This item was inadvertently skipped during this meeting.

This item was inadvertently skipped during this meeting.

The board did a brief introductory activity.

Anne opened by noting the board meeting went well overall. Amy added that the level of detail shared with the board felt right.  LaShawna emphasized that the presentation conveyed the committee’s due diligence.

Sarah highlighted a question raised by Garth about whether the school would conduct an external search even if there is a strong internal candidate. Anne agreed that this underscored why the committee is putting so much effort into stakeholder engagement.

Bill explained his rationale for sharing updated documents with the board (timeline and job description) and noted his understanding that Garth’s emphasis is on creating an objective process that can adapt as circumstances change.

Wendy provided an update on the community input process. Anne asked whether Meghan should be included, and Sarah reflected on how this question had surfaced in another organization, where it was important to balance candor with inclusion. 

Anne shared that Meghan should participate, while acknowledging that some leaders and subordinates would be in the same groups. Shawna shared her view that the team is candid enough to raise what matters, and that surveys would allow additional input if staff felt constrained. She also suggested framing the sessions as being about what is needed from the next leader, versus focusing on any specific people.

Sarah said that when framed that way, Meghan’s presence in the room feels appropriate. Amy agreed, emphasizing that it is about ensuring the process meets the school’s needs. Sarah suggested the committee explicitly frame the sessions in this manner.

Bill shared a trend from the Team Chair Council, that staff were interested in getting to know the board better during the input process. 

Shawna walked through the facilitation plan, explaining the rationale for each section. Anne asked about how introductions would be handled. LaShawna also raised whether facilitators should adhere strictly to the script or could adapt; the consensus was that it okay to be somewhat flexible so long as core questions were covered.

Wendy confirmed that printed copies of the questions and job description will be provided at each session.  Amy raised the possibility of families bringing children, and Wendy confirmed childcare will be available.

Bill asked how faciilitators should handle questions about the job description if they come up. Shawna recommended redirecting those to the survey or capturing them on post-its, and the committee agreed with this approach.

The committee agreed to schedule the next meeting for October 20 from 4–6 p.m.  Everyone confirmed availability.

Amy asked whether there might be opportunities for direct student participation. Sarah noted that families often share students’ perspectives through PAC. Bill suggested student involvement might make more sense during the interview phase and the committee agreed this made sense.

Bill noted that the committee did not have a chance to approve priori minutes and the committee decided it would do so at the next meeting.