Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interview Team Changes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Seaside committee removes endorsing staff from interview panels amid staff objections; HR recommendations adopted
Summary
Staff who signed recommendation letters were removed from superintendent interview teams after HR and OSBA advised it could raise unfair-hiring and BOLI claims; the committee adopted HR—s interview-team changes and discussed ways to include staff feedback via the community forum and staff social hour.
The Seaside School District superintendent search committee approved HR—s changes to interview teams after weeks of concern about staff members who signed letters endorsing candidates.
HR presented that individuals who had expressed a preference for a candidate were removed from interview teams "in order to maintain the integrity of the hiring process," citing advice from legal counsel and the Oregon School Board Association. During public comment, Megan McEwen, representing classified staff, said removing employees who signed endorsements was "insulting" and asked, "Why is it that you don't trust us to be professional?" She told the committee staff had been encouraged to participate and then told they could not.
Committee members pressed HR for documentation and timeline details on when letters were received; HR reported some letters were received March 27 while at least one bore a March 3 signature date. HR and counsel warned that keeping endorsers on panels could "open the district up to bully claims and claims of unfair hiring practices" and could present BOLI-related risks. The committee debated alternatives — including having endorsing staff sit as nonvoting observers or disclosing endorsements to candidates before interviews — but cited legal exposure as a limiting factor.
After discussion the committee voted to approve the HR-made interview-team changes and to combine licensed and classified interview teams as recommended. Chair S1 moved the motion; the vote carried by voice with multiple "aye" responses and one recorded dissent. The committee also directed that staff who signed endorsements be given opportunities to provide input through the finalists' community forum and staff social hour rather than as voting interviewers.
The discussion highlighted the committee's tension between inclusiveness, transparency and legal risk; committee members asked HR to explore ways members who signed endorsements could still see finalists and offer feedback outside the formal interview panel.
