Yeah, >> but I do like it. >> No, you don't. I'm trying to like I have to keep another screen. >> I write more too. feel like your routine
>> typing but I do some notes on typing people start >> because I just don't watch so I can't say this time but if it gets negative I'll be really careful We're gonna
fan. >> Yeah. I wish I could do it. >> I would use AI for everything. I just can't record a lot of conversation. >> So many topics. >> We can start. Are we all ready? Are you ready?
>> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. Good evening everyone. Uh the Prior Lake Savage Area Schools Board of Education will now reconvene the special meeting recessed on June 1st uh last night. All board members are
present and I will now turn it over to MSBA's Barb Dorne to walk us through tonight's deliberation process. Thank you, Chair Bullion. Welcome back everyone to the special meeting regarding the selection of the next person to lead the district here in uh Prior Lake Savage Area Schools. I just
have a couple of things to update you on and some guidelines to provide before I turn it back over to the board to deliberate. So um just a couple of food for thought. Um so I have I have good news and bad news. Um the good news is
you as a board have options. The bad news is you as a board have options. No matter what you do, you will disappoint people. You're tasked with a very important decision. You have run a very condensed
search. You've seen a lot of material on people, but you have not seen as much as you would have had you done a full search um over three or four months, but you have done a very good job. So, I want to acknowledge that and thank you and just prepare you that no matter what you do, there's no perfect solution. There will be people disappointing, but
that's part of being a board member. you're elected to this role and that's sometimes one of the challenges is you can't do everything everyone might want you to do. So that's the good news and bad news. I also want to acknowledge that from the beginning this search has been very complex. Even at the planning meeting when we were talking about your
options to advertise this position, there was a creative solution to offer three different options and see who expressed interest in which option. So you did that. You looked at the applications. You saw where people landed. You selected people to interview. somewhere interested in this or that or the other, but that moving
that sense of moving parts and the position itself is complex. So, that's just one piece. In addition to that, I did talk to all four finalists today. I wanted to call and thank them for coming last night. Um, congratulate them on
doing a very good job. I think you have four very solid people uh to consider for this position. and I asked them some questions and I'm going to just add to the layers you're going to need to consider and I'm not going to speak for the candidates. So, the conversations I had with them were confidential, but I
needed to know some things just to ensure the board's not making some uninformed decisions. And so a couple of the things that I talked to them about was reiterating their interest in either a three-year and a three-year only or a one-year with a possibility to audition
during that year for the long-term contract or a three-year coming out of that right away out of the gate. And so things have shifted a little bit for your applicants and I think we can discuss this further down the road, but you do have one person from the beginning who was clear.
It was a three-year um risk tolerance is very common when people are in sitting jobs where they're very very successful, very happy to take a one-year gig is a risk. Um it's also a risk for the district if you have a three-year and
it's not going great. However, it's also a win for the district if you have a three-year and it is going great. You found someone right out the door. So, there's just those pieces and I did talk to all four of them about that. I also talked to them about the possibility of a split vote and I did that because we see it more and more commonly that a a
full board of seven does not arrive at a 70 decision as much as it used to be common. It is more common to see split votes. I can tell you that all four candidates would appreciate a unanimous decision simply because of the gift it is to them and the gift it is to the
community. All of them would accept an opportunity to interview at this point if it were a unanimous vote. Not everyone would accept an invitation to interview if it was a split vote. In particular, if it's four to three, there will be some folks that are not going to accept your
invitation to negotiate a contract. 43 is too close for them and it makes them too uncomfortable to take that big of a leap on a 43 split board. So, keep that in mind as well. I also talked with all of them about the possibility of what we discussed earlier in the training
materials about a plan A, plan B vote. Um, and I have the motions here that you can use tonight if you'd like to make them. But sometimes when you're in a really tight turnaround time, and you are because it is June 2nd, sometimes to
save time, if you have a strong top two, if you don't have a strong top two, don't even consider this option. But if you have a strong top two, you could make a motion called plan A, plan B, which is to enter negotiations with this person. If those fall through, you pivot and begin negotiations with the other
person. That saves you three days because if your negotiations fall through with someone, you have to call a special meeting with 3 days notice simply to come in, make a motion to enter negotiations with the second person. So, it is a timesaver for you and the applicants. Um, they are all
aware that that's a possibility and they are all open to that. No one would take great offense at being plan B because they understand timing is of the essence right now for everybody themselves and for you. So I had conversations with all of them about those things which I
thought was um helpful but it does remind me that this is a little bit out of the norm. You do have a lot going on and four very qualified very different people that are looking for different things and different opportunities. So a couple of things as far as moving forward with deliberations you could do
uh one of two approaches. You could decide first how you feel about offering a three-year contract out of the gate versus a one-year interim contract with the opportunity to apply for the position or to be considered. You're not interviewing anyone who only wanted one
year one and done. It's those two options. You could make that decision first and then talk about the candidates or you could start with talking about the candidates. And uh with that, I would run through the EMD results very quickly with you. Turn it back over to
the chair to facilitate a conversation on strengths because I I want strengths for all four of those from each of you. Just each each of you offering one and then based upon the candidates and the direction you're leaning about who you'd like to work in this district. Then you make a decision potentially around a
three-year or one year. So you could approach it from either of those ways. That's entirely up to you. And then finally, uh, to minimize risk to the district, I want to remind you this is being recorded. And so, uh, it'll it will be viewed and everything that you
say, um, potentially will be heard. And you're dealing with people's careers here. So, I'm going to ask the board to focus on positives of these candidates and to advocate for someone and why you may feel they're the best. I would prefer you not um, disparage anyone or
speak negatively of their candidacy. again because this is being recorded and available and I really want you to be careful um what you might say because if you say something that is not based on fact and it's it does affect their career sometimes candidates have a case against the district. So we want to be
very careful about what you share especially if it's hearsay or rumors um or a criticism that might not be founded. So please be careful just to keep the um district protected. That is all I have. So, I think what I'd like to do next is turn it back over to the chair and see which direction you'd
like to go or answer any questions that there might be. >> Anybody have any qu Yeah, go ahead. >> Um, good guess. >> Um, in the case of just to make sure I two questions ina just to make sure I'm
understanding. So, all four candidates wish for a unanimous vote if possible. >> Yes. But all four candidates are open to being a potential second choice if we go that route. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Um my second question, if we go the plan A, plan B route, would both people be called this evening? I will call all four people tonight and let them know where things stand as to whether they are still in the running if it's a plan
A, plan B, or if they are not in the running because the board moved forward in a different direction. I'll I'll be calling all four of them. >> Great. Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Okay. So, I think that um we can uh discuss whether we want to talk about
the candidates first um or if we want to talk about one year or a three-year option first. Um if anyone has any suggestion um on which which way to start, I'm open to hearing any feedback.
>> Um Dr. Happy to start. Um yeah, I mean my desire this whole time is to find the best candidate and so I would like to talk about the candidates first and then determine what their needs are regarding their contract. Second, Director Johnson.
>> Um, I'm I think we should determine if we were going to do a a three-year or one year first. >> Director Mason, >> I would also like to start with the candidates first and finding the best candidate. Um, because the one or three
may not apply. >> Okay. Dr. Olston. Um, I would like to lean toward discussing one or three first. >> Dr. France. >> Um, I would like to discuss the one or
three year first. >> Dr. Smith, >> I would say let's discuss the one or three first. Well, given that we have four board members that have um have a desire to
discuss the term first, I think we go with that. Um so we can uh start our deliberations with uh where we stand as far as a one or a three-year contract. And again, you know, we we will have
options. I mean, as we as we start discussing the the candidates, who rises to the top, I mean, it'll that might um come into play. But um when we're looking at at a term preference, one or
three year, um I think we'll maybe just go around the table again and just see where we're leaning and then we'll have that established and then we'll go into discussing the candidates. uh this time. Can I start with you, Director Smith?
>> Sure. Um you know, again, given the the timeline, given the uh significance of this role, I I strongly believe that we should be looking at a at a one-year term. Um all
of them are qualified, but um you know, right now all we have is an interview. And interviews are great. They're fine. Um, but being an HR professional, they're the worst thing to gauge whether or not somebody is a fit for the job. Um, but it's the only tool we have. So,
um, with that, I would say one year, um, just to again give that superintendent a chance to grow into the role. uh give our community a chance to give feedback on that position and that person um our
staff um teachers and just get a good sense of whether or not we've got the right fit. So I would say one year. >> Very good. Director Director France. Um, let me just say that having a thorough process that engages staff, community,
parents, um, and particularly our educators um, needs to happen needs to happen for transparency. We need to make sure that this is a collaborative process and the expedited process I think has taken away
from that. Um, therefore, I would like to go for a one-year uh or an interim, however you want to do it, and then engage in a full search and engage the community in determining our needs and wants and how things are going uh
starting at the first of the year. So we have the largest pool of candidates and if it is determined that the one that we choose or not choose because I want to make sure that we aren't choosing based on what's available but based on what what we actually need and understanding
the consequences of that because sometimes a you know a a hire that doesn't work out for us is probably we'd be better off you know appointing from within and not hiring at all and that is a common situation.
um in these types of environments where we're going out late and we got a pool, but we probably could have gotten uh even more of a pool had we started earlier. So, I want to keep that in mind and I want to give the community a chance to weigh in. So, definitely a
one-year said, >> uh yes. Um, I I would also advocate for a one-year interim uh position um for a lot of the reasons already stated, but I think we have we have a very busy year
ahead and a lot of focused work for this person to potentially lead on uh with staff, with families, with the community. Um, and so I there's never a normal year by any
means, but I think this upcoming year there's there's a lot to do in a lot of areas of extreme focus. Um, and so I have that in mind as well. And very similar to, you know, kind of what has already been said with the extreme
timeline. Um, you know, normally this process would be months long. Um, and we would have community feedback and staff feedback and student feedback and and all of these things and potentially multiple rounds of interviews so we can
get to know the candidates themselves even a little better. Um, and so I think because of this extreme timeline um I too would like that um in this next in this next kind of
goaround. Um, we did get some immediate feedback which I appreciate. Um, it uh for the people who called or wrote or uh depending on what their uh feedback was, it's very appreciated and a very quick turnaround basically overnight. Um, and
so uh that is appreciated on all levels. Um, so I would go for a one with the extreme amount of um things that we need to accomplish in this next year and um looking at it with
that lens. So I would go for a one year. Thank you. >> Y director Mason. >> Um yeah, I mean I agree it's unfortunate we have like a really tight timeline and it um you know we had to move fast. Um it's not ideal. I think it would have
been great to engage our community more. Um, but I think one strong theme by all four candidates last night, which I really appreciated, was just thinking with the mindset of what's best for our students. And at with that, like in the
front of my mind, um, and you know, Barb, I think when back to when you described a one-year interim role, um, you you talked about it being a placeholder and somebody that's here with no new initiatives. Um, and so for me, um, with the students in mind first
and foremost, I want I want a leader and I think, you know, we did have a strong pool of candidates. Um, I think that our students deserve somebody here with experience, a leader here, um, that's ready to step in and and really observe
and find opportunities and and run with it and take on the challenge. Um I think a year without progress for a student is a long time. It's it's detrimental to their education. Um and and so that's where you know I struggle
with the year. I also um so that first and foremost for me, but also I think that having someone in here for a year and interim um it's going to be really hard to evaluate them after just five
months when we have to start this this process again to open a search. Like there's just that's not enough time to evaluate somebody. I'm not sure if a two-year is an option. I would even advocate for a two-year because I think that gives us a little more time to let somebody get settled and and really be
able to evaluate them. Um, so that might be something to talk about. But um you know and I think the third thing that that weighs heavy on me is just I think it's going to be very very difficult to
get strong support for a levy with an interim person in place um where we don't have um a leader that we know is going to be here for a long period of time. Um and just building that
confidence and that trust with our community. um which was a huge piece of feedback in the surveys that we took. So, I mean, I'm open to a three-year or even a two-year if that's possible. Um I
just really think that a year is is not um right now the best path for us. >> I'm hearing you say three year. >> Yeah. I mean, is a two-year an option? like >> we talked about that at one point, but
>> yes, it's an option. It would just be up to the candidate as to whether they would consider that or not. And would that be an interim position for two years or would you call it superintendent for two years? >> I mean, in my opinion, too, like and I guess one of the questions I maybe have is do we have to call it an interim if it's a one-year contract? Like I think
that title even for some of these people that are established superintendent is probably a bit of a risk, right? Yes, you can you can call it a superintendent. Um I know very few superintendents that would take a contract for one year if they're already especially in a three-year contract.
However, the interim title, I think, is intended to allow if it were an internal candidate to maintain their continuing contract rights within the district. So if you had an an internal person interested in an interim with a chance to audition, then I would say please do call it interim so that they can return
to their job if for some reason it's not going the way that they or you had hoped. So yes, I think you can talk about titles all you want. Talk to your HR team what they might recommend. U traditionally though a one-year position is called an interim, but that's traditionally. I don't know that there's any rules about it.
>> Sure. Yeah. I mean I understand you know the candidates and and sort of the risk level that they're willing to take. So, I respect that from a career standpoint. >> Director Johnson, >> um I think going the the one years is not
the way uh that we should go. Uh two years if that's a thing. Um as Director Mason said, sure. Um but I would prefer a three-year. They all of our candidates last night talked about trust and we want to
instill trust into them into them and our community deserves it. They they all seemed prepared and ready to go and with tons of experience. Um they're just
that's really one of the best things that I got is that they're ready to hit the ground running and take on the challenges that we have in our district. They have, you know, even with a short timeline have prepared and understand
what's going on and then said what what do they want from us, our direction and what they want. And hearing that from all four of them shows me that they're ready to take on a three-year
responsibility. >> Director Atinson. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, I want to go back to when we started this process and one of the things that Barb you had mentioned is that during our Q&A process, there was a high level engagement. Um, correct me if I'm wrong,
you said that on our Q&A. Is that correct? >> During the Q&A, watching it or submitting questions. Yes, there was a lot of interest in the search without question. >> Yeah. And so to me that tells me I mean I knew all along I had confidence that we could do this search in a condensed timeline. I feel like MSBA did a great
job of doing what we needed to do to get us some great candidates and which is what we definitely delivered on. Um I know bigger districts than ours. Anoka Henipin just placed a candidate in a shorter time period than I did than we did. Um I'm less concerned about the
time frame because I think our district has done a great job of engaging stakeholders and engaging um our community in the search. Yes, it would have been nice to have more more time, but then there's also a financial consequences to that as well. Um, my
biggest concern is that that trust with our community and I have a really hard time wrapping my head around going to our going to our taxpayers and saying we want you to vote on, you know, x amount of millions of
dollars, but wait, we're not going to tell you who the leader of this district is because we really don't know at this point in time. Um, and so if we as a board don't have the confidence to put a leader in place who um can come in and lead our district through some really challenging times, um, I think we're
doing a disservice to our to our community and to our district. And I think it's it's going to have an impact, not a positive impact on I I can't even imagine how it could have a positive impact on a levy ask that we're going to ask if if our community doesn't know who is going to be leading our district in
the future. And I've heard some people talk about um you know there's an election up this year, four seats. This is no different than when Dr. Thomas was hired. He was hired in an election year as well. And the board I don't recall the board ever having any concerns about
putting in a one-year or a three-year contract. And so I don't see this um we were elected and one of our one of our biggest jobs is to um represent the community and put a leader in place um our one employee. And so I I think I
like I said, I think we have some great candidates who are willing to come in and um be faced with the challenge. I also like the idea of a two-year because it be able it allows that candidate to come in and really own our district versus then coming in and sort of feeling like it's kind of like a
bandage. And I I just I have a really hard time believing that someone could come in here because it's really six months then because if we're starting to search in six months then it's six months. It's not even a year. So, I just think it's only fair. I would love to see I know that other districts have put in a two-year contract. I spoke to
someone this morning about that. And um so I do know it's a possibility to put in a two-year contract. I would love I I also think um the three-year contract is I mean that takes a candidate out and I'm not sure that candidate would be willing to come on board for two years.
So that would be part of the negotiation process. So >> thank you all for that feedback that it leaves um me. Right now we have three people, you know, interested in the oneyear interim. Um, three people that
are interested in the three-year or or some have mentioned two years. Um, I think when we talk about trust, um, we talk about bringing the community along um, in in this decision process. Um
there is valid arguments for the one-year, there is valid arguments for the three-year. And kind of um piggybacking on what you said, Barb, um we're not going to please everyone. Um when I think about um
the gratitude for the search process and and for you, Barb, leading helping us lead this. I'm very grateful for that. I'm grateful for the the candidates that came and interviewed. I agree with you, Director Johnson. They were all willing to hit the ground running. They all
seemed very interested in the district. Um and so I'm I'm grateful for that. Um us making a decision on there's some of the candidates are not willing for to do the one year. And so I really do think
that um we need to when when I'm asking the team about one year or threeyear and I have yet said to say my one or threeyear preference um
but we are completely split right now and whether I say one year or three years we're at a 43 and um most of the candidates said they do not want to have a split vote on on on them. Um, so, you know,
this is something that we're we're we're looking at being split on where we stand as far as the terms. Um, I think that it is import this is a really important position in our community. Um, it's really important to get feedback from
the community and I think that there again there's arguments for the trust factor for bringing people in the process as well as we were elected to hire a superintendent. So there there's valid arguments um either way. I I would
say that given what I know about the candidates and their desire for a longer term than one year, I'm open to the three-year. Um I think that we need to start talking about the deliberating on
the candidates um and uh go from there. So, I don't I don't know if that's um how how do we start the the deliberation on the candidates themselves? >> I think you definitely can do that now
because you know where everyone's leaning in terms of the the length of the contract. I don't think you should decide it for certain right now, but you know where everyone stands and I think that was a really good discussion. So, now let's move into the conversation about the candidates. it might start to appear that one or two of them do rise
to the top and then we can talk a little bit more specifically about their expectations and their willingness to uh negotiate a limited contract versus up to three years um because they have thoughts on that as well but I I don't want that to be the determining factor necessarily because it limits your
options about which candidate you would speak to. So I think if it's okay with the board, we can just begin by talking about EMD very briefly and then the strengths of each and then hear from anyone who's willing to share who you're leaning toward and for how long perhaps let's just see what the conversation
produces. Does that sound all right to everybody? >> Sounds great. >> Okay. So I just wanted very briefly to review the results of the exceeds meets disappoints form that you all filled out. Thank you for doing that. You all did it uh this morning and you had received a copy early this afternoon. two copies. One which is the overall and
the other copy which is by board member name. So one of the things I always tell folks and I mentioned this last night. This form is not going to tell you who to hire. It is just one tool in your entire toolbox. You have a lot of things at your disposal. I hope you had time last night or today to go back and look
at these four applicants and all of their materials they submitted. Reread those letters of recommendation. It is um for an abbreviated search at this time of year. I think you do have four outstanding people. Uh so the the good
thing is the more ease someone has the better exceeds. The more D's they have not so good disappoints. I want to put that in context however in that you all heard the same answer but you heard the answers differently because there was a definite trend when you looked at it
broken out by question. Some thought the answer exceeded while in the exact same answer some thought that it disappointed you. So even though your leadership profile is um very solid and you agreed on that, it was a unanimous dec decision that that was the profile you needed, I
think the things that you heard last night, you heard them differently because there was um just as many polarizing thoughts on the quality of the answer as there were shoulder scores, you know, one two or two one. So that was interesting for me. But I have
no other comments other than to say it does not appear that you have a strong one or two people and people that you are not considering because every single one of these candidates got a lot of support from this board. So I don't know how helpful it will be because you did
not emerge with a consensus based only on that form. So I think it's going to be important to deliberate what you thought of them, what their strengths were and then what you're looking for. If we need to, we can go back to that leadership profile and talk specifically about the people and why you feel they meet those criteria perhaps the best.
But at this point, I guess I just ask the board to begin listing one strength for each board member for each of the four finalists. Unless you have questions for me on that EMT form. Any questions, board members?
So, Barb, typically when we're going through um this h how how do we start like just starting with the first interviewee? Um and
>> like yes, just start with first, second, third, and fourth interviews last night. And each of you say one thing because if you say too many, you take away all the ideas that the rest of the people have. Um and you can start with a different person each time. So you're always not starting with um the directors on the end, >> but you have four people to talk about
and I'd like each of you to share one strength you noticed in their interview or even in their candidacy because you have seen a lot of other materials. So I would start with your first candidate. Yes. >> And then Barb, can I just ask like I'm not sure if do you are you do you take notes of that because I'm a notetaker
because I I don't trust my memory. Um so am are you taking notes? >> I am taking notes. It's notes that I'm going to >> to share with all of you to help you in deliberations. I do want to take notes because I want to let these candidates know that you saw them as strong candidates because there will be
disappointed candidates tonight when I make phone calls and I really like to share what you noticed as a board that their strengths were. So that's the primary reason I take notes. >> Okay. >> Um so thank you for asking to allow me to clarify on that. >> Yes. Thank you. Okay. Well, we're going to start with um the first candidate
inter the first interview, Dr. Jim Wagner. Um and so we'll we will go around. I'll ask four board members um what their top uh strength was or what
they liked most about Dr. Wagner. Um we will start there. And if I could be so, um, Director Olstead, would you be willing to start us with, uh, your what you like most about Dr. Wagner?
>> Sure. Uh, I think Dr. Wgner had a firm presence. Um, not afraid to have tough conversations, um, from what he could tell us. Um, and I really appreciated, um, this may seem a little goofy, but I
really appreciated his three steps to an apology. Um, we had a question about, you know, tell us about a time that you made a mistake as a leader. Um, he said, you know, the three steps in apology is to an apology, ownership, and next steps to make it right. And I thought that was
it seems so simple, but yet, you know, I I thought it was great um for a leader to say something like that. So, those were the three things that stuck out with me. >> Okay, Director Mason, can I go to And we're going to do top one. >> Sorry.
>> Overachiever. Overachiever. >> I do that, too. Sorry. >> Okay, we'll start. It's >> hard to pick one when you have a list. >> Yeah, I know. I I loved one of his comments, I think, right out of the gate around just, you
know, um willing and and willingness and um liking to take on a challenge and and taking the district to the next level. Um you know, I felt like that was that was a quality that I was looking for in a leader. >> All right, Director Johnson
here. We'll take We'll take four board members for each >> each candidate. Is that right? >> No. I want each board member to say something. >> Each board member. Thank you. Okay. Sorry. >> Um I love that he just he's very blunt.
>> Sometimes, you know, he knows that um his bluntness is, you know, honesty sometimes hurts, but he is also working on that, right? which was part of that honesty part that uh and the apology that goes with director Olsteadson.
>> Sure. Thank you. Um I loved that he continued to say throughout the evening that he does what's best for students and that was at the top of I mean like on every single section I had that written down. Um, I also really loved
his um when he talked about community partnerships and optimizing resources um and how um he gave multiple examples of how he worked within his community to expand um student programs by using um community partnerships. So I vote for me there was a lot of alignment back to our
strategic plan with him. >> Thank you Director Smith. Yeah, of course. Um, so one of the thing similar to director Atinson and the um and his understanding of the community
um specifically the um you know understanding the um the nature of the community and saying that you know there's no FFA program like we should probably have an FFA program. Um but also um like when it came to like the
hockey um the hockey ranks versus the tennis, you know, understanding like that is what the community is looking for and wants and is popular in the community, but also making the tough decision to say um you know, I I do think that this is this is a need and
that that's a want. Director France, >> um I liked just bringing up of the need to expand and include CTE courses, the um career and technical ed. That's something that I know that we've been working on and due to budget constraints
we've had to cut. >> Um so that was um his understanding of CTE and the need for it in his own district was was um was good.
Now I have to pick one from mine. Um well, okay, I had several um so I'm going to be an overachiever, too. So he mentioned that if staff is operating at its highest capacity, it will allow students to do the same. I
loved that. Um, I also I really did agree with every one of the board members their comments, but I loved that. Um, I loved he mentioned humility. Um, and I think it's very important to for
leaders to to be humble leaders. So, I liked that. Um, and he mentioned um separating emotions from logic, asking what's best for students. Um, and so if I were to give three, that would be my
top three for for Dr. Wagner. Okay. So, we will move on to does that is that what we're looking for for each >> unless there's something else someone wants to add to make sure it gets mentioned. >> Anyone else wants to add?
>> Do we miss anything? >> I do actually. I think I think something that's really important is when he talked about how he had worked with two different communities um the Henderson and the Lassour and bringing those two communities together. I just felt like that there's a lot of similarities um in
in what he's experienced in his role um in there. And then also he talked a little bit about his proficiency scores that the improvement and how he did that, but you definitely saw it more listed within his like cover letter and you can definitely see it online when you go on to MDE. you can see the rise
in um the impact he's had on student outcomes in this district. >> Anyone else want to add anything else? >> Can I add? >> Yeah, please. >> Um I love that he teaches his own class. >> He's he's he's right in there with his students. You know, he's clearly visible
not only within his community, but also within within his schools. >> Anyone else? Okay, hearing no more positives for Dr. Wagner. He had a lot. We will move on to the second interviewee which was Dr.
Jeff Flag. Correct. >> Yes. Okay. Um and I started with you last time, director. So, can I start with you? Director France. Yeah. So, with uh Dr. flag. Um, one
thing that I liked is um, you know, all the all the candidates talked about putting students first, but he also did a little bit of his research and actually looked at our website and, uh, complimented us on our financials, the transparency, the financials, and um,
acknowledged the uh, situation that we were in. Nope, you're good. I'm just >> if you guys have a Are you okay with a awkward silence for a second as I'm scribbling? Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Director Smith.
>> Uh, sure. Thank you. um you know I think uh has a good understanding of uh a process and um you know talked about culture moving at the speed of trust um working with ERG's and and leadership teams meeting with them um and 90-day
plans and also um talked about curriculum um and you know being uh adamant that he not be the one to choose it that the um the teachers and uh and the folks that are going be implementing it and and and using it are the ones that that are doing that research and
choosing it. So, um yeah, good good um strong sense of of process and and understanding how to build uh culture and trust. >> Director Atkinson. >> Um yes. Um okay. So, one um his experience um working in a similar sized
district as ours was impressive, but I was highly impressed with the the data he shared with us regarding um the rise in academics within his district. Um as well as the the recent ranking of his district being ranked, I believe it was 17 17th in the nation for being school
districts on the rise with number one in reading proficiency or reading growth. Um that was incredibly impressive to me. Um I also liked his um experience with stutter stutter because we use stutter as well and how using that data to drive continuous improvement um was really
impressive and I will do three um I liked his mentality of looking at what do we need to stop doing so kind of asking the question of like why should we be doing something just because we've always done done it this way is it the right way to do things so those were my three things
you director Johnson. >> Um, I really liked his principles. >> Um, you know, safety of all students, um, best education of students, right? Those are those are his foundations of his leadership, right? And he's the question he always asks himself, right?
Does it follow policy, law, and will the board support it? Um, I'm sure that they all do it, but him just the way he articulated it and the way he his mind frame and his thinking behind it, um, it really just showed with all of his answers that that's that's really what
guides him. >> You um, yeah, I I also loved his 90-day entry plan. I thought that was fantastic. Um, and and um, and focus on the academics and proven results. So those were kind of stated but high on my
list. Um he had a quote I think that was culture moves at the speed of trust. >> Um and I and I liked that also >> director said I think three of us wrote down culture moves at the speed of trust. So, I think we're all going to steal that.
>> Um, really like it. Um, and, uh, it was a similar, it was under that, uh, same question. Um, you know, we asked about how do you plan to balance learning about our district while taking action on our immediate needs? And he said, I want to ask three questions. What are you proud of? What should I know? And
are there questions for me? Um, and I really thought that was um, a great way to start all conversations coming as coming in as a new person um, to a district that um, is new to you um, in a
new state as well. Um, so uh, I really liked that I wrote it down and so >> say that last one that you said. >> Yeah, it was what are you proud of? What should I know? And are there questions for me? >> His questions to us. Yeah. >> Yes, that was Yeah. Yeah, I know that
sounds weird, but >> No, it was good. Thank you. Um, when we're all doing multiples, I do see how it is harder to be the last person to say what I liked.
Um I think for me um his school improvement record was it stood out to me and I too um culture moves at the speed of trust. Trust is is pivotal. It's something that we're
consistently hearing lack of and so how do we foster more of it. I think as leaders we foster it by giving it and modeling behavior that is worthy of trust. So um yeah, those are the two
things that I would say the his his improvement record and the culture at the speed of trust. Okay, we will move Oh, does anybody have anything to add or Dr. Flag?
Okay, hearing none, we will move on to our third interviewee, which was I have it right here. Uh, Dr. Nicholas Kramer. And Dr. Johnson, can I start with you
this time? Sure. Um I don't remember what section it is but I wrote it down. He had he said make a decision today that you will thank your future self for and I think it was in
the finances part that was we can all do that all the time. >> Say it again. It was >> make a decision today that >> make a decision today that you will thank your future self for. >> That's good for all of us.
>> Yeah, >> Dr. Mason, we'll go opposite direction this time. >> Sure. Um, yeah. I mean what what stood out for me I think across multiple questions was just in his excellent background in curriculum. So um you know I think uh that is clearly his strength
and um you know his comments about using data and surveying feedback and making changes around curriculum all of that. Thank you, Director Alstead. I'm gonna do two. Got to do two. Um I
loved um his um uh approach on human centered designed design. Um ground the solution with those we serve. Um love that. It makes me think of the whole child. um that you know we look to
serve you know in everything um the whole child human- centered design. >> Question was that? >> Um I think he first brought it up in number six. >> Six >> he referred to it a couple of times later in eight. >> Um but I think six was when he was
sharing a perspective on the importance of gathering input from the community and others. Um and along with that when he was talking about um uh you know we had a question about a potential levy, you know, what strategy would you use to successfully get a red uh levy passed?
Um and he talked about storytelling. >> Um and I loved that. Um craft clear messaging and turn into stories and attach real faces to those stories. Um, and so that when you meet with people where they are and tell those stories, at least they know like you're you're
coming with authenticity, um, and telling the real life impact of this levy. Um, so I just really loved the storytelling aspect of kind of how he approaches a lot of things. Um, he brought that up a couple of times. Um, and really really liked that.
>> Good. >> France. Um first of all I loved his um bases in curriculum and his not only in curriculum but also teaching it at Concordia. So he's a teacher at night
and then also um his background in sped. Um >> but uh I was really impressed that he brought up that as as a founding you know principal of the online school that um the district he was in and the and
what they did to collaborate and understand there you know the overall reduction in enrollment and then they opened up their online school and they're the number one online school in the state uh and it's netting a $5 million profit. >> Yeah. Um, so he recognized uh the
attraction of open enrollment and the importance it has in keeping districts solvent and that's why you want to, you know, do that. So that $5 million in profit really really um hung with me quite a bit.
>> Thank you, Director Smith. >> Yes, thank you. Um yeah, I thought he was um he had great enthusiasm and and was really wellprepared. You know, some of the things that he talked about was
um you know, it it seemed um when it comes to the um continuous improvement. I really liked the examples about uh the discovery time opportunities uh and then um when they
reach middle school it kind of shifts to exploration and then um and then when you're in your high school years it's pursuit and a capstone and um so I really think that that's a a good um uh a good model and and also it just
kind of talked um maybe a little bit of his problem solving skills, you know, just kind of talking about reverse engineering the experience and kind of starting from um starting that from that end result and then kind of building the experience to um again to tailor that to the students to reach that goal. So I I
really thought I really like that example. So >> Dr. Atinson, >> um yes, thank you. Um I wrote down a couple things. Um, I wrote down um, model excellence to inspire excellence
and that was um, where he was talking about an an unpopular decision and I loved his um, like I said, I loved his enthusiasm as well and I thought he was very well prepared for his interview, his depth and depth of knowledge of curriculum. um loved his um example about math and um
respecting different viewpoints of um you know how people see math as far as being foundational versus um the the other example that he gave. And then also I really liked his example of um when you made a mistake as a leader and he talked about how the changes that
they made in the online program based on direct feedback from stakeholders and how it's um they went from a 55% pass rate when it first started to now over an 88% pass rate as well. >> What was that model excellence
to inspire? >> I had it on number four. Yeah. Model excellence to inspire excellence. Number four. >> Okay. And then I'm left. I like that he said that he won't ask what he won't do.
Um, I liked that he started out as a parah in special education. Um, says a lot about him and how much he loves education just given that he teaches at night. I mean like literally his whole life is around
education and that is really um when you can what is it design your life around what you love. I mean did that. Um um and then the last thing I'll share
that I really like that he said was um it was question five but it's really question three. He said um his personal approach to things. He's highly involved
trusting people and coaching them up. I like that a lot. Um so that is what I have to and I didn't write any of my own notes but I can find them again. Okay. So that was for candidate three, interview three. We'll
go on to Does anybody have anything to add for him? >> Director France. >> So, he did say the four Rs. Uh, relationship, responsiveness, rigor, and relevance. >> Um, which is a good tag phrase. >> What was that number? >> That was five.
>> I got I wrote all that down, too. That was good. Um, and um, I'm not sure this is a a compliment or just a um, a um, a note of of just tenacity that he did say he binge watched our board and beh
>> exactly >> like how many episodes are we talking here? >> Okay, anybody else? All right, we'll move on to interviewer number four, which was Dr. Jeremy Schmidt.
This time I'll start with you, Director Mason. Um, yes. Uh, just my top one. Um, I mean, again, for me, what stuck out for for him is just, um, his experience
and proven leadership. Um, and just, you know, him him speaking about how he's ready for the next level. Um, one, if I only get one. Thank you. Thank you for being a rule follower,
>> Director Johnson. Um, I love that he brought in our leadership profile. >> Not to um say anything negative, I think he was the only one to to mention it. Um, and he he knew what it was and he he referenced
it always and often. director Atinson. >> Um I loved his involvement in the community. So talking about being involved in the Lions Club and the um the different clubs that he was involved
in in the parade and loved the fact that he like brings his wife to the events and I I personally just loved his sense of humor and I just thought he was very engaging for his sense of humor. >> Dr. Smith. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, you know, he did
talk a lot about um aligning um and implementing curriculum and making sure that the standards um or that the curriculum is aligned to the standards um and really just kind of focusing on what is the what is the data
that needs to be moved and focused on and then you know building systems interventions and um uh and you know I really liked that he talked about his um you know, one of the pieces that he cited as as evidence of that was um the
the focus on tier one instruction um and the the data warehouse and being able to track that on a regular basis. Um I really think that spoke to um his focus on learning and academics and and really being able to to implement systems to
drive that forward. Director France. Um, and number four, he really emphasized the importance of being out and about in the community. Uh, and then also on question, uh, number eight, um, about a levy. He did emphasize that he acknowledges the cost
of rerunning a failed bond and levy referendum. Um, and I thought that was really insightful to be able to actually acknowledge that. Dr. Olston. >> Yeah, I I liked his self-deprecating
humor um as well. Um it was funny when he first said, "I am cheap." I wrote that down quotes, "I'm very cheap." And then later on he came back, he's like, "Maybe I shouldn't have said that. You know, I hope my wife's not watching type of thing." But the reason I like that is
because I think it shows, you know, like, "Oops, I said something I probably shouldn't have or did something I shouldn't have and I'm going to correct it right away and I own it." And I I just I appreciated the rounding back on that. Um, it's it's maybe a silly
example, but I I appreciated that. and he talked about, you know, getting involved in the community when when if he would be here. And he said, "I would get in and listen." And he said, "Listening does not mean in action." >> Um, and I I appreciated that because when you are listening to people, you
are acting um and um you know, getting to know a district. And so I appreciated that as well. Um, I feel like we've talked about him the less because I feel like or the least because we all have kind of stuck to
one. Um, but he had he had many many things that I highlighted. Um, so I agree with everything that each of you have said. um and following along in your lead of kind
of sticking to a main point um the proven leadership. Um but I'll tie that in with uh his experience with referendum levy passed. Um he talked about it was
the first thing he had to do. I feel like in both Lester Prairie and Becker, he if my notes are correct, he wrote or he said both places it was the first thing he had to do. Um and so that stood
out to me. Um and in talking about that he said overcommunicate early and often, clear, not confusing. Um and so given the fact that this is the
state of what we are looking at in the in our mo our you know this is the most important thing this um calendar year fiscal yeah through December right now it's what important for us uh that stuck
out to me stood out to me the most. Um, so Barb, I Oh, does anybody have anything else they want to add for candidate for >> Can I add one more thing, >> please? >> He uh he mentioned that he hasn't had to
do budget cuts before uh well, at least in Becker um until this year. The way that he did it and he did not have to >> he didn't have to let go any teachers because he was just an out- ofthe- box thinker. Um,
and I think I wrote that down correctly because of retirements and moving people around and just setting people the right, you know, uh, based on the um, their lensure correctly. Um, and Barb,
please correct me if I if I got any of that wrong. if you remember. Um, that was >> Yeah, I remember talking about that. >> Stuck out to me. You know, just being out of the box, I think, is >> a great thing.
>> I I would I would agree with that. He said he used natural attrition and then just never replaced the >> the positions. Uh, he waited he didn't have to do budget cuts because he waited till retirements happened and just never replaced the positions. So, he counted that as a as a successful budget cut.
Yeah, what I wrote down was made 800,000 in cuts without affecting staffing or class size. >> One thing I would add to is I I felt like he was maybe our only candidate that commented about um just you know >> um focus with legislation and grants. Um
and so that experience I think is very valuable. Um there were a couple other quotes around you know his his mistakes and um learning from them and communicating learning rebuilding trust as well as like process for decision-m I liked also but the legislation and and the grant
and some of that experience kind of shine through with those comments. Director Atinson. >> Um guys, most everything was stated except the one thing I think um I also like to add is I really loved his approach to doing budgeting and how he had a very collaborative approach about
how he um brought data to the board and then would come back with different different recommendations um were brought forward to provide the board with as much information as possible to be able to make decisions. So I really loved his collaborative approach of working with the board. Definitely got
that from him. Anybody else? >> Okay. Well, Barb, we have given more than one per board member. >> That's okay. >> We So, I think we're in alignment that there was many positives
um for the candidate that we had to interview yesterday. So, this is always my favorite part of deliberations because it's clear that you you all recognize you have very strong people in this pool and I really appreciate that because they're
different from one another. Their backgrounds and experiences are different and yet the things that you're saying about them, it's just clear that they have a lot of strengths and I appreciate you pointing that out. That's helpful to have on the record as well. So, I'm going to pass around the sample motions just to let you have this. I'm not saying that you need to do this yet,
but I want to have the sample motion. You've seen this before from our interview training. And I just want to take one moment to explain that and then recap what I think you could do next in your deliberations. So, I crossed off the first one because that was the one you had to make the
night that it was private data, candidate ABC, BC, etc. So, it's the second and third motions that you could use this evening. Uh the second one is if there is one person you want to immediately begin negotiations with, you can certainly use that. Obviously, names
are public now, so you'll use names, not alphabet identifiers. The second option is that plan A, plan B. And I just want you to have that and have it um have it available to you because again, I'd only suggest using that if you have two very strong candidates and this board is
comfortable with entering negotiations with either one of them. and you're tight on time because sometimes waiting 3 days to call a special meeting just to make a simple motion bogs you down and so it is June. So if you have two strong candidates that the board could support, I'd
encourage you to think about that, but it's certainly not required. Also note that the motions both are contingent upon a successful background check with results acceptable to the school board and contingent on successful negotiations because you'll choose someone tonight or
two someone's and you'll begin with someone and who knows what the negotiations are going to reveal because there's all kinds of stuff involved in the contract negotiations part. So it's never a done deal just because you name someone that you prefer or two people you prefer. You still need to get through those two hurdles before you
have a superintendent and approve a contract at an upcoming board meeting. Okay. Any questions on the motion if you choose to use that? I don't think that I have questions on the motion, but what I do have Well, maybe I'm jumping ahead if the question
that I have is jumping ahead of you. So, I should maybe if you were going to >> Does anybody have a question on the motions? Well, I'll >> Okay. Okay. Were you going to What was your >> The only other thing I would say is you had this two-sided sheet yesterday. It was how the interviews were going to
unfold, and you did a really nice job with that. Again, those ran very smoothly from beginning to end. All four interviews. The back side of that is board deliberations. If you're using this as a guide at this point, the next step would be to individually share whom you're leaning toward naming the loan
finalist. Do not rank them. I really don't want you to say this is my first choice, this is my second choice, this is my third choice. I just if there's one that you feel really truly meets uh the needs of the district the best. I just like you to share that one person. You could share two if you're sort of struggling between two. Uh see if a
consensus starts to build among a majority of the board. Um continue discussions as needed. Try to keep the comments positive again. And if we need to, we'll go back to the leadership profile. Sometimes this goes really quickly and sometimes this takes a long time. So, I'm going to be here available
if you need help. Otherwise, I'm going to turn it over to the board. And what question did you have? Triple. >> No, this is you. This answers it. >> Okay. Thank you. So, we are going to Does everybody have this piece of paper that says board deliberations? Okay. So,
we're going to Okay, we're going to uh we're going to go with that. We're going uh the first bullet individually share whom you are leaning toward naming the loan. FI finalists. Uh Barb mentioned if there's
two that you're leaning toward, not by rank, but uh we're going to start with that. And so I think we'll just continue to do what we how we've been doing things. I'll go around the table. Um and
we'll I'll just go director by director. Um if anyone wants to start and we'll make a circle. Um please raise your hand. Otherwise, if I could just pick a side, Director Atinson, um who you're
leaning toward, one or if there's, you know, two that you're you're thinking again not to rank and we will start there. Um I love the idea of um kind of bringing forth two. So, I'm going to
talk about two that I really liked that I felt were really exceptional, strong candidates that I think would be a great fit for our district. Um, I liked um Dr. Jeremy Schmidt. Um, I thought that um he was a strong leader with proven um am I
supposed to say why or is just the names or >> however the proceed. >> Would you like me to say why? Maybe uh maybe we'll just right now for this first round just say names. >> Okay. >> We'll try to get some consensus going.
>> Sure. Dr. That's what I was wondering. Okay. Um Dr. Jeremy Schmidt and Dr. Jim Wagner. And that's number four and number one. Okay, that helps me. Okay. Uh Director Johnson, can I go with you next?
>> I am Dr. Dr. Wagner and Dr. Schmidt, >> Director Mason. >> Um, yeah, my my first choice would be Dr. Schmidt and um, you know, hoping we can go with a three-year contract um, if we're comfortable with that. Um if
there's um I think if that decision is not strong um I I would also lean towards uh Dr. Wayneer. >> Okay. Director Olstead.
Um I am leaning toward uh Dr. Kramer. And that is number three. >> Number three. Yes. >> Dr. Fran France um I felt that all four candidates had accomplishments and their own um
experience but um I did I feel that we're choosing from what was available and not what is a best fit for our district and therefore I will go with what the board chooses as long as it's a one-year contract. >> You have a candidate that you'd like to
Dr. Smith. >> Uh, I am leaning towards Dr. Kramer. and my um who I will name is Dr. Wagner. Our first interview also my second if we're going to name
two and I feel like a lot of us has um was also Dr. Schmidt Okay. So given that going around um we have we have
um four board members leaning toward the same two candidates and with understanding that none of the candidates prefer to have a split vote.
Um what what can we do next? Barb maybe I should read my paper. >> Excuse me. >> Yeah. Can I call a fivem minute recess? >> Yes, please. Can we do that?
>> Yes, you can call fiveminute recess. >> Let's stretch your legs. Um, just be careful you're not out talking in the hallways. >> It was a suggestion from Barb and said that's always something underutilized. >> Yeah, we can do that. And I actually appreciate that. I appreciate that.
>> So, what time do you want us back? >> 5 minutes. 7:20. >> Got it. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Can anybody fix glasses? I know that was probably the shortest time we've ever sat down in these chairs, but >> I
were you broken. Do you need tape? >> You >> I It's totally fine for tonight. They're dollar store readers, so I'm okay. >> I don't have any readers. >> But if anybody has readers that they wouldn't mind sharing
>> for the rest of the night, I would take them. >> Mary, don't you keep readers up here? >> Um, I used to, but I used them all. Um, I've got a pair you can use cuz I don't need >> Can I? I mean, I can use these. It's not >> These are not readers. >> These are regular glasses.
>> Oh, you know what? >> I have some in the car. I have some in the car. I'm gonna go grab them. >> I forgot that I had them. >> Got the man sprayed without them, so I appreciate that. >> I'll take one of those. >> I've got I've got wipes now for my
glasses. I read your lips one more time. Chilly now tonight. That's terrible. I don't know where she'll go. She doesn't want to be a teacher. >> She loves special ed, so I don't think she'll be a teacher, but she does want
to stay in something like that. So, Don't do it. Don't do it. >> Stay strong. >> 2002. Yeah, I told him that. Oh, sorry. >> Oh, yeah. looking at I thought it was interesting.
It's really funny. >> I was just I was thinking about this, you know. They were next to me. Yeah. >> Yes. And then >> you and I would go back to the phone
call. >> I would see this. >> Yeah. In the back, right? >> I don't remember. I don't know how to delete this. Somehow commenting comments. >> I was just looking at the next
class. I have to talk. Instead of doing All we do is building a plane. I just remember then we know that we have so So, I left this
>> 15 I don't know. I don't know if I should be. >> All right, we're gonna Thank you for the uh recess and we're going to start back up. Barb has an idea to run past the board. So, I'm going to turn it over to Barb. >> All right. So, thank you everyone. Um, I
want to say first and foremost that with this idea, I'm building the plane while we fly it. So, I want to be really careful that I'm not saying this is something that would definitely work, but I just want to recognize again the complexity of the situation you're in. I think depending upon if this board does
have um a leaning toward a candidate and another candidate, you could do plan A and plan B. Negotiate with the first person. If it doesn't work, then go negotiate with the second person. So much of this because of the strengths of this pool depends on the contract itself
because you not only have um obviously salary and benefits, right? But this is not as clear-cut as most searches where you are definitely going to negotiate a three-year contract with a new superintendent. That's pretty clear-cut. Sometimes you are definitely going to
negotiate a one-year contract with an interim superintendent. It's this murky middle that when it comes to contract negotiations will probably determine whether or not this board approves a contract with that person. If it's one year versus three,
if it's this much money versus that much money, if it's the title of an interim or if it's got to be superintendent. There's so many moving parts even in this contract that perhaps you could look at negotiating contracts with two people
that you really could see working here and doing well and then bringing those contracts back to the board for you to vote on. Does that make sense? because so much hinges on what's going to be in that contract. So I and I don't know if that's an option you want to pursue or
not because it's it it is um very situational based upon each of these individuals who have all kinds of different thoughts, different risk tolerances, different ideas about salary, different ideas of how long they want to serve in that first contract. So
that would allow you to move more quickly if you're talking to two people at once and just talking about contracts with them to figure out where they stand. or you could still do an A and B and see if it flies with one and if not go to the second. So, just a thought and I'm I've never seen it done that way
before. Um, doesn't mean it wouldn't work, but certainly I'm not recommending it. It's just an option for you to consider. >> Can I ask Can I ask a question? >> Yeah, please. How often do you see candidates um who like walk like walk away or don't accept or change their
mind like in this part in the process? >> At least um once a year out of about 30 searches. >> Oh, okay. >> Sometimes twice. >> It's not super common, but >> it is not super common. >> Okay. >> How many have you seen this year? >> One. >> Oh, okay. So, odds are in her favor.
Great. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? I think too what's standing out for me is um you know just the the split we have
um and trying to figure out how we as a board build consensus um I mean we're split with the candidate selection we're split with the term so
it is you know I'm just I'm just that's what's sticking out to me board is that um you know when when we hear and we've heard throughout the the process from um
Barb's leadership uh that oftent times superintendent are averse to coming into a district with a split board. And so, um, you know, that that's what's really standing
out to me right now and, um, open to thoughts and considerations on how we can close this gap. Um, you know, um, Barb talked about, you
know, a a 70 or a 61. Uh, you know, um, we're far from that right now. And so looking at that, you know, when I when we go back to all the positives of the candidates that interviewed, we had many
of the same um viewpoints, I think we all agree that the the candidates uh all had something to offer. Um so that's, you know, there's consensus there. the, you know,
but when it comes down to to who and for how long we are split and so I'm open to, you know, how are we going to close that gap? >> Could we maybe talk uh take the majority
um and see if others can get there um or talk through that? I I'm just curious if it's a hard no or if it's >> Yeah. Barb, how like tell me tell me how how boards will typically if they are in a in a split type decision, how do we
continue to deliberate um you know have help you know either candidates or terms rise to the top? How how do we continue to do that? I this is the first time I've deliberated on a superintendent
So typically with candidates um people will advocate for the one that they really truly feel align best and why. So you'd be able to share why you feel you are supporting maybe your first choice or your top two. You could advocate for why. Whether or not that changes anyone's mind, I don't know. Typically
it doesn't. I will tell you that no matter how eloquently someone advocates for a candidate, usually someone will not change their first choice just because of that. people will change their votes to align with the majority in order to have a unanimous vote, having gone on the record around the
table once that they would prefer a different candidate, but I don't think you necessarily will sway anyone by advocating for one of the candidates. As far as terms of the contract and stuff, I could see any of the candidates that you talk to, any four of these, I could
see this board approving approving them to work here, but it's going to depend on the contract because there's so much that depends on the contract. That's the messy part that is not typical. And so, um, I don't know if you'd arrive at a decision until you've had a chance to
talk to these folks and say, "Hey, what do you think of this? What do you need?" They might come back and say, "This is the language I want." and whoever's working with them, if it's the chair or the HR director, would say, "Okay, but I don't think that's going to fly, but okay." I mean, negotiations take a little time and you may end up with some
things that are clear reasons to hire or not to hire someone that you've entered negotiations with. It's just to enter negotiations that doesn't say you're going to approve a contract. So, um, you can advocate for people. I think the why you're interested in the people you're
interested in might be helpful. I just don't want people to expect to be able to convince someone to vote their way. I think you're still going to vote your conscious. Yeah. Um unless you can support the will of the board to bring together a 61 or 70 vote, which would be a wonderful gift again to the candidates, but it's just deliberations
or revisiting that profile. If we need to go back and talk about each step of the profile, we certainly can do that, too. >> Can I make a recommendation, >> please? Or an idea? Sure. Um there are four
um board members who offered two names. So should we go another round between those two names and see who rises to the top or majority to start there?
>> I like I like that. And Barb, if you could speak to what Director Olstead um is suggesting as well as I'm when I'm thinking about when I'm I'm just looking at the the um the board members and their and their
choice or choices. Uh Director France said board choice but one year a one-year contract. Um so that that kind of um that helps that helps toward consensus
given a stipulation though. And so how how do we how do we move with director Olad's suggestion um along with the the the
term idea because when you say it's you know the the candidates in my conversation with you um prior to the start of deliberation like
there was a certain one candidate that was um wanted a three-year uh contract and then was another candidate that was leaning toward that. But are you saying that all of the candidates are open to
the ask? because that that makes a difference like when you say it's dependent on the on the contract if they're if they are open to the ask or if they're not open to a three-year um if they're not open to a one year sorry they're not open to a one-year that
eliminates them and that that makes our choices different. So, I'm just trying to figure out how to help us um build this consensus. You could certainly follow Director
Olstead's suggestion and each person names one person. >> Okay, >> if you have to at this point choose one. >> Okay, let's let's start there. >> And perhaps you could say who it is and if it's a one year or a three-year. So, it's almost like this person if this.
Does that make sense? Or you could just right now just do names >> and then go around and do the same thing with names and a three-year or a one-year. >> Okay, let's start let's start with that. >> I do think they're all open to an ask. >> They're all >> potentially open to a two-year contract,
which was mentioned earlier as well. I I think they think this job is a tremendous opportunity. They're all very excited about it. I think they'd all do a very good job. So, it kind of goes back to when you were a little kid. It doesn't hurt to ask, >> right? And that might be very much the case with all four of these individuals.
So, however you'd like to proceed. >> Now, is your suggestion suggestion just for the four who had the same ones? >> Yeah. Cor I mean, that's the majority right now. >> Let's do that. We're going to choose between the two. Let's do that.
>> And it's not set in stone. We're just kind of getting >> trying to trying to make movement. Okay. Director Atinson that's that's a very that's a very tough decision but um we're elected to make tough decisions. Um
um when I look at I know you said not to look at the EMD whatever score but I do have to look at that because data drives my decisions and um when I look at that I I think Dr. Jeremy Schmidt has my vote. Director Johnson.
>> I will go with Dr. Schmid. >> Dr. Mason. Um, yes. I I would go with Dr. Schmidt. Um again, I go back to his experience and I think that, you know, at the start of this, we all um we all agreed that we
wanted somebody in this role with experience. Um and I I just, you know, given some of the decisions and the levy and and things that we have on our plate, I I really um feel like he's the strongest candidate with that. Um,
you know, I I know the length of the contract is concerning. Um, I for some, but I I I feel like we had a really strong pool of 12 candidates at the beginning, which was maybe a little unexpected, frankly. Um, and so I I was pleased with the pool
of candidates that we got and and I feel comfortable with the situation with this election. Um, yeah. Um, so that leaves me and um
while my um I'm I'm not supposed to rank >> all of us. >> Yeah, >> we're going through all of us. >> Thank you. >> But go ahead. Finish your thoughts. Doesn't matter. >> No, you can go. We'll just go in order or and I'll go last.
>> Way to get out of it. Okay. Well, >> should I go? I'm gonna say I'm gonna finish. I'm I almost was going to um give reasoning and I decided not to. So, I will go with number four, Dr. Schmidt.
Director Olstead, he was trying to buy time. >> Oh, you were trying to buy time. I understand. It's okay. I had awkward pause, too. Um, it's really hard when different scenarios are going through your head,
right? >> Yeah. >> As I know everybody here can attest. Um, I think I would turn to Jess just say something. Um, >> you want to phone a friend? >> Can I
I hate to do that. Um, >> let's pull the audience. So you Barb you mentioned that you know we could say something doesn't mean that it would sway anyone's first choice. Um but I feel like I need to say something. Can I say something?
>> Sure. >> Okay. Um before we were even in interviews. I'm thinking back to a conversation that you and I had. >> Um and it it I'm going I'm going to state something regarding
Dr. Schmidt. Um, that was brought he he brought two communities together. Am I correct? What >> different Schmidt? >> Different Schmidt. Scratch that. Scratch that.
I think um where I'm leaning is um Dr. Schmidt, but I am I am a very strong proponent of a one-year still. Um, and I really I like you said, Barb, it never hurts to
ask. >> Um, curious if for a two-year or others really. We'll we'll keep going and you can >> Okay. Yeah, >> I just Yeah, >> France,
>> just go the same. >> Oh, same. Sorry. Y >> one year. >> One year. >> Word choice and one year. Thank you, Director Smith. >> Director Smith or Dr. Schmidt. >> Dr. >> Dr. Schmidt. >> Dr. Schmidt. Oh, yeah.
>> And do you Okay. So that's all of us. One, two, a seven with the same answer and >> answers with caveats though. >> Answers with caveats for a couple. So what's our next step?
>> Um, more discussion. >> More discussion. >> Sure. >> Oh, can we say something now or >> chair bullion? Can if Director Smith and uh Director Olstead would how do you guys feel about it too?
I'll go first. Um I'm I'm adamant about a one-year as well. Um, I know that we've said that that only gives us kind of 5 months before we have to kind of restart this
process, but 5 months is more than 2 weeks, which is what we've known these candidates for. Um, and it's um, you know, I I I also hear that, you know, um,
you know, the community trusts us to to we were elected, right? we were elected to do this job. We were elected to make these decisions and I get that and I understand that. Um but at the same time feels like in every other decision that
we talk about uh the needs of the community, the views of the community, the values of the community is front and center in every single conversation. and to make this decision without fully
including the community and getting their viewpoint and uh and listening to them. Um it feels like we're doing them a disservice and I would strongly strongly uh advise us against uh doing that.
girl said I I you know and maybe there's some I'm adamant too on a one year and maybe there's some compromise here where if if there's something where you know I know Dr. Schmidt had, you
know, he gave us an answer on what he would prefer. Say that. >> Oh, okay. God, just checking. >> Too late. >> Give me a look like, oh my god. Um, uh,
but it never hurts to ask. So I don't know if this is a scenario where you know we have an A and a B you know where we have you know you know somewhere where we where we go again never hurts to ask because it's darn near a
unanimous decision at this point. >> Mhm. >> Um we don't have a motion or anything on the table right now. So, if it's very close to unanimous decision, maybe that would factor in. Um, again, I don't want to speak for a
candidate, of course, but something like that where, you know, maybe that would factor in. I I I I I'm of the same mindset. I mean, this this is fast. It's fast for everyone, candidates, us, the community,
our staff, and our students. Um, and I think I I can't in good conscience offer three years to somebody without community input. Um, I I just can't do that.
>> Okay. So, >> more community input because we got some Yes. And um when we were first talking about terms and we had three and three and I never really did share I I never really shared
where I was at. I shared that there's points valid points on both sides the trust equation. But I I do believe um my stance is a one-year contract as well.
uh given the fact that um this is fast and the superintendent um position is a vital role I know that there was you know there there's valid points you know whether it's um
um I think I heard a point that um you know there there wouldn't be trust in an interim to pass a levy or Um, I I just I don't I don't think that um I don't I don't
align with that. I I think that an in an interim or a one-year superintendent um given the candidates, they they all know what we're facing and they were all eager to try that. Um, I think we have a unanimous
um we have a a a consensus on a unanimous consensus on Dr. Schmidt. We have four to three with a one-year contract. And this is the one candidate
that from the beginning said he wants a three. So, we're talking about uh Director Olsad said, "Well, it doesn't hurt to ask." So, if we go to um this last motion, the s this last
sample motion, there is a plan A and a plan B. So, I'm wondering if it is in the board's best interest to try to find consensus around a second selection.
Um, Director Bolan, can I just add something to this conversation about um >> I I I guess my question is is >> I think no matter what candidate comes in, especially between these these two that we're talking about, um I think
they are going to just based on their the traits that they brought forward, their experience, they know the challenges we faced. Some even said they're up for the challenges. I mean, you know, express that in their interview. I believe they're going to come in and and give it their all and do their best that they can in this year. I
don't think they're either one of them are here not for the long run. I think titling it an interim is where I get really caught up on it. And so like I think about like in my contract negotiations in my own employment and a one-year contract just guarantees you
some stability for employment, right? Versus a two-year or a three-year. It's basically just sort of guaranteed employment. And so I still am an advocate for the two-year given the fact that he's leaving a very good job where he's very happy and he's very loved by his community. Um
I I think if if if I could get to a one-year, I wouldn't want to call it an interim. I just think that's disrespectful to I mean we had we had some interim candidates. They didn't even make it to the interview process. And so that's where I think it gets to either if we're talking one year, then it's a one-year contract versus an
interim. That's where my my head is on that. Anybody else have >> I think I think also um for me I mean obviously very much value the community input but
I I do go back to like we have a very strong strategic plan. We have a very diverse board of very different opinions. Um and I I do look at this like would we land
here any different? Um, and I I do think that like for us to even come to a really strong consensus on a candidate is is amazing, right? Um, and so I would really hate to lose that candidate over,
you know, a year or some of I I think again I just go back to like if if he's our candidate, um, we need to invest in him like he's going to invest in us. and and so I I think
not reciprocating that trust and that um is in a very good position. I I'm not sure that you know I would leave that job, right? That the risk with that, right? I understand that from his standpoint and I think that um again I
I'm really happy that we could get good consensus and I just I don't know I go back to even with a lot of community feedback which you know obviously we all value but would we land anywhere different or would that change our opinion and I don't know that it maybe
would like would would that split us more um and we we do have a strap pan we have surveys we have staff surveys we have feedback We have um two post-referendum surveys. We have so much community feedback which is amazing. Um
and I've taken all of that into consideration. Um so I don't I don't feel like I'm sitting here without community feedback. Um certainly more would have been great, more time would have been great, but you know, I just want to acknowledge that. And so I, you
know, that's where I also just like I feel like we need to reciprocate that investment in a candidate >> else. Um, I think that point is really well taken
and I I agree um with a lot of what you just said um in terms of investing in someone and I think we can do that in the contract process and in the negotiation process um and you know hoping we we get to that point
obviously um I think we can invest if you will in a lot of different ways is um in this person um in a one-year situation in a one-year scenario um
I actually and and when it comes to interim or superintendent I think that point's taken and I I could go either way on that. I because I I see your point on that. I think calling someone interim is standard. At the same
time, I understand um you know, titles mean things to people and I and I completely understand that and respect that. Um uh I think I think um I think I'm going to make a
motion. >> Um can I say something? >> Yes, >> please. Um, first of all, I don't I would never agree with calling someone an interim. It diminishes their their their capacity. They're if we hire someone for a year, for that year, they
are superintendent. So, I don't want the title to get in the way. But the one thing that we're missing is whoever we hire, okay? and and the hiring the responsibility that we're taking on here without taking into consideration the close to 1500 staff that would be
reporting to him that normally gets a say in this process normally gets to meet them normally gets a chance to do feedback and we normally have more than one interview and there the process is much longer so there is a developed relationship we're talking about
developing trust with our community and having them engaged engaged. We're talking about um taking um the educators that everyone last night said are stretched to the limit. And if we bring
on somebody long-term that's going to put them in a more vulnerable position, it also affects our students. And so without having a fully robust and transparent process that involves all stakeholders, I think we're doing our community more of a disservice. And and
also you know again um having been in the role of corporate boards um of Fortune 100 and Fortune50 firms you know the thing is is you you you'd rather not hire somebody if you can't
make a good decision than hire the potential wrong person that's not going to last long term. So getting somebody here for a year, giving them the title of superintendent, I think is is the right thing to do for our district, for our community, and for our staff and
students. >> I'll just kind of add to that. Yeah. Um the the title um you know, an interim implies that it is something temporary. Um it is it is not. It's it's a one-year
contract. Um if we decide to extend that contract, that's a possibility. So, it's for me, for my money, um I agree it's it's not an an interim superintendent. It is we are hiring a superintendent. It
is a one-year contract. Um and I do um realize that I just lost my other thought. So, that's embarrassing. Um >> if it comes back, >> if it comes back, I'll let you know. But that happens from time to time with me.
So, me, too. Anybody else? Um I think something that you know obviously all of our candidates talked about but what this candidate
specifically he asked for the three-year and um which was trust and I understand why you all are advocating for the one year and I think by
extending to a simple two-year is us extending our hand out for for trust, right? We're trying to give that to him. Um it is not a full three-year. Um
and that's that's where we you know we are we are elected to the position. We we're here to make the tough choices. Understand we get a lot of material and now we have
to make the hard choice. I remember my thought. Thank you. Um, >> so it I mean it is it's a it's a big gamble. I mean is is is all I'll say. It is um it's an incredibly risky roll of the dice. Um
and Dr. Johnson, I hear you. I I hear you about I hear you about trust. I absolutely do. like I I get that and um and the the length of the contract in my estimation
um does not uh does not indicate the level of trust that I would have in this individual. Um, you know, I think as I shared and um and talked about when
we were just going around and sharing um you know, uh what we thought was were some of the positive qualities. I do think that um that Dr. Schmidt has um a really good sense of um you know building uh academics and and building
on um on data and um and identifying what those things are and and focusing on them and and really moving those different pieces forward. Um you know, I've I've been pretty adamant that uh that trust is not earned. Trust is a
choice. Um, and if that person uh who if it's Dr. Schmidt, if if we offer him a one-year contract, um, it is my goal and my job and my responsibility to help him
be as successful as he can possibly be. Um, and I hope that we're right. I I I do I really hope that we are right. I hope that he is the guy. Um, but right now I don't know. And that is a that's a
big if. Um, because if it goes wrong, um, like I said last night in in one of the interviews, we're we're starting to turn. We're starting to to get the ship to turn. And uh any slight misstep, any
slight miscalculation, any slight um mistake can seriously derail that. And um it's been brought up at this board table that mistakes have been made by board members in the past. And I don't want to be one of those board members
that shares that burden. So, I think for me, I mean, the difference between a one and a two, it doesn't sound like a lot. It's just one one number. Um, but it is that's a lot of days. Um, and I just, like I
said, I just I feel like it's it's a really big ask and it it does go both ways, right? Um, you know, he's in a really good spot right now and that's great. um and he would be taking a a big risk if he came here um on a one-year
contract, but same thing, right? Like we're we're also taking a big risk making big risk making this large of a decision, this important of a decision on a twoe timeline. So, I think that's that's still where I am. And um
and I totally agree with everything that you're saying. It's just I I I think that trust and it's been said that we can um acknowledge that in other ways in the contract and I I mean if we hire him, he has my trust. So
>> anyone else? >> Um as you said, Barb, it's part of the negotiation, right? If we go to him with a one-year contract, he could very likely come back to us and say, "No, thank you. I'd like a two." I mean, this is part of the process. So, I I think we're spending a lot of time um talking about we don't know the whatifs, right?
He could come back and say, "No, thank you. I don't I'm not even interested." Um I think, you know, having board alignment is good. That that's going to go a long way. Um but I do think we should have a backup candidate um given the fact that we're not we're certainly not meeting the terms of his agreement from the get-go. Um so, can I make a
motion um to um begin negotiations with um Dr. Schmidt? I'm sorry I'm not following the words in the paper. Um and with and then also begin negotiations with a an offer with um
Dr. Wagner as well >> as a plan B. >> As a plan B. Yeah. >> Well, I think we should go through the proper language here. >> Oh, sorry. >> Oh, thank you. >> No, that's fine. Um, I move to extend the offer of an employment contract for the position of Prior Lake Savager School Superintendent
to Dr. Jeremy Schmidt contingent upon the following. That a mutually agreed upon employment contract is negotiated and a criminal background is completed with results acceptable to the board. >> And then the second part
>> Oh. Oh, so okay. Well, director >> Oh, sorry. I missed I missed the B. AB. Sorry. I read this. I I sorry. Let me withdraw a motion. >> I'm going to I'm going to just if I can >> add to it, so that's okay. >> I can add to it. Okay. Sorry about that. >> This was your the motion that you made
was off of the um sample motion >> and then add Okay, I see that. >> But here I just wanted to if I could just slow us down for a second because that mo I'm considering this is an ask if with that motion for for dire or
sorry Dr. Schmidt because all of us were in consensus. >> If we if we do that motion and go and make the call to ask to to make the ask and I'm asking you Barb and I I'm sorry
to interrupt your motion, >> but um if we were to make a motion and there was a second um and and we voted in favor to ask Dr. Schmidt for a one-year contract
given giving him the um you know he can accept or or decline then we could come back and go into deliberating on another on another option.
>> That's why we have our plan B. >> I think that's why we have the plan B right. But I would recommend that we amend um the motion. Um >> it wasn't seconded by the way. >> Yeah, it wasn't seconded. So we don't have to go >> finish. Maybe let you finish the motion.
>> Well, until we've got four people who want one year. So I would just suggest and please feel free to just start over, but just the um offer a one-year employment contract. So this says
it just says negotiated. So >> yeah, >> I don't think it needs to be stated to be honest with you based on the motion. >> Well, the the consensus of the board or the will of the board, there's four four people that are wanting a one-year. So
>> So you're suggesting that there be absolutely no wiggle room in the negotiations with that candidate. Correct. It's one year, >> right? >> Well, when you have four board members that are stating they want a one-year contract,
>> but we have consensus, unanimous consensus on the individual. Shouldn't that be the first step is to go and ask? >> Well, it's possible he will say, "I need to think about it. I don't think you'll have an answer to come back in five
minutes later." Now, if it were a three-year contract, which is standard language in this motion, or just a contract, they're usually going to start their wheels turning. Start thinking about the options, start thinking about the different things that they might negotiate that are okay or not okay.
There's a lot to the negotiations. You certainly may. I I with the time that you've got and the candidates you've got, I'd hate to see you limit your options dramatically in case there's a creative solution between negotiating committee or the chair and the candidate.
>> You can do it, however, and be very clear that this is a we're going to offer a one-year employment contract. And you may get an answer tonight. Yes. In that case, you would then you would come back and you'd have potentially another motion to make. I don't know if you'd have a plan A or B, though. You'd be limited then to one one more person.
versus having two people to fall back on. Okay. >> Oh, I'm sorry. And I felt like the motion was accurate because it said a mutually agreed upon employment contract is negotiated. So, um I mean I can restate it to say the one year, but um
but >> yes, if you want to make the motion, we'll go from there. >> Um I'm going to withdraw my motion actually. >> Okay. So board, um,
I don't know if we recess. I don't know if we recess. I don't know if we work to find a a plan B. I mean, um, I have to say I'm very excited for the idea of a unanimous vote from this board.
>> I I love that idea and I think that sends a really good message. Again, remember this is a starting point for negotiations, right? There's a lot that could potentially occur over the next couple of days or week. There really is. You don't know what that's going to look like yet. >> So, I do want to thank you for the work
you are putting into trying to arrive at a 70 vote. I think that needs to be acknowledged because I think that would be a wonderful thing even though it's not guaranteed. That is uh tremendous. So board, we had um four board members
that had another choice that was in alignment with each other. Um I know that that other choice also prefers a three-year contract. Um, and we don't have we have four board
members that are looking toward a one-year contract. So, in looking to uh find an option B, I'm open to any board member feedback. So,
>> Director Smith, I heard you. >> Okay. Um, so we only deploy option B if if option A falls through. Correct. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Um, what would we say to option B being the
two-year? Is there anybody that would be >> I'm just I'm just throwing out suggestions here. I think it's a great idea >> because if he goes for the one year then we don't have to go down that route >> and if
>> so if I'm understanding correctly director Smith >> option A would be the one year option B would be the same person >> but with the two-year >> Yep. But isn't that just part of negotiation? Do we make that part of a motion?
Are >> we >> we're building it as we fly, right, Barb? >> Very true. I I I just I don't know if that's >> But then again, I understand why we want to do that so that we don't waste the time >> and have to reconvene to like talk about it again or whatever. So, I get that.
Are we trying starting with one year and if he says absolutely not saying okay we are willing to stretch to a two-year but we are not willing to exceed. >> Is that is am I am I hearing you correctly? >> That's the idea that I would be
presenting. Yes. Is that plan A is call him offer a one-year contract see if he takes it. Plan B is uh say, "Hey, congratulations. We've reconsidered. How about two?" Um, so
yeah, that that that that's what I would suggest. I don't know. >> That kind of destroys the purpose of having the one year to begin with to make sure uh that we're involving the community and all that. So, I definitely would not go for that. >> I have a a thought. Um my thought would
be um given the fact that four of us also stated another candidate, we have a board member that said board choice with one-year contract. What if our plan A was Dr. Schmidt the one-year
superintendent contract? Our plan B is Dr. Wagner with a one-year contract. Um, that is my question. That's my thought. But we
did not arrive on a 70 for Dr. Wagner. And so I would um uh invite the board to maybe uh if we're
looking at trying to come up with a plan A and a plan B that we can all stand in agreement with um uh is it possible for us to go down the line again and see if we can
find consensus or unanimous consensus again or close to it for Dr. Wagner. >> Can I can I add maybe a little bit to that? And with
Dr. Schmidt being as director director Smith. I was about to ses um the one to two and then that'd be a and then plan B would be
Dr. Wagner with a one. Would that be agreeable? >> I think >> I know I know it would not be a 70. I think that the thing is is that um you know when I when I'm just stepping back
going, you know, 30,000 or 50,000 foot view, >> but we can we can paint the picture. Hey, we had we had 70 at one. >> Yep. >> And we were split at two, right? If we paint that picture for him, right? And just kind of explain here here were the
>> here's where we're at and here's why, right? um >> you know that you know it it just opens it up. It's his choice right in the end. It is contract negotiations and as long as it in my eyes it's just showing
honesty. This is this is why we are going into it this way. At a one this is where we sit as a board 70. Right. At a two we're we're more split. >> Right. And here's the reasons why. Yeah.
>> Okay. >> I I I >> in my way I just to me is fair >> that is acceptable. I think uh the question will remain is if we can get the board to come to um consensus
regarding the the the be of another candidate. So Dr. W Dr. Wagner and I would like to just to keep things moving. I'd like to if we could go down the line and see if we can't reach consensus
or close to unanimous consensus. Unanimous would be great. Um on a second candidate so that we have a plan A and plan B to make a motion with and go and start asking.
So can I start with you Director Smith? I think I started with you Director last time. So the question is >> question is on Dr. Wagner if you could support Dr. Wagner with a one-year as a plan B
It's the night of awkward pauses. >> I can skip you, too, if you want me to. I can come back. >> Yeah, I'm going to You know what? I'm going to take the option. I'm going to Let me think about it. >> Okay, sounds good. And Director France, I'm assuming that you're staying the same. >> Yes.
Uh, Director Olad. >> Um, nay. Okay, Director Mason, you're >> Yes, I'm supportive. Again, I think um just going back to the We wanted the experienced SI um and I think he's the
next um he's a great candidate for that and >> yeah, >> Director Johnson. >> Absolutely. >> Okay, Director Atinson. Um, yeah. I I think that if what I I liked a couple things I liked about him, but um I love
that he said I like challenges and what type of district is ours? We're nothing but a challenge. Um you can see it here tonight. Um he also successfully passed a levy and that's something that we really need someone to come in here and spearhead and and I think what's
interesting to him is that he knows the challenge of passing a levy and the risk that it takes to his career. or if he doesn't pass a levy that just whoever whatever candidate comes in and that levy doesn't pass, it doesn't look good to them as a as a as a um superintendent. It's very very challenging for them. And you heard it
you heard it from all the candidates how they have learned about they've learned from what it was like to not pass the levy and what they would do better which I appreciate in every candidate. Um but Dr. Wagner truly, I think, understands what's needed to to pass the
levy and the risks that are involved regarding his career. So, I I and I also go back to our very first survey, I don't remember which one it was, where we answered the question um when we were developing the leadership profile
is a board uh is a superintendent who has previous superintendent experience important to our board and it was a 70 vote. And so, that's why I think both of these candidates are so strong in my mind. Um and so yeah, I fully support um Dr. Wagner for that reasons.
>> Okay, I'm I'm a yes on that. And so we'll go back to you, Director Smith, if you're ready to as a plan B on a one-year I don't know if I could. I don't think so. >> Can I push for a yes or a no? >> No.
>> Okay, thank you. Uh so currently we have um 70 on one candidate Dr. Schmidt. We have 52 on another candidate Dr. Wagner.
Um and uh I think um >> how do we make that motion? Can I attempt to make the motion? >> Yeah, please do. >> You could do two motions if you want to. >> So, the votes would be different. Much
like you didn't have a slate of candidates to interview, you had like six separate motions that were standalone. You could do two standalone motions tonight. >> So, but if we're if we're this plan A, plan B, maybe it doesn't have the motion
language written. >> The first motion could be the top one that right in the middle there. Sorry. The second motion would just be if negotiations fall through with >> and you could put the name we authorize the chair to enter negotiations with and
you name the second person then. >> Okay. >> It's just two separate motions with two separate votes >> instead of one. Can we do that? >> Wants to try it. >> Give it a go. >> I'm not sure I follow the two separate. Sorry. Can I just add the way they're
worded? >> Yeah, I think so. >> I moved I'm going to just read it. I move to extend the offer of an employment contract for the position of Prior League Savage area schools superintendent to um Dr. Schmidt contingent upon the following that a
mutually agreeable employment contract is negotiated and a criminal background check is completed with results acceptable to the school board. In the event that the chair determines a mutual agreement employment contract is not attainable, the chair is authorized to
extend the offer of an employment contract for the position of Prior Lakes Savageria School Superintendent to Dr. Wagner contingent upon the following. That a mutually agreeable employment contract is negotiated and a criminal background check is completed with the
results acceptable to the school board. >> Second. >> Okay. Okay. And then I will do a roll call vote on that. And I'll start with you, Director Smith. >> Nay. >> Director France
going for A and B in the motion she just read for one year. >> For one year. >> One motion. Uh yay. >> I >> I sorry. Thank you. >> Director Olstead
>> I >> Director Mason >> I. >> Director Johnson >> I. >> Director Atinson >> I. >> And I am an I. All in. Oh, so that passes 61, right?
>> Sure does. >> Okay. Barb, do we go? >> If you have five minutes to go step in the hall with me. >> We have five minutes. take a fiveminute recess maybe 10-minute recess because we call a 10-minute recess. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. to make the technically I'm done with right now to Okay. Yeah, I've got some comments. >> Run, Jess, run. >> She's running. Oh, she's running back.
Okay. We were able to uh speak with both candidates and they are both open to uh discuss contract negotiations. So with that I'll turn it over to Barb. She had a couple comments that she wanted to say
prior to us. So if I might just say yay talk to both of them and it it really is good news. This was a a long and thoughtful deliberation and they both are willing to um we'll start with Dr. Schmidt. The board will reach out um
tomorrow with a potential contract and I think there's a meeting first thing in the morning to talk about the terms and just kind of see where you arrive at um negotiations with him and if those do fall through because time is of the essence. You do have another candidate and Jim Wagner who is also very happy to visit with you about a contract and uh
they're excited and thank you very very much for the consideration. So kudos. Um I will contact the remaining two candidates as well. Let them know um how much we appreciated them being here with you and how much you thought of their candidacy. And um
I normally recommend you turn in all of your notes to HR even tonight. Um and I normally say bye, but I don't feel like I can quite do that because this isn't quite the end of the search. There's just a lot up in the air. So, I'm not
going to just say goodbye because things are still in process. You don't have um a super clear path forward because of having a plan A, plan B, and having lots of parameters around contracts. So, I think what I'll do is um come back to another meeting someday and wrap up the
search that way because I want to talk about um some things I'd recommend you do in the transition with a one-year contract or wherever you land and talk about goals and things like that. So, I'd like to return if it's okay, even if it's just for a 10-minute touch base with this board once you have a contract
approved or maybe the night you approve a contract, I'll be here. So, I don't want to exit stage left like I normally would because I don't feel like this search has quite concluded yet. Um, >> Barb, we have a special meeting on the books for the 15th.
>> Is that a Monday? >> Yeah. >> What time? Because I do have another meeting that night at 8:00. 6 a.m. >> If I could be on the early part of the agenda, >> sorry. >> Oh, >> yeah. Um, well, just in our in our
search timeline, um, June 15th is was a placeholder that we've had. >> Okay. >> Um, I would I'll try to be here on June 15th. We'll figure out agendas because I just I don't want to leave any loose ends hanging. I'm hoping by the 15th you
have this wrapped up and ready to be approved by the board. But I'd still like to be here just to close it out and make sure you're comfortable with next steps moving forward. So, I'm going to put the 15th on here. I'll probably have to leave here by about 7:30 to get to another meeting in the cities. But, um,
oh, I had a thought in my head real quick. >> Sorry, I interrupted. >> Oh, what do you want me to do about a press release? Typically, I do send a press release to Christy and she would send it all over social media. Um, I don't know if we want to shout it from the rooftops because there's so much
dependent on negotiations. So, the press release might be a little more muted than normal. Not a great big announcement. It might be the board decided to enter contract negotiations with Dr. Jeremy Schmidt. >> Yeah, we always in historically in other
districts just say it's pending contract negotiations. Um, that's it. >> Okay. So, no quote from candidates, no quote from the board chair. So, maybe a just a really simple >> press release at this time and then maybe once you've approved a contract, >> we could send a headsh shot out and
quotes and all that kind of wonderful stuff. So, it'll be a little bit different of a press release than we might have if it were something else. Um, okay. I will be actually unavailable to be reached by phone or email from June
7th to the 13th. So, I will be out of town with my daughter. Um, but MSBA staff are very aware of um the negotiations you you're going to be undertaking. If you have questions between now and Saturday night, I'm around. Call me, text me, email me,
whatever you need to do. If it's Sunday until the following Saturday, um, my voicemail and email will have a different person you can contact if you have questions about process or anything like that. Okay? So, someone from MSB is available, but I will not be available from the 7th to the 13th.
>> Very good. >> Okay, that's all that I have. Thank you so much. >> All right, it's been fun. >> Board members, >> anybody want Yeah, thank you so much. Or thank you for your leadership throughout all of this and thank you board. Um,
>> does anybody want to have a do a motion to adjurnn? >> So, >> second. Is there a second? All in favor? I is adjourned.