hire coaching, governance workshops and data-driven vetting; the firm reported retention figures in the 80%-plus range for five-year placements and said it provides competitive pricing and a two-year assurance of fit in some engagements.
Trustees asked similar questions of each firm: how consultants balance serving as process managers versus advisers; how they push back when boards request steps the firm judges risky; how they ensure a diverse and qualified candidate pool; and how they evaluate intangibles such as empathy, relationship-building and student-centered leadership. Firms described extensive reference-checking practices, use of focus groups and surveys and options for panels that include community members and students. Several presenters noted confidentiality considerations for candidates and recommended nondisclosure agreements for interview panelists where appropriate.
Public commenters, including students and labor representatives, urged that student voices, English-language learners and underrepresented groups be actively sought out and included. Trustees said they want firm-level transparency about outreach, raw stakeholder data and regular updates during the search.
Board deliberations later in the meeting contrasted the three firms largely on fit: some trustees favored Leadership Associatess deep California network, others valued McPhersons student-centered engagement model. The board ultimately selected McPherson & Jacobson.
Trustees and staff will now coordinate a kickoff with the selected firm to confirm timelines, finalize the list of stakeholder groups and begin surveys and listening sessions that will shape the leadership profile used to recruit and vet candidates.
