Houston Public School District board invites four finalists to first‑round superintendent interviews, sets May 28 schedule

The Houston Public School District board voted to extend invitations to four finalists for first‑round superintendent interviews and finalized a set of interview questions and logistics for May 28.

At the meeting Eric Anger of MSBA reviewed vetting and interview procedures and recommended candidates labeled in MSBA materials as D, E, F and H. After a motion to invite those candidates (read by the chair) and a second, the board held a roll‑call vote; the motion carried. The board then disclosed the finalists’ names: Amber Clug; Jacqueline (who goes by “Jack,” surname pronounced aloud in the meeting by a board member as “Lega”); Brad Johnson; and Angie McAndrews.

MSBA’s consultant told the board the district had given applicants a pay band so candidates understood compensation expectations: “Everybody that applied knows they’re not going to make less than 145 and they’re not going to make more than 175,” Anger said, referring to the salary range in thousands (exclusive of benefits). He also repeated legal guidance about permissible interview topics and cautioned members about follow‑up questions that move beyond the scripted question bank.

The board approved a round‑one question set drawn from MSBA’s suggested bank; members selected roughly 14–16 items (with a closing question) and authorized staff to make limited wording edits for clarity. The board agreed that questions would remain confidential to candidates until the day of their interview to preserve fairness.

Logistics: the first‑round interviews are tentatively scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. on May 28, with breaks and a midday pause; the board added a fourth candidate to the day’s schedule, which required sliding the agenda and adding a short mid‑day break. MSBA advised against live‑streaming interviews, suggesting instead that districts may record interviews for later posting only for candidates who advance, to avoid giving later candidates an advantage.

On public‑records and process issues, Anger reminded members that evaluation notes are public documents and warned against using names or making disclosures about applicants before finalists are publicly announced: “If you answer them that ‘yeah, they did and they’re not one of our finalists,’ you’ve broken the data privacy law,” he said. The board instructed staff to post the public survey results and interview schedule on the district website once arrangements are finalized.

The meeting closed with the board assigning follow‑up tasks: MSBA will contact finalists to confirm availability and provide interview logistics; staff will prepare EMD evaluation forms and a press notice; board members will provide any questions for minor wordsmithing to designated colleagues prior to interviews.

Action recorded: motion to invite Candidates D, E, F and H (read into the record as Amber Clug; Jacqueline (“Jack”) [surname pronounced in meeting]; Brad Johnson; Angie McAndrews) for first‑round interviews — motion carried (roll‑call; tally not specified in transcript).