001[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] Good afternoon. We will call the meeting to order momentarily and SPSV will begin broadcasting. All right. The April 9th, 2025 board special meeting is called to order at 4:40 p.m. Um, we'd like to acknowledge that we are on ancestral lands and the traditional territories of the Puis Sound Coast Salish people. For the record, I will call the role. Vice President Briggs here. Director Clark. Director Clark has sent me a message. She's about 10 minutes away. Director Hersy here. Director Misrai here. Direct Director Rankin is traveling and is unavailable. Director Sarju present. And this is President Top. We're going to move into our business action items for today. Um, as we discussed on our March 25th meeting, Superintendent Jones has announced his departure from the district. Uh, this
002means we need to undertake a hiring process. Uh, at our last special meeting, we developed a scope of work, an evaluative criteria for an executive search firm to assist us. And tonight our focus will be on reviewing proposals received in response to the request for proposals issued for that work. Uh first though I want to try to orient us uh to how this fits into the initial stages of our search process uh by introducing a board action report that will come back to us at our um for action on April 23rd. The title of the board action report is authorization to execute a contract with an executive search firm for the superintendent search. Um, as the sponsor the item, I'll I'll introduce it. This board action report, which we will amend to include our selected
003firm, will eventually provide the board's authorization to enter into a contract with a search firm. Uh we received uh proposals from five firms yesterday and directors began their individual reviews of the proposals. I appreciate board directors taking the time carving out the time in their day in order to read the proposals. That was a lot of of fun reading to do and tonight we're going to review this that scoring together and consider how the proposals align with the evaluation criteria that we set. Um the goal is uh to get to finalists who we can invite for interviews next week if needed. Um and then on April 23rd, we will join back together during our special board meeting to finalize our evaluation and identify the firm we wish to move forward with. We will vote on
004the board action report. Then during the regular board meeting also on April 23rd. So two meetings on April 23rd, a special board meeting and a regular board meeting. Um this schedule is also summarized on the board action report on a table on in a table on page two which I find extremely helpful and informative and I'm crossing things off as we as we hit the deadlines. Um, but before we move into the next section of tonight's meeting, evaluation of the proposals, do directors have questions or comments about the board action report or planned next steps? Loosely, Director Hersy. Yeah. So, just wanted to disclose that I have a uh professional colleague that is um a consultant at HYA. His name is Micah Ali. Uh for those of you who were on the board before, uh
005Micah presented the board through CAPSY, an organization that he's affiliated with with an award a few years ago. Um as you'll see in my responses, uh I want to be super clear, it did not uh reflect in my evaluation whatsoever, but just out of an abundance of caution, uh wanted to make sure that I disclose that I do have a um colleague that is a part of the organization that is applying. um and he was not a part of that organization when we received the award to my knowledge. So just wanted to keep everything as above uh as above board as possible. I appreciate that. Thank you, Director Hersy. Indeed. Um any other board directors? All right, then. Uh, I think we're going to move on to the review of the or the evaluation of
006responses to requests for proposals number RFP 032503, search services for the superintendent of Seattle public schools. Uh, tonight we've got some staff who are going to help us. We're uh joined by assistant superintendent of finance uh Kurt Buttleman, Dr. Kurt Butleman, excuse me, as well as some additional staff from contracting services that Dr. Butleman will introduce here shortly. uh contracting reser services received eight proposals and after applying our minimum criteria we had five firms remaining for our consideration. Um for fairness and to comply with state law for the valuation of these proposals we need to adhere to the following tonight and through the process. Uh we need to first comply with our conflicts of interest and ethic policies which have been provided for review and confirmation uh via docuine. Got confirmation from staff that all
007directors have signed that we need to evaluate the proposals based on the criteria we previously set and include set and included in the RFP. Those are detailed in our scoring sheets. Um, and finally, we need to document our reasoning through the provided procon sheets to support our scoring. So, um, oh, I get to say more. Okay. Um, in alignment with those process requirements, we're going to work through the following steps today. Um, there I think there's roughly about five of them. First, uh, I'll look to staff to confirm that they have our individual scoring from the evaluation and each director submitted that staff, we do have or wait, yeah, we do have scoring from individual board members. Um, there's one board member who may request some more time for scoring, so we can address that
008as we get further into this. Okay. and we can pause to complete as if if needed. Um second, once we've got all the individual scores, I'll ask staff to report back to us on our combined scoring. Third, we're going to look at the scoring and then our next step will be to move into a discussion about why we scored as we did. Um after discussion we can change our scoring if needed but we will need to then further document in writing our reasoning for those changes. Finally we'll look at our combined scoring with any updates as well as pricing which is scored separately by contracting services. This will determine the top three firms to interview. However, we also have the option of selecting our highest score without going into an interview. Um, if we do
009an interview, then we uh would do that on Friday, April 18th. So, there was a lot of information there. Any questions before I pass it on to Dr. Buttleman? Welcome, Director Clark. It's wonderful to see you. So, I'm going to try to summarize first. We're going to uh look to see if all individual scores have been completed. If not, we'll pause. We're going to get a report from staff about those what those scores look like. That will give us then an opportunity to move into discussion of those scores um and change if our scoring if needed. As long as we document that, we will look at the final score along with the uh uh pricing added into the scoring. and we will have three firms that we can decide if we want to move forward
010with the highest score or go into interviews. Okay, any questions at this point? If not, I'm going to hand it over to Dr. Buttleman now to introduce the staff team and staff will support us as we move through this process. Thank you. I'll just briefly introduce the staff who are here with me. Um, all three are relatively new to the district. So, this is a a learning moment for all of us and for you having never done this before with the superintendent hiring process. So, as director or president Topp said, I'm Kurt Ottoman, assistant superintendent for finance, and it's my pleasure to introduce Nick Iona, who's our procurement manager. I think the board met him at a meeting a week or two ago um when this process began. Um, to Nick's left is Greg Brady.
011Greg Barber. Greg Barber. He's been with the district since July of last year and has done a lot of work um in tough circumstances. He's been sort of the loan contracting services person for a long time until he was joined by Mel Mila Eldridge um who joined us also in January. So we brought all three of these professionals today just to have some continuity throughout the process in case one or some of us can't be here throughout the entire process. We thought having you all get a first introduction to all three of us or all four of us would be um prudent to keep the process moving. Um we also think that our role here is to help you um answer any questions to make this objective and fair process um in the selection process
012and again um basing all your information on what's reflected in the ARFP document. So we'll sit here quietly answer questions if you have any um provide guidance if you need that but we'll defer to you as the board to drive the process primarily. Perfect. Um we are going to pro proceed to our first step reviewing our preliminary scoring and I understand we have not yet received all our scores. So, we are going to take a we'll we'll we'll take a 10-minute recess for folks to uh finish their scoring if they would like to uh finish their scoring. If scores aren't submitted, directors are unable to participate in the selection process. Um and I I have a question. um on the scoring sheet. Um I'm looking at it and and I have to correct mine anyway.
013I typed on the wrong line. Um but there is no there are no spaces for comments on this. Um what what are we doing on the where do we put comments on the scoring sheet? I I could leave it to st I'll leave it to staff here. Uh hello, this is Nick Iota, procurement manager. All comments could be should be entered on the procons form. Is that a separate form? That is a separate document that was supplied as part of the evaluation packet. It it is in the same document. It's on the second page. Oh, I see. Just Okay, now I I see it. Now I have to scroll down. Okay. And how many words are required? Uh there's no word like limit or requirement. Just uh what you feel would be able to convey
014the complete thought I think would be the best uh the best limit. Okay. All right. All right. As long as I as long as my answer is acceptable because you just stated that I don't have to have a lengthy answer. I'm just confirming that that's the case. So, it does I would say it doesn't need to be a lengthy answer, but if a thought isn't able to be conveyed, if it's just like yes or yes or no, that wouldn't Oh, no. It won't be that. Okay. It'll probably be like five words, but I think the thought will be clear. Okay. All right. So, we are going to take a 10-minute recess and convene again at 5:03. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat up [Music] here. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey, [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. N.
015Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Oh yeah. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey, [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] We're going going to take five more minutes to have to allow staff to add up the score. We'll come back at [Music] 508. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey. [Music] Oh yeah. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] N. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey, it is 5:08. We are going to join back together here. uh staff has had an opportunity to uh uh uh calculate scores. So, if we could have them walk through the scoring sheet and where that leaves us. Any chance we can make that a little bigger? Okay. So, we have five vendors that have been scored
016by um all seven directors. So, thank you for participating in the the process. The first vendor on the sheet is Hawkins and their total score is 64.29. The next vendor on this scoring sheet is HYA at 72.29. JG Consulting is 64.57. Could you repeat that please? JG Consulting 64.57. McFersonson Jacobson is 65.43 43 and Ray in Associates is 66.71. So clearly some very qualified firms um tight grouping there. These scores do not include the pricing component. So we'll apply that after your discussion and how you want to proceed on the this part of the discussion. So I'll turn it over to doc or president top to Dr. President top to I think director Clark may have a quick question. Sure. Um yeah, could you just repeat the score for the first firm for me? Hawkins
01764.29. Okay. Thank you. Directors have any other questions? So otherwise we will move now that we've received the combined scores. Uh uh do directors have specific cing criteria scoring excuse me criteria? You want to walk through our criteria are listed on the scoring sheet and address the following. Um if you all have the scoring sheet you can read it. If not I can read it out loud but it's quite a bit. You want me to read it? All right. Uh alignment of the recruitment and selection approach and methodology with SPS values. Next is a proven track record of successful placements. The next criteria in is a experience and expertise in educational executive searches. Next is approach and methodology for engaging community and system stakeholders and finally an understanding of our district context challenges and opportunities
018including our timeline. So this discussion is an opportunity to lead us to for folks to update their scoring um by hearing others perspectives or thoughts or how they scored things. Um so do directors want to speak into on any of these areas? Um just and I'll open the floor up. If there is no discussion, what we would do is move to the top three or we would apply the uh financial uh criteria to the to the selection and see what our top three is and decide if we wanted to move with our finalist or an interview, but that wouldn't give us a chance to change our scoring in any way. Yeah. I have a question for I think the contract uh specialist team. If there are specific things in here that were like, "Oh, we
019like this firm, but really didn't like this one aspect of their bid." Like, how much of a back and forth? Do we have to evaluate these as is or like I'll I'll just I'll say specifically that I thought McFersonson's timeline was a little too long. Yeah. Um I liked a lot of other things about McFersonson. Is that something that we can go back to them and say, "Hey, we liked you overall, but could you do this process by August, not September, or by July, not September?" So, that's a great question. Uh so the proposals have to be evaluated based on what is in there. However, the RFP does allow for once once we are at the selected vendor, we are able to negotiate with them. And so some of those specifics can be negotiated at
020that time. But I would say don't plan on like going forward through the process as like oh well we can select them and then fix that then. That's not the approach I would take. So the appro the the proposals have to be evaluated as is what's in there. But then there is a negotiation phase that will happen at with the awarded vendor at that point. Got it. Thank you. You're welcome. Director Briggs, I think I think Director Hersy, can she borrow your mic? Thank you. Okay. I guess I'm I'm just wondering if uh can can I be reminded who are the top three scorers right now? HYA is 72.29. Okay. Ray and Associates is 66.71 and McFersonson Jacobson is 65.43. So those are the top three. Okay. I guess um I feel like if if
021there's the way I would approach whether we need to continue and have a discussion about this is is anybody upset that a firm that they liked didn't make it to the top three and and feels the need to advocate for that firm because I think if we're all comfortable with who our top three are then I feel like we can just top three could change once you cuz the pricing is right the pricing is 20%. just just to right just right right this okay but but it does mean that we're we we're comfortable eliminating the two at the bottom I guess but they could come back oh they could come back through the pricing because the pricing is so the pricing is 20% it's wait like so does that mean we are we do we
022have to choose the lowest bidder no it's not a low bid it's a formula the district uses to try and factor out firms that are just trying to low bid a process. And so it it factors in the average bid plus what their bid is compared to the criteria. So it is 20% of the score from that point. Can you give me an example of how that that works? I I'm not understanding. So if we just like for example let's take the top the one at the top I think it's Hawkins and let's just round them up to 65. What would the pricing where does pricing come in to that? Yeah. Am I did I not make sense or did no one hear me? We're working on getting a microphone. Director Sarju, hang on just
023a second. Sorry. Sorry about that. Director Sarju, I can't I can't see what's happening. So, no. Yeah, my mic wasn't working. I apologize. Uh, so the what would happen at this point is the the committee has the opportunity to discuss the initial scores that are presented on the screen right now. If there is going to be no further discussions, then we'll add where if there's no further discussions and no changes to the scores, then we would go ahead and add the financial scoring component. That would then create the final scores. And the top three that result from the combination of the two, this initial preliminary scoring and the initial uh financial scoring would then result in the top three that could potentially be interviewed. But right now what you're looking at is uh scores without
024the financial component. The financial component is determined separately and then added on after. Does that help clarify? No, it doesn't. So let me ask the question a little differently. Who decides who decides it? This is pretty nebulous. And so you're talking about 20% of what? So in the in the RFP document um each one of these categories that you see uh like approach and methodology that's worth 15 points or 15%. Yes, I see that. Right. And then cost is 20%. Who decides the cost scoring is we use a formula. So it's very objective. It's not a subjective portion. 80% is subjective and then 20% would be objective. And this is on all RFPs that you This is the formula we use on all RFPs. And it's 20% of what? It's got to be 20% of
025the total score here. So you had 80. You had 80 points. It's an extra 20 points for a total of per per vendor. Right now score on this would be 80. Yeah. going to be another 20 potential points point 20 additional points per vendor. Okay. And I'm still confused about how we if what what are we scoring if this is just if this is objective then what are we actually scoring pricing for I know for the pricing like do whether we think it's a good price a good price. Yeah. I'm Yeah. The committee is I'm being asked to to weigh in on the scoring. We just take the scoring that the vendors proposed and we put it into this formula that the district uses to apply that 20% to the the final score. So you're
026not being asked to do anything with the scoring. We've done that separately. Okay. So we have no part to play in the pricing. 20%. We have no say. It's standard district policy. Okay. That was the missing layer. Okay. Okay. That Yeah, that wasn't clear. That that answers my question. So we were in charge of 80 points total and then this pricing segment is 20 points that we don't have control over. There's a standard formula which could change then the ranked three but we don't know. So this is the question like if we're if there are folks who feel like we need to raise some scores for some of these folks, this is the time to make that argument. Oh, okay. Sorry. Oh, no. That's That's probably me because I turned this on. Um that is
027this what is this? Mine that's doing that. Okay. I don't um Okay, that's that's really helpful. So, I'll say this. Um I the I felt that reading all of those was like an extreme exercise and parsing word salad um for the most part and you know, which is just how those things go. But HYA stood out to me because they were the only ones who used the term student outcomes multiple times. Um, I had a couple other Oh, I also really appreciated how they delineated what the responsibilities of the board and the district were and just made it very clear like this is our responsibility and this is what the the firm does. Um, I think that kind of clarity, role clarity is so important. So, for those two reasons, they really stood out to
028me above all the other ones. And then the the bottom four were kind of like, you know, I didn't have super strong feelings about any of them. Um, I mean, some I liked better than others, but HYA is the one that I that was my clear favorite. So, if anyone if other people feel that same way, then I would love to bump them up a little bit. Um, but only if other people are in agreement with me on that. I'm not not trying to railroad anybody. Can you um can somebody who's ever working the PowerPoint scroll hy because I can't see the whole thing and I I just discovered a math error. Director Sarju uh Miss Wilson Jones is sending has sent you the document as well. So you should have it in your email.
029Has sent me the document. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Now now I see she corrected my math. Thank you. Um I totally agree with what you pointed out about HA. That was what stood out to me as well. I think um my scores across the board are low. I just it's a weighted score, you know. I just scored everyone a little lower over. Well, because I'll just say, you know, the proven track record of successful placement was a really hard one for me to score because like what is how do you define successful? Like how much data do we have on how happy people are with that? But um which I did think that it was interesting on that point. The McFersonson was the one that has the guarantee, right? So I scored them a little bit
030higher on that. It's like, okay, well that's like a little bit of like confidence on that one. But I think I would be comfortable bumping up my um approach and methodology for recruitment uh score from 20 to 25 for HYA in that vein because I I I noted the same thing. Okay. So looking to staff then for how that technically works. Do you want? Yeah, let's And I'd be willing to bump up mine because I based on this conversation I only they scored 77 out of 80 and I'd be willing to say okay add three points. But I'm not. Let's figure out staff. How do we because we have to have it written. How what is the best process here to make that happen? I think if you want to have your full discussion about
031the different firms, do that. As you're doing that, take notes on your piece of paper. And Director Sargi, sorry you don't have the piece of paper. Um, could she send an email if necessary to Miss Wilson Jones with her notes of of changes that she would like to see? Yep. Okay. And then we'll director Sergeant, does that does that work for you? Uh so basically what I would be sending is add three points to HYA for the first column and include your reasoning as well. So you heard dire something maybe along the lines of you heard director Briggs regarding some of her points she made on whatever you felt was was pertinent to you. Um and that's why I want to change the score. Well, I think my reasoning stands as it is already there.
032It it it isn't there isn't much more to say and I I don't need to necessarily change it just to make up another point. Um I Yeah. So I guess we can see where this ends up in the this random 20% that we don't have anything to do with. So other director Briggs, I I agree with you. I what that was one of my pro comments was that they did actually you talk about student outcomes and and that resonated with me really well. I also appreciated uh their uh um what's the word I'm looking for? Uh commitment or structure around engagement with community and in that aspect of it. Okay. Do directors have other comments about other firms and staff are taking notes on this conversation? So, director Serge, you were documenting sort of the
033rationale of the discussion. Um, I guess I one firm that stood out to me um was McFersonson um Jacobson. Um, I liked that, at least the way that I read it, they're guarantee the outcome for 2 years. Um, and they have staff working um, for them that are located in our state um, with experience and knowledge of Seattle public schools, but also our state laws and our school system. Um, and I think their search philosophy um, aligns with our values. And I appreciated that they talked about using like a consensus um decision-m process when working with us to develop um the criteria for the search. Um and that um I think I I we already talked about this that the timeline is obviously a little bit behind the scope, but other than that they um
034you know they they didn't use the words like student outcomes, but they talked about academic achievement um and that they would even they would be willing to continue working with us until we had a superintendent hired and in place. um even if that's beyond the timeline that they proposed. I agree, Director Clark. I also appreciated as we talk about SPS's context that they the team that they had assembled were folks who are also maybe more familiar with Washington um and our uniqueness maybe here in Seattle or the uniqueness we like to think we have. Yeah. Um I I also agree they were my I would say they were my second um choice. Yeah. For all the reasons that you stated. I I would bump I would bump my um I my big issue with them
035was the timeline cuz they were the ones that said like end of September. I was like wait a second what's superintendent starting at the end of September. Um but I docked them for that as well. Um, so did I. I could I I mean I would I I could bump them up um in I could give them a few more I'll give him five more points in the um engaging community and system stakeholders category. So I'll give him a 15. Director Misrai. Yeah, I think that you all are bringing up some really good points about the may not have used the term student outcomes, but that they were talking about uh um academic achievement in the right way. I I'm trying to remember exactly why I was a little too low on the approach and
036methodology. So, um I would bump this uh 12 up to 20. So, plus eight on that for me. Okay. Any other directors with comments for things? I've got then I'm going to say because there are some score updates. Um we will get our score updates to staff to uh update our scores and then roughly do need 5 10 minutes to do the 10 minutes. So we'll we'll take a recess again until uh 5:40. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] test. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Hey, [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] So, we're going to join back together here. Uh, we are four minutes
037ahead of when I said we were, but I we all board directors are here. So, I'm going to ask staff now to walk us through scoring information now that the pricing component has been incorporated. Um, so I will hand it over. I don't know who it's up on the screen. Ellie, can you put that on the screen? Is it And it will be on the screen here in just a second. There it And I'm going to ask contracting specialist Craig Barber to read the results. Okay, so the results for RFP032503 superintendent search after the price analysis is ranked one McFersonson Jacobson at 84.311 points. HYA was ranked second with 83.277 points. Rayan Associates was ranked third with 83.217 points. JG Consulting was ranked fourth with 81.077 points and Hawkins was ranked fifth with 79.984 points.
038Thank you. So we get the opportunity now for discussion whether we want to move forward with interviews for all three. We have that date scheduled already on our calendars for February 8 February um April 18th or uh we can move ahead with the uh with the with the top scoring firm which would have been McFersonson. So I want to open the floor up to discussion, strong feelings from folks one way or the other director. So during the interview process, would that be an appropriate time to act to ask McFersonson about their timeline and if that was movable? Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. So, what we could do if we did want to move to interviews is we can collect some questions that you would like to ask the uh the candidates ahead of time and if you
039wanted to one of those questions to be about the timeline, we could include that as part of their interview. Yes. Perfect. Yeah. Other Joe, does that mean you're leaning towards wanting to do interviews one way or the other? Need some direct need some thoughts here from folks. Is hire McFersonson. Yes. Or do interviews. I think I think I'm inclined to do interviews then. That's helpful. Thank you. Yeah. I'm I'm curious about how the interview process could change the outcome. So why is it like a we have to go with the number one here, but if we interview them then we that then we can pick somebody else. So there are criteria associated with the interview that would be added to these scores and then the total would be the the successful vendor. Okay. Got it.
040Yeah. I'm I'm leaning toward interviewing as well. I appreciate that. Director Clark. Uh yeah, I think I'm leaning towards um going through an interview process as well. Director Hersy or Sarju any I I think we should do interviews. Yeah, interviews is good. All right, that's easy. So we are going to move forward uh for our interviews uh for our finalists. We're going to work on scheduling them for April 18th. We will have 40 minute interviews uh to allow for logistics of swapping through through the different firms. So roughly a threehour meeting prepare for that. Uh we're going to need to generate some questions uh and contracting services is going to send those questions to the firm in advance. um just out of a fairness situation so we don't have to quarantine different firms. Everyone's going
041to get the same questions in advance. Uh these questions uh should align with the inter interview interview scoring criteria included in the RFP. Uh those criteria include cover the vendor's approach to contemplating contract deliverables, professional qualifications, past performance. Um staff will email us the interview evaluation criterion questions that we were asked during the pro that were asked during the process in 2021. Uh but we will likely want to update them. So here's the step for directors between uh that uh please email Julia any questions you want to suggest in these for these interviews no later than Monday. So Julia will be collecting questions, but we need to get the questions no later than Monday so we can compile the questions for the firms. Director Clark, is there a certain time on Monday that we should
042get those into you? Julia, 4 p.m. 4 p.m. 4 p.m. on Monday. Thank you. Um and then uh we will create a final list of questions by Tuesday so they can be sent to firms on Wednesday. Um and we will uh then reconvene and continue this process with interviews. Any questions? Are we doing all three? All three. Yes. So it'll be like 40 minutes then like a roughly 10 minute trans chain transition. Um 40 minutes transition 40 minutes transition. Okay. And I believe those are set up as virtual interviews. Yes. All right, Friday night. Friday night fun, everyone. That's the time when this board could all find time to to to take this next step. Um, any other questions before we adjourn here? All right. There being no further business to come before the board,
043the regular board the board meeting is now adjourned at 5:43. Thank you all. Woo. Thank you everyone. Has one more announcement. Uh yes, since we concluded all our business today, our meeting not our meeting for tomorrow is cancelled. So we have the night. Woohoo.