[Amy Weir]

Here are my suggestion for the RFP document and the timeline:

My suggestions are mostly about the request being less Texas centric.  If we are a world class district, we should be looking for a world class, or at the very least, a national leader in searches.

Response Part I 1.3, 1.14, 1/16  (add) if applicable.  A Texas address should not be required.
Response Part IV:If possible, Proposer can show school districts in Texas of like size and organizational structure to RRISD. But references should not be limited to this category.  (Or something like that.)

Suggested Dates:
Release Friday, December 18
Questions Due from Vendors, January 8
Responses to Questions, January 15 (if staff needs clarification from the board, this would give them the ability to come to the board on the 14th at our covid meeting for clarification.)
Close January 19
Interviews January 28 (if that is feasible, if not maybe February 2nd)

[Dr. Mary Bone]

Here are my thoughts on the RFP:
I would like to see more details of the expected work in the RFP. This includes:

A. Timeline:
o Develop the Superintendent search schedule and timeline
o Recommend method of advertising including publication, frequency and duration, and coordinate advertising. Advertising costs are not to be included in the proposal price.
o Develop application package including requirements, submission, and timelines.
o Ensure process is designed to attract a national pool of highly-qualified and diverse candidates.

B. Candidate Selection Criteria:
o Assist the district in defining the leadership needs of the district and in establishing selection criteria for a new superintendent by soliciting input from the School Committee, parents, staff, administration, Town officials, and the community through focus groups, interviews, and an online survey.
o If requested by the district review the current job description for the position of Superintendent of Schools, and recommend revisions subject to School Committee approval.
o Organize, publicize, and facilitate at least four (4) and up to ten (10) focus groups to gather input on the type of leadership to be sought from the next Superintendent from all stakeholders in the community, including, but not limited to, school department employees, (including educators), elected and appointed town government officials, parents, students, community partners, and other interested residents of RRISD.
o Conduct an online survey approved by the district to collect broad community input for those not able to attend or not invited to a specific focus group.
o Provide the background check process you will use on every one of the semi-finalists.
o Describe how you collect information from candidate references and what you do to gather information beyond formal references. How will you be able to assess candidates’ working styles and personalities? How do you assess each candidate’s ability to work with this board and how will you convey that to us?

I would like the categories for scoring to possibly be:
a. Methodology and Networking Strategy for Recruitment
b. Ability and Capacity to Deliver the quality of the scope of work proposed
c. References and reputation including timeliness
d. Experience with similarly sized school systems (over 35,000 students)
e. Ability to conduct a community process that provides useful guidance to the board
f. Cost of the search

General information I would like to see requested on/with the RFP:
1) Conflict of Interest questionnaire

2) A list of specific questions. This list comes from another ISD in Texas but edited for what I think would be helpful to us.
a. Please explain in detail your methodology for determining which RRISD stakeholders from which to solicit input.
b. Please explain your methodology for soliciting input from the selected stakeholder groups.
c. A weekly status report is required of the selected search firm by the Board reporting search activities and status of deliverables of the previous week and the progress as related to the entire project timeline. Please provide a sample report you might provide for one week of a hypothetical search.
d. Please specify your firm’s method(s) for recruiting and/or soliciting potential candidates for the superintendent. (e.g. local vs. national; receiving applications vs. actively recruiting employed, successful candidates)
e. Do you propose to determine and recommend the desired characteristics RRISD needs in a superintendent and if so, what methodologies do you propose to employ toward that end?
f. The Board of trustees plans to seat a new superintendent as soon as it is practicable. The desire is to have a new superintendent in place by TBD 2021. Please comment on the efficacy of this proposed timeline and describe how your firm would work toward that end. If you feel the timeline should be altered, please propose a timeline you feel is more appropriate for RRISD.
g. How will or should internal RRISD candidates’ process be different from external candidates?
h. How do you propose to communicate with the Board during the search and selection process? (e.g. face to face, video conference, frequency, as a group or individually)
i. How and when do you propose the Board communicate with candidates and references?
j. How do you propose to conduct the initial introduction of the candidates to the Board? (e.g. resume, recorded video, video conference, etc.)
k. What are your expectations of the Board as related to your proposed search method(s)? (You may propose multiple methodologies if desired.)
l. How do you determine how much Board involvement is appropriate and when and how they should be directly or indirectly involved in the process?
m. What is the proposed group and individual tasks required of the Board during the process? Please provide a timeline if applicable.
n. Please list the longevity of all placements of school superintendents since 2000 and if they moved, where and if you know, why they moved?
o. Describe your firm’s non-traditional superintendent placements and the percent of your practice in non-traditional placements.
p. List the non-sitting superintendent placements done by this firm in the last five years.
q. If the superintendent did not work out, what was the firm’s response and responsibility? What percentage of the firm’s placements lasted less than a year? Please list those over the past five years.
r. What is the firm’s process for recruiting candidates who do not apply? What is the percentage of districts over the past five years where the firm has placed superintendents who did not apply for the job?
s. What is the number of superintendent searches your firm completed for Texas school districts in the past 12 months?
t. What is the number of superintendent searches your firm completed for school districts with enrollment more than 35,000?
u. How many employees does your firm currently employ and how long have you been performing superintendent searches?
v. What percentage of your firm’s revenue comes from superintendent search placement? (Is this your primary business?)
w. List your experience in developing surveys for targeted groups (faculty, staff, parents, faith-based community groups, etc.).
x. What are the qualifications of the employee(s) from your firm who will be reviewing and ranking the qualifications of the applicants?
y. We are requesting that the superintendent search firm host community forum meetings. (morning, evening, and weekend) Would your firm have the resources to accommodate this request?
z. List your capabilities to perform social media screening, credit searches, and background checks.

[Danielle Weston]

I agree with Pres Weir. And I want this search to transcend Texas state lines of both the search firms and candidates experiences and current residential locations. Question for Dr Bone – Your item Bd (experience with ISD’s of 35k+ students)…are you referring to the search firm having experience fielding candidates for ISD’s of that size? If so, I’d like to reduce that to 20K students. I really want to open this opportunity up to capable firms as much as possible within reason. And I am with you on item 1 about a conflict of interest questionnaire. I want any conflicts of interest fully examined and vetted. I have my own definition of conflicts of interest and would like to know how each firm defines it.

[Anonymous]

I second that we need to cast our net wide in search of the new superintendent.

[Tiffanie N Harrison]

I do not want to get too granular on this. I have already sent my comments via email to Mr. Poolman.

I would like to prioritize a nationwide search. I would also like to work with firms who have had success in hiring both Superintendents and other Executive leaders.

I agree with Trustee Weir’s timeline adjustment suggestions. Dr. Bone, I do like how you have outlined more community engagement.

[Cory Vessa]

I am also fine with President Weir’s adjustment to the timeline. And I so appreciate everyone participating in this discussion on the Message Board.

[Dr. Mary Bone]

TIMELINE – I think the Board needs to lay out the WHOLE timeline for this process of hiring a Superintendent not just the RFP for the firm. What is the date the Board wants a Superintendent in place and then back the dates of the RFP out to ensure the Board meets that goal. This final date should also be included in the RFP and firms should respond if they have the bandwidth to met our date.

RFP PROCESS – The way I have been trained to view an RFP is that it is not for the firm to tell us “what” the Board wants the firm to do but it is for the firm to tell us “how” they can achieve what the Board wants with their resources and skills. It is the responsibility of the RFP developer to articulate and clearly define the “what”. Superintendent searches from everything I have studied are unique to each district with some common components, but each district wants a different process and have unique needs/requirements.
I believe the Board should put together a clear statement of work and expectations so that when the firms create their proposal response, they address the desires and the expected work of the Board. A clear RFP also allows the board to consistently evaluate each firm against our requested work and expectations. For example, the community input expectations can be very wide in scope. If it is not defined how the Board would expect a firm to provide us a cost? One school district I reviewed required their firm to work closely with a district Community Search Committee. If that is something the Board wants then it should be expressed in the RFP otherwise the firm will not know to put that cost in the proposal nor express how they may achieve that work. The proposals the Board gets back eventually will become contractual and it is hard to be told “no” or “we want more money” because it is not in the contract. The cost in the proposal is highly based on the expected amount and type of work so I feel the Board must be clear in our RFP to get good cost estimates. For example, if the Board expects the firm to report to the board weekly, monthly, etc. then the RFP should state this. This type of expectation will drive the cost and it also will become contractual through this process. To get what the Board wants in a search firm I feel the board needs to work toward articulating what the Board wants clearly. I have reviewed other school districts RFP’s for Superintendents (in Texas and other states) and again express they are each unique, so I feel the Board needs to come up with expectations of the hiring process and include them in the RFP. I hope trustees will comment on “what” they expect in the hiring process (type & method of stakeholder input, type & frequency of reporting, Board involvement, Community involvement, expectations and outputs from the firm, Superintendent characteristics, etc.) I tried to capture some of this in the form of questions in my above post but I am sure there are other expectations that I have not thought about.

NATIONWIDE FIRMS – If the Board wants national firms to respond to the RFP, then the Board must also ensure the RFP is shared to national networks and posted where those firms can find it our invite them. This is a conversation I feel the Board should have with Mr. Poolman.

[Danielle Weston]

Thank you Mary for doing this research and offering input here. I totally agree we need to be specific (yet cast a wide net) and I like the idea of letting the firm know what date we expect the new superintendent’s contract to start. And that should drive the timeline. And I have also thought that this RFP should be shared on platforms that will reach national networks. I am comfortable with you and Amy sitting down with Mr Poolman and coming up with a better RFP for the BoT’s review and approval. You both have more experience than I do with this process and I feel that my priorities and goals have been heard by my colleagues and Mr Poolman.

[Amy Weir]

I agree that we need to create the best RFP document. Dr. Bone will you please bring a few specific items for us to consider tomorrow to make the document more detailed. I appreciate all the research you have done on the process. Please email Dr. Presley and Mr. Poolman with your ideas so they know what direction the discussion will take tomorrow night. We want to be organized and succinct in our instructions to staff.

[Dr. Mary Bone]

Trustees, to move along the RFP process I updated the document with my proposed changes and emailed it to Dr. Presley. I hope Trustee’s will think of their expectations of this process and bring those tonight so those expectations can also be captured in the RFP. Some of the key considerations I feel Trustees need to weigh in on are:

1. Desired start date for Superintendent, proposed July 1, 2021. Thoughts?

2. Expectations regarding type and frequency of Community/Stakeholder Involvement during process.

3. What does the Board want the firm to do in regard to soliciting stakeholder feedback? (Surveys, Online Forums, in person forums, also how many forums, etc.) At least five (5) forums, one for each high school feeder, thoughts?

4. How does the Board want the firm to work with the District and/or the Board? Independently or with a community committee assigned by the Board to work in conjunction with the firm? Other?

5. How often and what type of communication does the Board want from the firm? In person, virtual, written reports, weekly, bi-weekly, etc.? Do we want them to manage a website and updates (could ask as a option to see what the cost is)?

6. Is there specific information or questions a Trustee would like to have regarding the firm?

7. Category Scoring – What is most important to the Board? How is that reflected in the categories and scoring? My proposal is below (slightly modified from the original RFP).

Firm’s Experience in Providing Executive Recruitment Services (20 pts.)
Strength of Project Team (20 pts.)
Ability to deliver and quality of the scope of worked proposed (15 pts.)
Reference and Reputation (10 pts.)
Philosophy/Method to Recruitment (25 pts.)
Cost of Services (10 pts.)
Total Overall Points 100 pts.

[Cory Vessa]

First off, a big thanks to Trustee Bone for taking the lead on this RFP effort. We are blessed to have your expertise and are blessed by your willingness to devote so much time and effort.

My only feedback is that I would like more weight put on references and reputation and cost. I would like less weight on Strength of Project Team and Philosophy/Method to Recruitment.

I propose:
Firm’s Experience in Providing Executive Recruitment Services (20 pts.)
Strength of Project Team (15 pts.)
Ability to deliver and quality of the scope of worked proposed (15 pts.)
Reference and Reputation (15 pts.)
Philosophy/Method to Recruitment (20 pts.)
Cost of Services (15 pts.)
Total Overall Points 100 pts.

I think references and reputation are huge. Most of us in our personal lives put huge weight on references and reputation when making big decisions. We also put a significant weight on cost. I think about all the families making decisions about colleges right now. References/reputation and cost are massive drivers of those decisions.

Again, I so appreciate all the thought, time and effort. I think the RFP is better for it.

[Author]

Posts