Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Strategic Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Merced board hears competing strategic‑planning pitches; trustees defer selection
Summary
Consultants pitched different strategic planning approaches and fees (one proposal at $30,000). Trustees asked for implementation evidence, questioned staff bandwidth, and agreed to review materials before deciding rather than approving a contract at the Nov. 18 meeting.
The Merced City School District board of trustees heard two outside proposals on Nov. 18 as it considers restarting a district strategic planning process for the first time since 2018. Dr. Naguchi (Naguchi Consulting) proposed a four‑phase process — a board study session, broad partner engagement (including translated town halls), district staff synthesis, and a three‑year plan with measurable KPIs and monitoring. Her estimate for the work was $30,000, which she said covers design, facilitation, analysis and deliverables (board workshops, community engagement and a three‑year plan).
A second presenter from the National Center for Executive Leadership (Fred Van Fleck) emphasized clarifying the board’s priorities and the superintendent’s role, and recommended a smaller, lower‑risk pilot (a governance workshop) so the board can evaluate working relationships before committing to a full contract. Van Fleck said his organization runs intensive three‑day engagements and follows up with metrics and governance alignment work.
Trustees pressed both presenters on evidence of implementation success, the ability to measure and monitor outcomes, cost differences and how the work would be sustained by district staff. Several trustees said they want a plan that moves beyond an attractive binder to measurable implementation tied to existing district priorities and cabinet ownership. Trustees also raised concerns about staff bandwidth, cautioning against adding work without implementation supports.
Rather than choosing a vendor, the board agreed to take the proposals away for further review and asked staff to publish a concise comparison of timelines, costs and deliverables for subsequent discussion. Several trustees suggested scheduling a brief board governance workshop with finalists so trustees can see facilitation style and compatibility before selecting a consultant.
Next steps: staff to compile the bidders’ materials and timelines, present a one‑page comparison, and schedule a follow‑up discussion; trustees signaled urgency to complete planning work in spring so the superintendent and district can begin implementation before the next school year.
