• Bill shared information about Garth Janes, a corporate attorney with experience in nonprofit governance.
• Bill noted that his wife is a law partner of Garth's, so the school and Garth will need to take some steps regarding any potential conflict of interest.
• Bob shared that Garth is a very good attorney, a very reasonable guy, and wants to be involved in volunteer work.  Bob expects that he will scale back his practice over the next few years and imagines he is looking forward to staying involved in the community in different ways. He is the past Chair of WGBY television.  He was the Chair when it merged into NEPM.  Bob thinks he's a great candidate for the board and recommends his candidacy.  
• Sherriff added that additional legal expertise would be really beneficial.
• Sarah raised the question of timeline to determine if it's possible for Garth to be brought on during Bob's tenure on the board.  Bob said he talked to Garth about this.  We believe there is no issue under the bylaws to bring on new members at any meeting as long as we are under the board capacity.  He recommended that Garth come to the next meeting and we vote on him soon.
• Bill shared that with the bi-monthly meeting structure, this would mean very little time on the board this school year.  
• Sherriff shared that he is not here the 9th and asked Bob if he could meet him before then.
• Bill shared information about LaShawna McCoy.  Wendy met her through her work building talent partnerships and she toured the school and had a very positive meeting about getting involved.  Bill noted that her background as a teacher, educational consultant, school evaluator in North Carolina, and career advisor at Smith made her a strong fit for the board and the Academic Achievement Committee in particular.  
• The committee discussed her background and resume and made plans for Bob and ideally a member of the Achievement Committee to meet with her. 

Bill provided an overview of upcoming MCPSA board training opportunities.  He praised the MCPSA for creating training that was really targeted to school needs. 

He suggested that committee members select one training to attend and they all chose one:

• Donna - Open meeting law
• Sarah - Succession planning
• Bob - Autonomy resilience; he will encourage Garth to attend this, too.
• Sherriff - Board effectiveness

Bill said he would also bring this up with the other committees and the board.

Bill noted that he was not able to finalize his draft of Strategic Priorities, but they are similar to last year's and he feels aligned with the board on them.  He shared them at a high level: building fundraising capacity and diversifiying the fundraising base, working on succession planning to ensure organizational continuity, and building out the Alumni Support Program.  

He asked if there were other areas board members felt were missing and they thought those three areas were the areas of strategic importance.  Bill said he would plan to share the priorities in more detail at the 1/9 board meeting.

Bill said he had discussed the salary proposal with Sarah and Sherriff.  He said he felt like it was fair compensation and that he felt valued by the board.  

He offered some additional information about how the compensation system works, so the committee would have more context.

• He outlined the process Edgility used to create the school's salary scales, which included market analysis of area districts with which the school competes, review of the MCPSA compensation data, and focus groups to learn more about role types and complexity.
• He shared how the application of the scale evolved over the past two years since the study, with a change from using experience quartiles to determine pay to using annual pay increases within each salary band.

He said that his preference would be to be paid on the scale, versus off the scale, because it is a consistent approach.  He acknowledged that leader pay may be viewed differently by board members and said he would be content with either approach.

The committee decided he would leave the meeting so they could continue the discussion about his compensation.

Bill left the meeting at 12:57 pm.

The discussion centered on aligning the ED's salary with the school’s established compensation structure for non-teaching staff.  Bob initially proposed that while he personally would advocate for a higher salary, it was important to consider the broader organizational context. After reviewing the recommendations and ensuring that the decision was supported by data, the committee agreed that the ED's salary should be set at $185,000 with no bonus. Members acknowledged that this figure adheres to the salary scale already in place, maintaining consistency across the organization.

Sarah emphasized the importance of transparency.  She pointed out that adhering to the structured salary scale is a consistent approach that prevents discrepancies.  Sherriff  agreed with the recommendation but raised an important point regarding the broader issue of ED compensation. He suggested that while the decision for this year is appropriate, the board should have a dedicated discussion in the future about the philosophy behind ED compensation. He noted that these roles differ significantly from other staff positions, and the board should consider whether adjustments to the approach are warranted. Donna  added that engaging with external consultants, such as those providing compensation data, could be beneficial in future evaluations, particularly when comparing salaries in different regions.

The committee was in agreement to set the ED salary at $185,000 with no bonus.