Semi-finalists are:

1. Benjamin Edmondson, current AAPS principal of Roberto Clemente High School [.pdf Edmonson bio];
2. Richard Faidley, superintendent for the Derry Township School District in Hershey, Pennsylvania [.pdf Faidley bio];
3. Sandra Harris, retired superintendent of the Oak Park School District in Oak Park, Mich. and former AAPS director of personnel [.pdf of Harris bio];
4. Henry Hastings, full-time lecturer at Eastern Michigan University [.pdf of Hastings bio];
5. Brian Osborne, superintendent for the South Orange-Maplewood School District in New Jersey [.pdf of Osborne bio]; and
6. Jeanice Kerr Swift, assistant superintendent of instruction, curriculum and student services for the Colorado Springs School District in Colorado Springs, Colorado. [.pdf of Swift bio]

Interview questions are being developed and will be discussed by board members at a study session on Tuesday, July 2 at 5:30 p.m. at the Balas administration building, 2555 S. State St.

Semi-finalist interviews will be held at the Courtyard Marriott, 3205 Boardwalk, on Monday, July 8 from 10 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. and on Tuesday, July 9 from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. (Interview times on those dates are tentative, according to AAPS.)

The board might choose to schedule a regular meeting following the July 9 interviews to select finalists. If not, those selections would occur at the board’s regular meeting on July 10. Interviews with the finalists are planned for Monday, July 15 and Tuesday, July 16, with times to be determined.

The board will make its final selection for superintendent at a regular meeting on July 17 at 7 p.m. at the Courtyard Marriott. Typically, AAPS regular board meetings are held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, but the venue is being changed because of the Ann Arbor art fairs, which start on that date. According to the press release, AAPS is working with Community Television Network (CTN) to arrange for the July 17 meeting to be broadcast.

Patricia Green (Chronicle file photo by Monet Tiedemann)

She began her tenure on July 1, 2011 with a five-year contract and a starting salary of $245,000. According to AAPS spokeswoman Liz Margolis, a voluntary salary reduction that Green had recently offered has not yet been implemented. Under the terms of her contract, 90 days notice was required, which Green gave in her resignation letter to AAPS board president Deb Mexicotte on April 10.

A letter by Mexicotte to the AAPS community stated that the board will be meeting in the near future to discuss the leadership transition. Mexicotte also praised Green for advocacy efforts at the state level, for forging partnerships with local businesses, for making key administrative hires since coming to Ann Arbor. [.pdf of Mexicotte's letter]

Green’s resignation comes as the district is facing $17-$20 million of cuts for next year’s budget.

This is the second recent resignation by a top AAPS administrator. Robert Allen, the district’s deputy superintendent for operations, resigned earlier this year. His last day was March 22. Allen had served as interim superintendent in 2010-11 following the departure of former superintendent Todd Roberts. Allen left to take a job at the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics, which Roberts leads.

The next step in the search process will be to gather similar input from board associations, community leaders, and the public at open forums as well as invitation-only meetings by the end of October. The firm also suggested posting a 33-item survey on the district’s website to encourage even wider participation in the profile’s development.

After some discussion, the board tabled a decision about allowing all trustees individual access to the full set of candidate applications. At issue was the possible impact of that access on the selection process: Would it make applicants’ names public earlier in the process than the board and possibly some applicants would like?

Dave Comsa, AAPS assistant superintendent of human resources and legal services, who attended last night’s meeting, advised board members that the applications would be kept under lock and key, but also cautioned: “FOIA may unlock them.” Board president Deb Mexicotte requested that Comsa look into the implications of allowing individual board members full access to the candidate list, and report back to the board.

Though the board did not reach consensus on setting the new superintendent’s salary, they did approve an advertising budget of $6,500 to place notices in a variety of national publications. Liz Margolis, AAPS director of communications, will aid in the development of advertisements and other print materials related to the search.

At its Sept. 15, 2010 meeting, the board named current deputy superintendent Robert Allen as interim superintendent to replace Todd Roberts, who announced his resignation in August. Roberts’ last day on the job for the district will be Oct. 8. Allen has declared that he will not be a candidate for the permanent job.

During a seven-hour meeting held at the Balas Administration Building, the board discussed selection criteria, set their interview process, interviewed five firms, and decided to check the references of two of them. A theme that emerged throughout the day was the challenge of conducting a search in an “open state” such as Michigan, where candidates’ names will be made public early in the process as a requirement of the Open Meetings Act.

The board is expected to make a final selection at its regular board meeting on Wednesday, Sept. 29. The search firm will be seeking a replacement for outgoing superintendent Todd Roberts, who announced his departure in mid-August. AAPS deputy superintendent Robert Allen was recently selected to serve as interim superintendent when Roberts leaves within the next two weeks.

Selection Criteria

Board president Deb Mexicotte opened the meeting by distributing a rubric for the interview which trustees could use to rank firms during the interviews. The selection criteria had been compiled by the board secretary based on input e-mailed to her by individual trustees. The criteria included:

• familiarity with AAPS and similar districts;
• demonstrated success conducting national searches;
• demonstrated success recruiting and placing candidates from Michigan and neighboring areas;
• ability to engage the community in the search process; and
• experience of the team assigned to AAPS, including facilitation experience and involvement after placement.

Mexicotte encouraged board members to use the rubric, but also to amend it to suit their needs or to weight categories as they saw fit.

Trustees briefly discussed who would pose which questions during the interview. It was determined that after each presentation, Mexicotte would facilitate questioning using a round robin approach. She planned to choose a trustee at random, and then work around the table, allowing each trustee to ask one initial question, followed by additional questions as time allowed.

Trustee Susan Baskett asked Dave Comsa, AAPS assistant superintendent for human resources and legal services, for clarification regarding confidentiality during the superintendent selection process. Comsa clarified that as soon as a search firm presents the names of any candidates to the board, those names are public information. Mexicotte added that names must be brought to a full, open session, not an executive or closed session of the board.

Members of the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of education discuss the selection of a search firm at their Sept. 22 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

This information led to a brief discussion among trustees about the number of names they would like to see presented to them by the firm they choose, and at what stage in the process. There was some debate about the merits of seeing the entire list of applicants, or reviewing large numbers of resumes. Trustees Simone Lightfoot and Glenn Nelson expressed some interest in knowing who applied, beyond just the applicants recommended by the chosen firm. “I don’t have absolute trust,” Nelson admitted.

Trustee Christine Stead countered that view, suggesting that to review resumes of all applicants is not the best use of the board’s time. “One of the major reasons to hire a firm is to reduce workload,” she said, arguing that “if we won’t allow a firm to vet [candidates], then we shouldn’t hire one.”

Comsa pointed out that the hired search firm would handle this issue based on input from the board, and the conversation was put on hold until a firm was selected.

Trustee Andy Thomas then questioned what the expected outcome was of the day’s meeting, and Mexicotte suggested that after the interviews, she would ask trustees to list their top three firms. With those pooled rankings, Mexicotte said, the board would then decide which firms to eliminate, and on which to check references. Comsa added that that board should not narrow the field to a single firm, as the final decision should be made during a regular, open meeting.

Interviews

Board secretary Amy Osinski invited representatives of each of the firms to the main conference room at Balas at their appointed time. Each firm’s representatives presented for 20-30 minutes on why they would be the right fit for AAPS specifically, and were then interviewed by board members for an additional 20-30 minutes. There was a short break between each interview.

Interview: Ray & Associates

Ray & Associates sent three representatives to the interview. Their presentation touted the firm’s experience involving the community in developing a candidate profile. Calling the community meeting the “bread and butter” of the search process, they guaranteed that everything they gathered from participants would be incorporated into the search, and suggested using surveys as well as holding forums.

Their presentation also touched on the difficulty of recruiting in an “open” state – a reference to Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. Candidates may not want the fact that they’ve applied to be made public while they are still on a slate of semi-finalists. They said they believed it is part of their job to convince candidates why applying would be worth it, regardless of the professional risks. They asserted that they had “never produced a slate of candidates from which the board could not choose a successful candidate.”

Trustees asked about the timing of salary determination in the selection process; how many stakeholder meetings would be held; how the firm would deal with community members skeptical to participate; whether they’ve had an unsuccessful search; the typical number of semifinalists presented to the board; whether the firm could identify candidates and recruit effectively from within Michigan; the firm’s suggested search timeline; and which other school districts they saw as similar to AAPS. They also requested curriculum vita for all members of the team who would be assigned to AAPS.

Representatives of Ray & Associates recommended determining salary early in the process, and holding a large number of stakeholder meetings – some open forums, and some by invitation only. Regarding skepticism about participating, they said they would stress to the community how the AAPS board is unique in its commitment to soliciting public input. Their description of an ineffective search was in Paterson, N.J., where trust issues among the 18-person, governor-appointed board made the process “artificial.”

They expressed confidence they could produce competitive local as well as national candidates, and touted their connections to roughly 400 local associates. They suggested bringing a slate of 8-12 semi-finalists on paper to the board, along with a metric to evaluate their resumes. They also suggested that although the firm could recommend only the top five candidates to interview, which has been a model used in other “sunshine states,” they felt that option gives the search firm too much input into the selection. Regarding a timeline, they suggested starting a search in October and ending by January, with the rationale that the sooner an incoming superintendent can announce he or she is leaving a current position, the better chance the district they are leaving has to find a good replacement.

Representatives of the firm demonstrated extensive knowledge of AAPS in their answers – referring to the district’s fund balance, its strategic plan, and its targets for increasing achievement and reducing achievement gaps. They compared AAPS to Ames, Iowa; Montgomery, Virginia; and Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Interview: Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates

The presentation by Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates stressed their extensive network as an attribute that sets them apart from other firms. They sent two representatives to meet with the board, and noted that they have 120 associates nationwide, as well as connections to an organization called Suburban Schools Superintendents (SSS). They also touted their ability to use the firm’s contacts to cross-reference candidate references, and “uncover the real person.”

The Hazard representatives used most of their time to review in some detail the steps of the selection process and the various degrees of service they could offer AAPS – national, national plus, or basic. They explained the subcontracting they do with ECRA Group to conduct background research on candidates.

Lastly, they reviewed their guarantee that, if hired, they would not recruit the new AAPS superintendent for five years, and will redo the search for free if the new superintendent leaves within a year.

Trustees asked about the firm’s commitment to diversity; target participants for community engagement; how it recruited candidates; cost; and customization of services.

Hazard offered to add a third, part-time, “minority” consultant to their team to demonstrate their celebration of diversity. They said they would work very hard to get minority candidates, and focused on the racial composition of the student body as justification for a minority superintendent.

Their response regarding community input was in reference to their contract with AAPS, which would allow for two consultants to spend two days in the district collecting community input, based on groups identified by the board. They did not suggest an open forum, but instead specific focus groups.

Hazard asserted that other firms do not search for those candidates not actively seeking work, while they do. They reiterated how their contacts with the SSS would be able to lead them to candidates untapped by other firms.

The firm agreed to customize a set of services for AAPS, which could allocate greater resources on parts of the search that the district would like to emphasize. Regarding their higher cost (roughly $6,000 more than other comparable firms), Hazard’s representatives argued that they simply spend more time on the search than other firms, and that there is an extra cost associated with doing a national search.

Interview: David J. Kinsella & Associates

Kinsella began his presentation by stating that he was a little nervous to present to the board. After introducing himself, he praised the district’s strategic plan, and described how the main challenge of the next superintendent would be to move the plan forward. He described his strength as “making a good fit:” listening very carefully to clients to create a very specific candidate profile, targeting sources to find candidates, and measuring them against the position specification.

Kinsella asserted that he has a vested interest in this selection, as he is an involved member of the local community. He acknowledged that the board might be concerned about his lack of experience doing superintendent searches (he has done one, 30 years ago), but that the search process is the same. Kinsella also noted that he is not barred from going into any districts, as some firms might be if they had recently placed candidates in those locations. He asserted that his confidence in his ability to successfully evaluate leadership characteristics of potential candidates should allay any concerns the board has about his qualifications.

The board asked Kinsella to elaborate on his recruiting strategies, including reaching out to women and minorities; review the steps in his proposed selection process; give an example of a placement he made “taking a company from good to great”; describe whether or not AAPS having a strong strategic plan could pose a risk for a new superintendent; and offer an opinion on whether or not the district should consider non-traditional candidates.

Kinsella acknowledged that he did not have the same experience recruiting superintendents as the other firms, and would rely on input from the board as to which communities to target. He also mentioned he would contact organizations such as the National Alliance of Black School Superintendents (which evolved to become the National Alliance of Black School Educators), and the Urban Association of Superintendents.

He said he would “try to find a diverse slate, but at the end of the day, you’re looking for the best person.”

Kinsella described his selection process in some detail, focusing on the in-depth research and interviewing he does. He described his successful placement of a corporate executive who moved his company from loss to gain, and described how he would look for similar leadership qualities in AAPS superintendent candidates.

As for any risk posed by the possession of a strong strategic plan, Kinsella said that any candidate who would want to change the direction of the strategic plan would be a mismatch, though he would want to find candidates who could “take it to the next level.” He said that whether or not to include non-traditional candidates would be completely a board decision, but that he would be open to it.

Board members also asked Kinsella how many candidates he would present to them, and whether he has experience with keeping candidates confidential early in the process.

Kinsella answered that he would usually present a slate of three to five candidates, and that he sees his job as narrowing the field considerably for the board. He stated that he believes working with potential candidates to determine whether or not to make their interest in the position public is a major task for a recruiter. Regarding confidentiality, Kinsella assured the board that he would do as much of the vetting as possible up front so candidates are not exposed to the board too early. He asserted, “I would assume responsibility to keep [candidates] in the shadows of the public as long as we could.”

Interview: Michigan Association of School Boards

Representatives of the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB) spent the first third of their presentation describing changes to the group’s organizational processes, including the addition of a unique “database profile matching system.” They then described how a successful search will lead to the new superintendent having good community support as well as board support, and how building community support is a function of the input process. Finally, MASB staff gave a lengthy explanation of how they would post the open superintendent position, as well as recruit passive candidates. They then went on to describe the interview process they would follow when selecting candidates.

Trustees asked MASB what prompted the changes in the organization; whether they were biased toward in-state candidates; whether or not they have worked to recruit passive candidates in the past; when they would recommend setting search criteria; what the experience level was of each member of the MASB team that would be assigned to AAPS. Trustees also asked about the creativity of MASB; and about the effect of the Open Meetings Act on the search process.

MASB representatives explained that their organization needed to change its image to capture a larger market share. They noted that MASB works with other state school board associations to share information, and that MASB’s track record shows that many searches have included a large number of out-of-state candidates. They skimmed lightly over answering whether or not they had successfully recruited passive candidates in the past, noting that they communicate with a large number of school administrators. They suggested not setting search criteria until five or six weeks into the process, allowing MASB to gather data from all AAPS constituencies.

MASB sent four representatives to its interview with the board: Dick Durbin, the director of superintendent search services; Bill Brewer, a recent addition to the team from the private sector; Mike Emlaw, a senior consultant who worked with AAPS on its last superintendent search; and Kelly Jones, who Durbin initially introduced as the board’s “primary contact,” but who did not participate in the presentation.

After Durbin, Emlaw, and Brewer answered the question about how many searches they had been a part of (the most was eight – by Emlaw), AAPS trustee Christine Stead addressed Durbin directly, pointing out that he should not have invited Jones if she had no role in the presentation. Stead then questioned Jones directly about what her role would be in the search. Jones answered that she is the office manager, and that this is her first time attending a presentation.

MASB representatives responded that they could engage the community creatively by translating online surveys into other languages, and bringing interpreters to open forums if necessary. They also reiterated how MASB’s new online application capability and profile-matching tool were unique in the search industry.

Trustees questioned the effect of having access to an online application system, in which all AAPS board members would be able to review every application. They wondered if it would make an unnecessarily large number of possible applicants public. MASB representatives answered that they believed the Open Meetings Act allows trustees to review applications in confidence, as long as they do not deliberate. Then, when choosing candidates to interview in open session, it would be appropriate for the board to reference arbitrarily-assigned candidate numbers rather than names. MASB representatives stated that, even with board members having full access to all applications, none of the candidates’ names would be made public until they were invited to interview.

Along the same lines, trustee Glenn Nelson questioned whether AAPS was offering high enough salaries, given that AAPS had not hired a sitting superintendent during its last three superintendent searches, but instead hired deputy superintendents from other districts. Emlaw answered that it’s not about the money, but the law. The public nature of a search under the OMA, he argued, causes sitting superintendents not to want to risk upsetting their constituents by applying for other positions. On the other hand, to a sitting deputy or associate superintendent, the application poses less professional risk, since it is socially acceptable to want to continue moving up the professional ladder.

Interview: McPherson & Jacobson LLC

McPherson & Jacobson sent a single presenter to the interview, Bill Dean. Dean began by introducing himself personally and professionally, and then gave a brief review of the proposal his firm had submitted. The proposal had been specifically tailored to AAPS, and included sections on the phases of the proposed search process; descriptions of the team that would be assigned to AAPS; newspaper articles showing the transparency of the process used by the firm, and how that has motivated stakeholders to participate; a list of all female or minority placements made in other searches; and a list of all searches done by the firm in the past five years. Dean concluded his presentation by asserting how Ann Arbor is special, and AAPS needs someone who understands the city’s uniqueness and who will be able to move its strategic plan forward.

The board asked how McPherson would recruit to Michigan, given the state’s dismal economic position nationally; how they would find candidates in Michigan and nearby states; how they could creatively engage the community; how they would find candidates with vision regarding closing the achievement gap; whether they would recommend non-traditional candidates; what makes them stand out against other firms; at what point in the process they set salary; how many candidates they would present to the board; and whether or not there would be any people of color on the team of consultants assigned to work with AAPS.

Dean was confident that the firm would be able to find candidates willing to work for AAPS, and reassured the board that the special culture of Ann Arbor would be a draw. He also reviewed successful searches in other states where McPherson previously had no presence. “We grow connections,” he said. “We are unafraid of picking up the phone – you have to be kind of forward in this job.”

Regarding community engagement, Dean reviewed the firm’s commitment to transparency, and how testimonials from other engaged community members really helped to convince people to participate.

As for finding candidates with experience closing achievement gaps, Dean suggested that the board should request directly that candidates present evidence of what they have done to close the achievement gap in their districts. Dean mentioned being very impressed with AAPS Community High School as a model for how to educate children non-traditionally. He said he would be comfortable recruiting a candidate that has a different sense of how to deliver education, and that if the board was interested, he would work with them to find non-traditional candidates.

Salary would be set early in the process, Dean said, adding that his goal would be to bring a short list of six to eight candidates to the board for its review.

Dean also acknowledged that the three members of the team McPherson assigned to AAPS were all white males. He explained that this team was chosen because it consists of the consultants with the most experience, but that if the board wanted to have a person of color on the search team, the firm could accommodate that interest.

Post-Interview Debriefing

Deb Mexicotte asked board members to participate in a straw poll, voting for their top three firms, which they did. The results showed Ray and MASB with six votes each, McPherson with five votes, Hazard with four votes, and Kinsella with no votes.

AAPS trustees Christine Stead and Glenn Nelson during a Sept. 22 meeting to interview potential consultants for a superintendent search.

Mexicotte then asked trustees to argue for their top two choices.

Andy Thomas began, saying that he was most impressed with McPherson for being committed to the values held by AAPS, and for having done its homework before the interview. Ray, he said, proved that they really understood the community involvement piece. Thomas also mentioned being concerned with MASB’s approach to selecting candidates.

Glenn Nelson said he would put Ray at the top of his list, and appreciated the diversity of the team they brought. Secondly, he’d choose MASB, though he was concerned about the lack of experience on their team. Nelson also noted that he was not impressed with Hazard’s emphasis on suburban schools, but they were his third choice.

Christine Stead strongly preferred McPherson. She appreciated their organization, and that they provided proof of the transparency of their search process by including newspaper articles in their proposal. She also noted that the firm’s fees were reasonable.

For her second choice, Stead said she would choose Ray or Hazard. In her opinion, Hazard articulated network capabilities better, but Ray fared better in terms of showing a commitment to diversity.

Calling parts of their presentation “inarticulate,” MASB’s approach greatly concerned Stead. She argued that they would expect too much from the board, and that “the team seem like they assembled themselves in the hallway on the way in here.” She also expressed that their commitment to diversity seemed superficial.

Susan Baskett put McPherson first, and Ray second, though she noted that they lacked creativity. Regarding Hazard, she noted, “They did nothing for me. I wouldn’t want to put them in front of my neighbors.”

Simone Lightfoot chose MASB for its “local flavor,” its knowledge of the Open Meetings Act, its articulation of changes within its organization, and its new database matching system. Responding to Stead’s concerns about the amount of work MASB would expect from the board, she noted that the board would likely end up with the same candidates out of their applicant pool whether or not trustees reviewed the applications online first. To her, that was optional.

Lightfoot liked Ray’s show of diversity, and noted that McPherson’s response that they could add a person of color to the team if AAPS requested it did not work for her.

Irene Patalan was happy with the three largest firms, and listed McPherson as her first choice, and Hazard as her second. She noted that in Hazard’s presentation, “there was a lot of Michigan going on in what they had to say.”

Mexicotte was most impressed with McPherson and Ray. She felt McPherson was most responsive to the board’s request for proposals (RFP), and that she would not have any doubt that they would be able to produce a good pool of candidates. Ray’s candidate handling, community engagement, and diversity impressed her. In distant third place, Mexicotte said, she would consider MASB. She felt like the team was not well-integrated, and that they should not have brought a member who didn’t need to be here. Mexicotte also noted that the newness of their management was concerning to her. Finally, she noted that while finding local candidates might be a strength of MASB, she had no concerns with her top two choices being able to find qualified candidates in Michigan.

Seeing that the ranking of each trustee’s top two candidates led to McPherson and Ray having the most votes in that round, Mexicotte suggested considering only those two firms at the next regular board meeting. Lightfoot and Nelson, who had shown the most interest in MASB, agreed to yield to their colleagues’ concerns regarding the firm. There was general agreement to focus the selection on those two firms.

Mexicotte looked to Dave Comsa for advice on conducting reference checks. Comsa suggested that any information gleaned from the reference checks needed to be presented to the board in open session, and reminded the board that no deliberation could take place before then.

Mexicotte, Baskett, and Stead volunteered to function as a sub-quorum group to conduct the reference checks together, by speakerphone, so they could all hear the same responses. They will then report their findings from their notes at the next regular board meeting. Mexicotte asked Comsa if there was a set of reference-check questions they should use, and Comsa suggested that they simply ask people that the firms listed as references to confirm the things the firms said about themselves.

Some trustees expressed interest in having the two firms being considered respond to some follow-up questions in writing before a final decision is made. It was decided that individual trustees would submit any questions they had to board secretary Amy Osinski by Friday at noon, and that she would forward them to McPherson and Ray for written response by Tuesday. Mexicotte requested that Osinski call the other three firms to tell them they are no longer under consideration.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Irene Patalan, secretary Glenn Nelson, treasurer Christine Stead, and trustees Susan Baskett, Simone Lightfoot, and Andy Thomas.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2010, 7 p.m. at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 4th floor board room, 343 S. Fifth Ave.

Amy Osinski and Dave Comsa, opening the bids. Comsa is assistant superintendent for human resources and legal services; Osinski is the school board's secretary.

In each case, Comsa checked whether the bid contained a signed original, as well as a notarized affidavit disclosing any familial relationships that might pose a conflict of interest. Comsa stated that the purpose of the morning meeting was simply to open the bids and cursorily examine them, but not to answer questions or hold any discussion.

However, representatives of two bidders were present – David J. Kinsella & Associates, and the Michigan Association of School Boards. These were the same two firms that attended the pre-bid meeting last week.

Of the seven bids received, three are from Michigan firms. The bids received, the location of the firms, and their base bid amounts were, in the order they were opened, as follows: Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates, Rosemont, Ill. ($28,000-$30,000); David J. Kinsella & Associates, Ann Arbor, Mich. (15% of the first year’s base salary of the new superintendent, plus expenses); Michigan Association of School Boards, Lansing, Mich. ($22,050); ProAct Search, Wilmette, Ill. ($22,450); Michigan Leadership Institute, Ossineke, Mich. ($17,000-$23,000); McPherson & Jacobson LLC, Omaha, Neb. ($18,500); and Ray & Associates, Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa ($21,000-$24,500).

As he went through them, Comsa mentioned some of the various elements of the base bids: that some included the cost of aiding in the selection of an interim superintendent, but others listed that service as an additional charge. All of the bids also estimated additional ancillary expenses, such as advertising, travel, mileage, and out-of-pocket costs of the consultants.

Comsa stated that board members would be reviewing the proposals this week, and would discuss them at a study session scheduled for 5:30 p.m. on Sept. 15. At the regular board meeting immediately following that study session, the finalists will be selected, who will then be invited to interview with the board on Sept. 22.

The board is engaging in a search for a new superintendent. Current superintendent Todd Roberts announced his resignation in August. [See Chronicle coverage: "With Roberts' Exit, AAPS Plans Next Steps"]

AAPS board members Susan Baskett and Glenn Nelson met with representatives of two search consultants who will be bidding for the contract to help AAPS with its superintendent search. (Photos by the writer.)

The two consultants that attended were the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB), from Lansing, and David J. Kinsella and Associates, from Ann Arbor. By the end of the meeting, both consultants said their questions had been answered, and that they planned to submit proposals.

As the board embarks on the replacement process for Roberts – the district’s current superintendent who will be leaving in November – it has decided to hire an executive search firm to help in the recruitment, selection, and hiring process. Friday’s meeting was optional, and offered potential bidders a chance to ask questions of board members Glenn Nelson and Susan Baskett before bids are due on Friday, Sept. 10 at 10 a.m.

Dave Comsa, AAPS assistant superintendent of human resources and legal services, opened the meeting by inviting the consultants to interact informally with the board members. Dick Dunham of MASB began by asking whether the board as a whole planned to be involved in the superintendent search, or if the search firm would be interacting mainly with a committee of the board.

Nelson said that although the board had not addressed that question explicitly, his belief was that the board was planning to work on the search as a “committee of the whole.” “Based on history, and how we work, I think it will be the entire board,” he said, clarifying that some specific tasks may be delegated to board president Deb Mexicotte throughout the process. “We trust our president,” Nelson said.

Baskett echoed his sentiments, saying that the selection of a new superintendent was such an important job, they would all take part. She added, “We [board members] have a history of working well together,” and assured the consultants that “it would not be cumbersome” to work with the full board. “There are only seven of us,” she said.

From left to right: Dave Kinsella of David J. Kinsella and Associates; Dick Dunham and William Brewer of Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB).

Dave Kinsella of David J. Kinsella and Associates asked how many of the current board members had been part of the search for Roberts in 2006. Four of the seven current board members – Nelson, Baskett, Mexicotte and Irene Patalan – had been involved. Baskett pointed out, “This will [Nelson’s] fourth superintendent.” Nelson provided some additional context, explaining that, though there were five board seats up for election in November, only incumbents had filed. “If the thought arises that you might be working with a different group [of board members] in January,” he said, “you won’t.”

Both consultants asked about the extent of community involvement in the search process expected by the board. Baskett began the response by saying, “You know Ann Arbor – we expect it all.”

Nelson explained that the search consultant that the board had employed during the search for Roberts – which was MASB, one the two bidders at the meeting – had facilitated open meetings at which community input was solicited, synthesized the suggestions, and reported them back to the board. He stressed the consultant’s role in that part of the process, and suggested that the board would expect the same level of involvement in managing community input this time around. Nelson also mentioned that, during the Roberts search, a committee of community members appointed by the board met with the candidates. He emphasized, “Community input is very, very important.”

William Brewer, also from MASB, asked if the board had identified principal constituencies from which it would want input solicited. Baskett answered, “Yes, it’s a long list.” Nelson named performing arts groups, civic groups, and community centers as some of the constituents to be included, but noted there were many more.

Baskett stated that some feedback she received after the last search made her question whether some members of the community would participate in another search process. She noted that the board would look to the search firm they hire to help get the community involved, and stated that she wants people to leave happy that they participated. Nelson agreed, “This is part of where we need help, efficiently bringing in the community.” He added that the goal should be for everyone to know the search was a good, fair, open process.

Dunham confirmed that the board wanted to do a national search for a superintendent, and asked whether the board would entertain a non-traditional candidate, such as someone who had experience in the private sector but no experience in education.

Baskett answered that the board had not yet discussed desired criteria of the next superintendent, and that they would be looking for advice from the search firm to craft these criteria. Nelson then followed with a response he stressed was only his individual perspective. He noted that some universities have a governance model in which a president manages external affairs, and a provost manages internal ones. “I can see us entertaining the notion of that kind of structure,” he said, “in which case, we would want the best CEO in the country as the superintendent, and the best educational expert in the country as the deputy superintendent of instruction.” [The AAPS deputy superintendent of instruction position is currently unfilled, but was maintained in the district’s 2010-11 budget.]

Dunham asked the board members to explain how the AAPS strategic plan is relevant to the search process. Nelson answered, “We don’t want the coming months to be a period of treading water.” He expressed an interest in the district continuing to update the plan’s action items, and emphasized that the plan belonged to the district, not to the superintendent. Baskett agreed, saying, “We’re not going to give it up.”

Nelson did note, however, that the 180 people actively involved in the strategic planning process would likely overlap with those who would attend the community meetings focused on the superintendent search. This overlap could cause the timeline for the strategic planning process to be amended due to the superintendent search, Nelson conceded.

Both consultants complimented the board on the comprehensive nature of the RFP. Kinsella joked that he “would have had to be an oral surgeon” to extract this depth of information from previous clients.

Nelson first thanked the consultants for their feedback, and said that the board is proud of itself. He gave kudos to both board treasurer Christine Stead for writing the first draft of the RFP, and Comsa for providing excellent staff support of the board’s work. Nelson then took the opportunity to characterize the board as one that is “respectful of expertise, but likely to say, ‘Show me.’”

Baskett agreed, saying, “I like to think of us as intelligent, but not snooty.” She noted that five of the seven current board members have worked as consultants in some capacity, and that she herself had managed many government contracts. “We don’t follow blindly,” she said, “but do recognize that others have talent we could use.” Baskett closed the meeting by asserting, “The seven of us enjoy working with each other. We hope whoever we choose enjoys working with us.”

Present: Board secretary Glenn Nelson, trustee Susan Baskett, and Dave Comsa, assistant superintendent of human resources and legal services.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 15, 2010, 7 p.m., Downtown Ann Arbor District Library, fourth floor board room, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Christine Stead and Deb Mexicotte discuss a draft of the RFP from search firms to help with the hiring of a new superintendent. (Photos by the writer.)

Board treasurer Christine Stead had offered to draft an RFP for board review at the last regular board meeting. Monday’s meeting was an opportunity for the rest of the board to review her work, and suggest changes. Most of the recommended changes were accepted without objection, but others led to some reflective discussion that revealed priorities for the board.

One of the changes made to the RFP was to add a pre-bid meeting for the purpose of answering clarifying questions about the RFP. The pre-bid meeting will be held on Friday, Sept. 3 at 10 a.m., at the Balas Administration Building, 2555 S. State Street. Any interested bidders are invited to participate in person or via teleconference. The deadline for submitting responses to the RFP is Friday, Sept. 10 at 10 a.m.

The only other official business conducted at Monday’s meeting was the passing of a motion to entertain Roberts’ suggestions for interim staff, which he will bring to the next board meeting.

A Review of the Draft RFP

Board president Deb Mexicotte opened the meeting by simply stating that its purpose was to review the RFP drafted by Christine Stead for the purpose of selecting an executive search firm to help the board choose the next AAPS superintendent. Mexicotte also pointed out that the board does not usually issue RFPs directly, and she thanked Dave Comsa, the district’s assistant superintendent for human resources and legal services, for attending the meeting in case the board had any human resource or legal questions.

Stead began by reviewing the RFP she had written for the board’s review, stressing its status as a draft: “Every part of this can change – the content, the order, the timeline.” She then presented an RFP with the following seven sections:

1. RFP Milestones
2. Firm Background Information Required
3. Scope of Work
4. Search Process – Anticipated Milestones
5. The Context of Our Search
6. District Goals Relevant for the Search
7. Submission Requirements

The RFP milestones suggested by Stead reflected the timeline discussed at the last board meeting, which would result in a search firm being selected at the Sept. 29 board meeting.

The firm background section is essentially the list of questions to which the firms will be expected to respond in their proposals. Stead explained that this section asks the firms to highlight their capabilities and demonstrate that they have been successful in similar searches. “Here,” she said, “is where we’ve asked for price estimates, duration, and proposed search timeline.”

The scope of work, Stead described, are the exact specifications of this project. “We are asking for assistance in a particular way,” Stead said, “We want to understand how they develop search criteria, how they identify candidates, and how they identify community priorities.” Stead pointed out that while the scope of work indicates that community engagement is a requirement for the selection of a permanent superintendent, AAPS does not specify how to involve the community. “That would be up to the search firm to propose.”

The search process/anticipated milestones section includes the following key dates:

• Sept. 29, 2010: search firm selected
• Oct. 27, 2010: interim superintendent selected
• Nov. 15, 2010: interim superintendent start date
• May 4, 2011: permanent superintendent selected
• July 1, 2011: permanent superintendent start date

The milestones section also states that modifications to the timeline can be recommended by the search firm. Stead noted that she reviewed the board meeting calendar to come up with the dates, and that the two months between the hiring and start date of the permanent superintendent were built-in time for transition activities. For instance, Stead suggested, they could allow the new superintendent to “get to know our folks while getting things wrapped up in his or her own district.”

The next two sections – the context of the search and the district goals – are “somewhat subjective,” according to Stead. She explained that she had intended the context section as a past-oriented section used to express that the board “has had a lot going on,” as well as to present the culture of leadership the district has experienced under Roberts. The district goals section is future-oriented, and describes the main focal points of the district’s work this year. It includes sections on: updating the strategic plan, continuing resource challenges facing the district, the district’s challenge to close its achievement gaps among students, and maintaining community engagement.

Stead then closed by pointing out that the submission requirements call for eight hard copies, one for each trustee, plus one for the board office. She also suggested that each firm submit a copy of its proposal electronically, in case the board wants to more widely distribute it for some reason. With that, Stead opened the floor for suggested changes.

Suggested Changes to the Draft RFP

Mexicotte thanked Stead for putting together the RFP for the board’s review. Over the next two and a half hours, trustees made suggestions, and Stead amended the RFP in real time, so that by the time they were finished, the document was complete, pending technical proofreading and review by legal counsel. Most suggested changes drew no objections from other board members, but in a few cases, there was some discussion.

RFP Changes: Diversity

The first of the items requiring any discussion was brought by trustee Simone Lightfoot, who said she was looking for the word “diverse” throughout the document. Mexicotte asked where would be a good place in the RFP to speak to the board’s diversity concerns. Lightfoot suggested amending both the firm background and scope of work sections in order to reflect the board’s concerns that the firm has experience identifying a diverse and competent pool of superintendent candidates, as well as successfully placing them. Mexicotte supported Lightfoot’s suggestions.

RFP Changes: Unanticipated Events

There was some discussion of how to handle questions about unanticipated events during the search. Lightfoot suggested that the firms be required to describe conditions under which the search time frame could be modified. Board secretary Glenn Nelson asked why Stead had included a requirement for the firm to describe what they would do if a candidate leaves the search.

Stead explained that what AAPS would like to hear is that the firm has had some experience with a lead candidate withdrawing from the search. Mexicotte agreed: “We could ask for an example. Everybody’s had a search fall apart.” Roberts asked if the firm will think they fulfilled their contract if the search does not yield a viable candidate. Stead asked Comsa under what conditions the contract must be paid, and Comsa confirmed that AAPS must pay the search firm for its work, even if the outcome is initially unsuccessful. Wording was added to the RFP to make it clear that AAPS would not consider the search successful until a candidate accepts the position of permanent superintendent.

RFP Changes: Setting and Negotiating a Contract Price

The board had some discussion about how to set and negotiate the contract price. Because the RFP mentions that the firm might help with both the interim and permanent superintendent searches, trustee Susan Baskett said she’d like to ask firms to itemize their proposed costs for the two searches. Mexicotte confirmed that she would like to structure the RFP as requiring the permanent superintendent search, with the interim superintendent search priced as an optional piece of the proposal. This is sometimes called an “alternate bid.” Roberts suggested stressing that the main task is the permanent superintendent search.

Nelson asked if the board would be locked into a price as a result of the RFP, and requested that room be added to negotiate the price. Stead explained that setting the price would be a process. The firms will submit an estimate in their proposal, she said, but that could change once the board meets with them. “We might decide to be more articulate, and that we want 70 community meetings, not one,” she quipped, “so that could change their estimate.” Comsa asked that the board email their final draft to him so that he could add required legal wording. As an example, Comsa said he would add phrasing such as, “The board can accept any bid (not necessarily the lowest), reject any or all bids for any reason, … and that AAPS will select one firm and one alternative, in case we cannot work out pricing.”

Lightfoot asked if the board could speak openly yet about whether or not there was a price they did not want to go over. “Do we have a firm price?” she asked. “I’ve heard it could cost up to $80,000.” Mexicotte asked what it cost to hire a firm last time they did a superintendent search, and when no one on the board answered, David Jesse, an education reporter from AnnArbor.com, chimed in to say that the last search cost the district roughly $13,500.

Mexicotte said that the market would help to determine a price, but that the search may cost in the range of $20,000 to $35,000. Roberts added that it depends on the firm, and Mexicotte pointed out that the board may choose a higher bid if that firm will deliver a better service. Baskett argued that it may sound like a lot, “but the cost of not doing it right is just enormous.”

RFP Changes: Timeline Modifications

The board discussed the anticipated search process milestones. Mexicotte asked if the wording could be softened to make it easier for search firms to modify the timeline, and suggested that it would currently be difficult for a firm to shorten it. The front end of the timeline is the most ambitious, Mexicotte said, and then there is a long break until May. Baskett commented that she did not want to see the timeline extended past June 30. In response to Mexicotte, Roberts confirmed that his start date at AAPS had been July 1, but that he had gone back and forth between AAPS and his former district [Birmingham] a few times during a transition period. Comsa suggested adding some wording to require that if the firm wants to modify the timeline, any extensions need to be made in writing 60 days ahead of time.

RFP Changes: Student Achievement

Lightfoot suggested adding a student achievement bullet point to the context section, in addition to the discussion of student achievement in the district goals section. “I’m interested in whoever they bring us having had experience in working with student achievement,” she said. Baskett suggested saying that the district was committed to the “relentless pursuit of achievement for all students,” but Lightfoot wanted the statement to be more specific. “I’m talking about the gap,” she said. Mexicotte and Nelson stepped in to craft a statement that spoke to the “yin and yang” of community expectations regarding student achievement. On one hand, they said, excellence is achieved in many respects, while the achievement of students of color and students from lower-income households continues to require extra focus and resources.

RFP Changes: Roberts, Superintendent, or District?

The lengthiest discussion on possible changes to the RFP centered on whether the context section should be focused on the work of the superintendent specifically or the district more generally. Within that conversation, there was some debate among trustees about the degree to which Roberts should be named rather than referred to as “the superintendent.”

Lightfoot began by questioning the multiple specific references to Roberts throughout the context section. Nelson agreed, suggesting that perhaps it would be better to “change the tone from ‘Todd Roberts did these things,’ to ‘The district did these things.’” Baskett concurred as well, saying, “This has truly been a collaboration.”

Mexicotte partially disagreed. “Speaking to the strength of our superintendency is important. I like the tone of it because of what it says about us. It’s fine to take Roberts’ name out, but it should reference the superintendency.” Stead suggested that leaving in such specific references would help the firms self-select.”These are big shoes to fill,” she asserted.

Lightfoot asked what the purpose of the context section was, and Stead answered that it was to give national context to the current work of AAPS, in case an out-of-town firm wants to bid. Part of that context, she argued, is that AAPS has benefited from having a strong leadership team led by Roberts. Lightfoot continued, “It reads as though we’re hero-worshipping Dr. Roberts, and that the district was in dire straights before he came.” Baskett asked what would matter to a new superintendent in terms of the context: “Does it matter to a new person that it was [Roberts] who built the leadership team,” or just that AAPS has strong leadership? Baskett suggested that the proposed wording would be more appropriate if they were writing a farewell speech to Roberts, but was unnecessary in the RFP.

After staying quiet up until then, Roberts spoke up at this point in the discussion in favor of de-personalizing the context section. Instead of bullet points, he suggested turning the section into a narrative with the focus, “This is what you’re coming into.” When the trustees balked at the work involved in condensing and re-writing the section, Roberts advised, “I’d suggest just taking my name out, and using ‘superintendent’ where needed.”

The board decided to go through the context section bullet by bullet and examine each reference to Roberts individually in order to fine-tune its intended meaning. Most of the references were generalized to “the district” or “superintendent” but a few were kept specific to Roberts. In the end, on the last two bullet points of the section, the board was split 50-50, with vice-president Irene Patalan abstaining [she had missed the early part of the discussion, and did not feel like she could form an informed opinion], so it fell to Mexicotte to choose the final wording.

RFP Changes: Pre-Bid Meeting

Baskett asked whether the board wanted to hold a pre-bid meeting, at which potential bidders could ask questions of a committee made up of trustees and AAPS staff. There was general agreement that holding such a meeting would be a good idea, and Comsa advised the board that three or fewer board members should attend, so that they do not have quorum.

Mexicotte asked Nelson and Baskett if they would be willing to attend. They agreed to represent the board, and Baskett suggested that Comsa and Robert Allen, deputy superintendent of operations, attend from the administration in order to be able to answer any legal or financial questions that may be raised.

Board members reviewed the timeline, and selected Friday, Sept. 3 as an appropriate date for the pre-bid meeting. Comsa suggested it begin at 10 am. Baskett suggested firms could tele-conference or Skype if necessary.

Outcome: Patalan made a motion to hold a pre-bid meeting on Friday, Sept. 3, at 10 a.m., place TBD [later set as the Balas Administration Building, 2555 S. State St.] The motion was seconded by Nelson. Baskett offered a friendly amendment to add the pre-bid meeting to the RFP milestones chart in the RFP. The pre-bid meeting was approved by all present in a roll call vote.

RFP Changes: Friendly Amendments

In addition to the suggested changes that led to discussion, several amendments were offered by trustees, as indicated in parentheses, and accepted in straightforward fashion:

• Added flexibility to the wording of RFP milestones dates, allowing steps to be completed early (Baskett);
• Streamlined wording to be more concise (Nelson);
• Re-worded request for references to say that they should emphasize districts similar to AAPS (Lightfoot);
• Reduced required board attendance from “all” to “required” meetings (Nelson);
• Added a request that the firm help the board set an appropriate compensation package (Nelson);
• Added a description of the launching of the district preschool in the context section (Nelson);
• Clarified that the work of the special education millage renewal will fall largely within the scope of work of the interim superintendent (Nelson);
• Included community partnership in the context’s community engagement section (Baskett);
• Deleted the demographic description of Ann Arbor (Mexicotte);
• Clarified the expectation that the search would be national in scope (Roberts);
• Changed Amy Osinski’s title to be accurate (Nelson); and
• Defined “successful candidates” as “effective educational leaders” (Lightfoot, Nelson).

RFP Changes: Rejected Amendments

The vast majority of suggestions from trustees, as well as from Roberts and Comsa, were incorporated in the final RFP. A few, however, were not.

Lightfoot asked whether the board should specify that the firm should seek candidates from districts similar to AAPS. Baskett answered that during a prior search, one of the best candidates came from a small town with a total of only 3,000 students. Stead and Mexicotte suggested that such a suggestion would be appropriate to discuss when setting search criteria for the permanent superintendent with the chosen firm, but did not need to be included in the RFP.

Mexicotte suggested adding two sections to the context section, one on the climate work being done by the district, and one on the district’s marketing and enrollment efforts. Nelson said that those pieces were not needed for the firm to be able to bid, and suggested that that board should really think about how long it would take a firm to answer this RFP. Roberts responded that the firms will mostly be responding to the background and timeline sections, and that typically firms have a standard response. He suggested that the sections Mexicotte had proposed might be more appropriate to discuss with the selected firm when it is going out in search of candidates.

Baskett asked whether the board wanted to include a rubric in the RFP to give firms a sense of how they would make their final selection. It could help the firms focus their responses, she said, “and at some point, we need to decide on our rubric.” Mexicotte said she liked the idea of having a set of criteria for selection, but that they could be decided later, and that she would want to leave the weighting of those elements to individual trustees.

RFP Approved

Comsa said that there is some standard, legal wording he needed to add to the document. Nelson asked if the board could delegate to the president, in consultation with legal counsel, getting the document in final form. Mexicotte asked informally if it was the “board’s pleasure that Dave does what he needs to do, and then I OK the final copy, making only the most technical of changes?”

Everyone expressed agreement that Mexicotte pull together the final copy.

However, Comsa interjected, saying that the board needed to make a motion in open session to accept this document barring technical and formatting changes. So, Mexicotte asked for a formal motion.

Outcome: Stead made a motion, which Lightfoot seconded, to approve the RFP as written and amended, pending review by legal counsel, to be distributed by Aug. 27, 2010. It was approved unanimously by roll call vote of Patalan, Baskett, Nelson, Stead, Mexicotte, and Lightfoot.

Distribution of the RFP

In a follow-up discussion with Mexicotte, The Chronicle asked how the board would distribute the RFP. Mexicotte said the board will be sending the RFP to search firms recommended by the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB), and might also seek firm recommendations from other school districts that have recently engaged in a superintendent search. She said that the finalized RFP will also be posted on the AAPS website by Friday.

Mexicotte said her hope was that the RFP would result in the receipt of at least five to seven quality bids.

Roberts to Suggest Interim Appointments

Near the end of the meeting, Mexicotte asked the trustees if they would be “willing to entertain Superintendent Roberts’ suggestions for both interim superintendent candidates as well as other academic appointments that might then need to be backfilled.”

Noting that Roberts is “thoughtful and mindful,” Patalan said she would absolutely like to hear his suggestions. Lightfoot and Baskett agreed. Baskett added that she would also like Roberts to recommend compensation for such positions.

Outcome: Stead moved, and Patalan seconded, hearing Roberts’ recommendations regarding an interim superintendent and other academic offices at the next regular board meeting. The measure was approved unanimously by Lightfoot, Patalan, Baskett, Nelson, Stead, and Mexicotte.

Agenda Planning

Mexicotte told the board she would still like to meet with the executive committee to look at longer-range calendar issues. She would like to look for a date for the committee to meet just after Labor Day.

Public Commentary

Kathy Griswold, former AAPS board member, addressed the board regarding transportation concerns, a topic she has addressed previously at several prior meetings.

First, Griswold said Roberts should send a letter to the city in support of the new crosswalk proposed in the King Elementary School neighborhood for which Griswold has been advocating. Secondly, she responded to board members’ comments at the last regular board meeting regarding the delay in the Thurston driveway project.

Griswold said she had been called out at the last meeting for delaying the project by filing a complaint with the state, but that, if anything, she had speeded up the process by letting AAPS staff know that the state was lacking in necessary paperwork.

Finally, Griswold read a statement from a University of Michigan professor stating three concerns with the Thurston driveway project: 1) separating cars and buses should not be a top priority since it’s not the main source of risk; 2) the proposed design resembles airline drop-offs, which might not work for K-5 students; and 3) adding more pavement is expensive, and might not solve the congestion problem.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Irene Patalan (arriving at 7:45 p.m.), secretary Glenn Nelson, treasurer Christine Stead, and trustees Susan Baskett and Simone Lightfoot. Also present as a non-voting member was Todd Roberts, AAPS superintendent.

Absent: Trustee Andy Thomas.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 15, 2010, 7 p.m. at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 4th floor board room, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]