Three Finalists - now what?

Richland 2 has announced three finalists for the superintendent's job. Go to the District's website for information about them. Now what?

The stamina of the finalists will be tested on June 20-21-22, when each comes to the District for meetings with the Stakeholder groups and the Board. 

District visits are two-way streets. The District looks at them. They look at the District.

Will any of the three want the job? Presumably, they know the basics of the compensation package, or they wouldn't even come. They know of the dysfunction on the current board. They will have studied and analyzed online board meetings.

After reading the prominent placement of DEI in each description, I wondered, "What did the Board really give McPherson & Jacobson as criteria in a candidate?"

The board chose three finalists out of 39 candidates. Diversity vanished in the selection. Inclusion vanished. The three look like nice people; in fact, they look like the majority of the students. That will please many. 

The candidates' descriptions say where they've been, not where they are going. Only one mentioned a distinction awarded to a school of which he was Principal. Details are general. Where is any expression of conservative values and leadership in citizenship?

Had the Board started its search in February, would it have a finalist with real experience as a superintendent leading a sizable district?

The Board expects to offer the position on June 23, a Friday. The offer letter must already be drafted and awaiting a name and address. It will be emailed late Friday. When will negotiations occur and with whom (at a Richland 2)? Saturday? Sunday? Monday? Last-minute on Tuesday? What if the #1 pick withdraws?

The Board expects to announce the name of the superintendent on Tuesday, June 27, and expects him or her to start on July 3. Will it happen?

Three Finalists Announced

Richland Two has announced three finalists for the position of Superintendent.

Read all about it on the District's website. Or click here.

I.G. Committee should finish its work

At the June 13, 2023 school board meeting a trustee asked about the I.G. Recommendations Committee meetings and when the next meeting would be.

I think it was Niki Porter, member of the I.G. Recommendations Committee, who said it would be after the new superintendent starts.

When were the past meetings? Jan.18, Feb. 21, Mar. 21. None in April. None in May. None in June.

On May 19 the committee published a summary of actions completed by the District and claims 70% of the I.G. recommendations have been completed.

Now, what's the deal about waiting for the new superintendent? The I.G.'s Report came out in October 2022 and was based on the District then and the old board.

Why not finish cleaning up the mess, and let the superintendent start with a clean slate? Why burden the new superintendent with straightening out something of which he'll have no knowledge?

Passing the buck is a cop-out. The District, the board, and the committee have had seven months. As with most projects, the final part can be the most difficult. 

So complete it!

[Edited 6/14/2023]

This must stop!!!

Tonight's Public Participation was "interesting". 

The first speaker, Irina Stevens, blasted the District for its gender-ideology practices. She begins at 1:11:50 on the Livestream recording,  https://livestream.com/richland2/events/10878735/videos/236545693

Ms. Stevens, at 1:13:30, had just said, "Will Anderson diligently replied to ...", when Trustee Niki Porter interrupted her with "Point of Order".

Instead of waiting to be recognized by the Chair, Porter continued, "Our speakers are not supposed to name individuals that [sic] work in Richland Two..." (This is often the habit of Trustee Porter - to begin speaking without being recognized. She has resisted waiting to be recognized since the beginning of her term.)

Chair Agostini asked Ms. Stevens to refer to Anderson as the COO, eliciting a "I apologize" from the speaker.

No apology by the speaker was warranted, because the Point-of-Order was wrong.

Speakers are not to express complaints about people associated with the District. That is how the Board Policy BEDH reads. And Ms. Stevens had not.

Robert's Rules of Order addresses Point-of-Order. Porter should have waited to be recognized. After the Chair recognized her, then she could proceed to state her objection. The correct response from the Chair should have been to recite the applicable portion of Board Policy BEDH, explain that the speaker had not violated the BEDH, over-rule the Point-of-Order, apologize to the speaker, and invite her to continue with no penalty on time for the interruption.

I was the next speaker (starting at 1:15:37). I had prepared a request to the Board to ask the superintendent to direct staff to follow procedures laid out in Board Policies and Administrative Rules, without arbitrarily and unilaterally expanding them.

However, I was reactive to the first 12 minutes of tonight's meeting at its 5:30PM beginning.

Chair Agostini had wanted to remove discussion of Board Policy BC - Board Conduct from the Agenda and place it on a workshop agenda in August. The claws (of other board members) came out. The Chair was voted down 1-6.

I pointed out that problems with Board Conduct can be solved with "being civil, being respectful, and being polite." I asked the board members to listen to the beginning of the meeting and to listen to themselves.

The last speaker was Katie Gage. She had signed up online to speak but her name didn't make it to the list. She begins at 1:22:22. She ripped the District for the Pride event at Blythewood High School. She labeled the Pride event and sexual-identity politics as "ideological grooming". She is an eloquent and patriotic speaker.

Later in the meeting "board conduct" became an issue, when Board Policy BC - Board Conduct was discussed. Porter explained (1:34:58) why certain items were added to the proposed revision, directing her remarks toward the Chair, and saying "...so that you understand why we put these statements in place..." Why did she feel it necessary to make pointed statements toward the Chair?

Trustee and Vice-Chair Scott was worried about someone feeling "uncomfortable." Board Members, grow up! If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen! 

That whole discussion about BC was the exact reason it should have been handled in a workshop and not in a board meeting!

Read about CCSD's supt. search

Read the Post and Courier's article about the superintendent search by Charleston County School District that ended with just one candidate.

Here's the story. 

You'll be able to read it, even if you aren't a P&C subscriber.

What will the story be about Richland Two's search?

Look at this schedule of Board Meetings!

This is the schedule of Richland 2 board meetings that are posted on the District's website today.

June 12 4:30pm Special-Called Board Meeting

June 13 6:30pm* Regular Board Meeting

June 20 7:00pm Special-Called Board Meeting

June 21 7:00pm Special-Called Board Meeting

June 22 7:00pm Special-Called Board Meeting

June 23 1:00pm Special-Called Board Meeting

* 6:30pm is the expected time for the Board to re-convene after the Executive Session

June 20-22 Finalist interviews with Board and Stakeholder Groups.

June 23 Scheduled date for Board to offer superintendent position

June 27 __?_pm Regular Board Meeting. Last Board meeting of School Year 2022-2023. Election of officers for SY 2023-2024. Announcement of new superintendent.

Will June 27th be a short meeting? Elect new officers. Thank out-going officers. Announce the new superintendent. Go home. One hour?

July 3 Start date for new superintendent.

Will the Board have exhausted its number of paid meetings by June 30th? Board Policy BID provides that board members "will not be paid for more than 30 board meetings in any one calendar year".

The calendar year ends December 31, 2023. Does this mean the Board will work without compensation from July 1 to December 31?

Or will the Board revise Policy BID? Can they change their own compensation while in office? Is there a state law that prohibits that?

Can they meet the Timeline? or not?

On the superintendent-search Timeline for today is 

1) Presentation of Candidates to the Board of Education; and

2) Board of Education Determines Finalists.

I guess no one told McPherson & Jacobson that Richland 2 does not have a "Board of Education". 

Aside from that, how will the School Board "determine" Finalists today? Does that have to be done in open session?

Interviews with finalists will be June 20-22. Finalists are apparently expected to be interviewed by the stakeholders' groups. In the stakeholder input report, the following groups are mentioned:  "administrators, business and community leaders, classified staff, community members, parents, students and teachers". Oh, yes, and by the Board members (I hope).

If I were a candidate, I'd say, "You guys must be nuts to think I am going to be interviewed by six stakeholder groups!"

Who pays the expenses for candidates to come for interviews (last-minute flights; hotels; ground transportation; meals)? Is that part of the search fee paid to McPherson & Jacobson? Or does Richland 2 foot the bill?

The timeline provides for the decision to be made by the Board on June 23.

And for the Board to announce the new Superintendent on June 27. And for him/her (assuming the Board will select a male or female) to start on July 3.

Where is the time allowed for negotiation of salary, benefits, etc.? Where is the time allowed to consider the offer?

If the person selected is employed, where is the time for him or her to give a responsible amount of time for the notice of resignation?