Personnel, Student, School, and Community Support Committee - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the Personnel, Student, School, and Community Support Committee meeting for May 6th. Coming in as your fourth string chair. I didn't say fourth. I can read the list. I'm the fourth string chair. Pinch hitting. I'll call the meeting to order. The members are Steve Gallin as our chair, Mary Blanco as our vice chair, Dorothy Bendros-Mendigal, myself as members, alternate members Robert Alonzo and Joe Geller, Ex-officio, Marietta Ross, Monica Lucci, and non-voting, Luisa Santos. First order of business is the minutes. May I have a motion?

Move it.

Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Seeing no other opposition, may I have a motion to bring the D items to the floor?

Move it.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay. D20.

Through the Chair, D20 requests approval of Personnel Action Listing 1203 and the Deferred Retirement Option Program Listing 56.

Colleagues, any questions? No. D65.

Through the Chair, D65 is a request school board approval of four new charter school applications and two charter school contract amendments.

D68, please.

Through the Chair, D68 is the expulsion and assignment of students to alternative school programs. Colleagues, any comments? D69. Through the chair, D69 is the 2026-27 school year opening and closing hours of schools and the exceptions to those hours.

Board Member Alonzo, do you have any comments on the Ds? Seeing no comments, entertain a motion to approve the D items.

Move it. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Motion to bring the G items to the floor, please.

Move it.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Mr. Harvey, G1, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. G-1 is the annual report to the board from the Office of General Counsel. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you. Madam Chair. Yes.

Thank you so very much. And I just love this item every year. Because not only you, Mr. Harvey, but your entire team. Because you're as good as those that surround you as well. And that's where the teamwork comes in for me. It's not a cliche. It's a reality for me. But it starts at the helm with you. And you have been absolutely exceptional. What an amazing... leader we have in you to protect this board. I can't thank you enough for everything that you and your team have done in Miami-Dade County Public Schools. First of all, when I sit down with you, and I do this regularly all the time, I also do that with the chief auditor as well and the superintendent of schools. It gives me an opportunity to go over many different arenas and you're always available and it's always such a pleasure to work with you. In the report that you gave on the last sentence on page one under overview, you stated the following. The OGC works collaboratively with the school board, the superintendent, cabinet level administrators, district departments, school administrators, and schools to be more effective in serving and protecting our students, and to safeguard the best interests of the school board. To safeguard the best interests of the school board, that says so much about you and how you see the job that you have on a daily basis. Again, thank you because for years, you have truly done an exceptional job in that arena. I want to also state that I noticed, and I look at every single year that you submit this document to us, how much you have saved this district in so many areas. in the area of real estate and complex commercial transactions. It's a huge load, an additional new load that now you have on you in addition to everything else that you have on your plate. And once again, you make a difference each and every day. So I want to, and I'll get more into it later with the savings. that you have actually brought to this board and everything you've done just this year alone. But I do want to say thank you for, again, your honesty, your transparency, your availability at all hours, weekends, I mean, holidays, it doesn't matter. And I'm sure I'm probably speaking for my esteemed colleagues on the board as well. I know that I can call you anytime, anywhere, and you're always going to be available. So thank you so much for serving as our general counsel, and I can speak for myself, I could not be happier and prouder of having someone like you, a Harvard grad, to be the one to look out for the best interest of the entire school system, but especially how you look out for this particular board. Thank you very much, sir.

That's my comment. Additional comments? Board Member Geller.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to echo the Board Chair's words, Mr. Harvey, about what a terrific job you do. And as somebody in the business, I recognize things that may not always stand out to members of the public. Probably my colleagues have been here long enough to be able to appreciate them, but others may not. In fact, an item that will be coming before us next week, I may as well mention. I don't think it's... letting the cat out of the bag because it's a matter of public record, but you're seeking good cause. And I can't say how pleased I am that we've got coming before us a settlement agreement on the suit between us and the group that has been managing WLRN. I've reviewed that settlement agreement in detail. What a great job you and your team did. and managed to get it resolved in a way that conserves the public's dollars and keeps public broadcasting alive and at the same time defends the interest of this board and by doing so of the parents, of the kids, of the staff. So, you know, another example, you took it to mediation, you got it done. You and the team, the outside counsel you had, your office, everybody, what a great job and what a great job you do. I'm really pleased, and I hope everybody out there knows how lucky we are to have you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much. Seeing no comments, I'll just add that, like Board Member Geller, we've both had the opportunity to practice law in a public setting. It's a very interesting way to represent a client with interesting public dynamics, internal dynamics, and I respect the work that you're doing, and I appreciate everything you've done.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you don't mind me, just thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Espino. Thank you, Mr. Geller. Thank you for your kind words. Just certainly would not be possible without our staff here. They are very good, and they are just as responsive as I am. And I would say that also I want to thank district staff because we work collaboratively as a team. And more importantly, thanking the board, because the board empowers me to do my job and do it well and focus on the law. So I really, really appreciate that support. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Entertain a motion to bring the H items to the floor? Move it. Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. H7 is mine. Actually, colleagues, I think somebody mentioned, and our board chair did, and board member Geller mentioned the fact that there is quite upheaval in Cuba right now. And as Secretary Rubio said, I believe, yesterday or just the other day, you have a country being run not by communists but by incompetent communists. And at this point, it seems that Cuba is on the verge of an evolution, hopefully a positive one. So with that in mind, we certainly have seen upheavals in Cuba before and the impacts that it can have on our community. We have weathered significant waves of immigration the last several years. But nevertheless, this item asks the superintendent to conduct a comprehensive review of current district protocols in the event of a shift in Cuba, evaluating the capacity of English language learner programs, obviously having just stressed those programs to the breaking point during the last several years, and assess the availability of instructional personnel to deal with a sudden change in immigration. The recommended actions are there. The item is pretty straightforward. I appreciate your support. Madam Chair.

Yes, thank you very much. And again, I can't thank you enough for bringing this item forth. So critically important, and especially with the timing of this item now, even more important. I just want to take a moment to go through the history of Miami-Dade County Public Schools in this arena, if you allow me. The story of Miami-Dade County Public Schools in many, many different ways is a story of readiness, a public institution that has repeatedly met moments of sudden change with resolve, with creativity, and an unwavering commitment to all of our students. This tradition of proactive service related to immigrant students can be traced back to the early 1960s. which, by the way, is when I came from Cuba. This was the wake of the Cuban Revolution, when thousands of Cuban children arrived in Miami. Some came through programs, and I know many of you know this very well, Operation Pedro Pan. Often, these were unaccompanied children carrying not just the burden of displacement, but also the challenge of adapting to a new language a new country and a new culture, leaving their closest relatives back in Cuba. Rather than react passively, the school board and the district mobilized developing bilingual education programs, hiring Spanish-speaking staff, and laying the foundation at that time for what would become one of the most robust multilingual education systems in the entire nation. That early experience also shaped the district's response to subsequent waves of immigration. During the Cuban Freedom Flights, the Miami-Dade schools again expanded services, refining their approach to the English language learning and student integration. By the time of the Marielle boat lift, when more than 15,000 students entered the district in just two months, and there goes that pendulum that I talk about moving back and forth from one end to the other, the system faced one of the greatest tests ever. Some schools shifted to double sessions. Closed campuses were reopened and resources were stretched, but the district did not turn students away. Instead, it adapted in real time, ensuring the continuity of education under extraordinary pressure. In 1995, this same spirit of service extended beyond the county itself during the Cuban and Haitian refugee rafter crisis. At that point, we had Los Balceros. At the request of the United States Department, Miami-Dade educators established and also operated a school at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. As a matter of fact, Dr. I know he's not going to want me to say his name, but Dr. Nelson Diaz, my very own and Dr. Alexis Martinez were both assigned over there. So I know that some of you are nodding your heads because you were here at the time and you remember, very few. But yes, they were assigned there. There, they provided instruction and stability to over 5,000 children in temporary refugee camps, demonstrating that the district's commitment once again to education was not confined in any way, shape, or form by geography. Over the decades, the faces of immigration have evolved. Students have arrived, not only from Cuba, but also from Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and other nations. Families fleeing political instability, economic hardship, and oppressive regimes. Each wave has brought new challenges, language barriers, interrupted schooling, trauma, and uncertainty about the future. yet the response has always remained consistent. Miami-Dade County Public Schools has expanded English for speakers of other languages, our ESOL programs, strengthened community partnerships, and provided social and emotional support services, as well as building an infrastructure designed to not just accommodate newcomers. The district has understood that education is often the first and the most critical bridge to opportunity for students. What stands out across this history is not just the scale of the challenges, but the continuity and purpose. Time and time again, our district has chosen preparation over hesitation, inclusion over exclusion, and innovation over inertia. Equally important is the governance behind these efforts. Many current and past members of the school board have consistently brought forward agenda items anticipating and preparing for potential influxes of migrant students. Board member Dr. Steve Gallen III and I, along with former board members including Susie Castillo, Carlos Curbelo, and Raquel Regalado, have all advanced measures with unanimous board support to ensure that the district is equipped to serve every student who enters its classrooms. This collective foresight has helped sustain a system that plans ahead rather than reacts after the fact. Now we have board member Espino who has once again acted instead of reacting. One recommendation worth highlighting for your consideration is to include the continued review and integration of the district's longstanding student influx guide, Mr. Espino. For more than five decades, this guide has served as a comprehensive framework encompassing nearly every single element in the proposed action of H7. regularly updated and refined again, it has proven to be an indispensable tool in moments of rapid enrollment growth, evolving alongside the district to meet new realities while preserving the core commitment to preparedness and student support. I recognize that revisiting the history may feel repetitive, and I appreciate your patience in hearing it again. But these moments of reflection do truly matter. They remind us not only of who we have been, but of what we have consistently chosen to do in the face of challenge. The story of Miami-Dade County Public Schools is one of action, compassion, dedication, commitment, and preparedness. And those qualities did not emerge overnight. They were built over decades of experience. So I remain hopeful that Cuba will again one day be free, and that the Cuban Americans, those on the island, will be able to join hands and finally embrace a new dream of a democratic Cuba. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and that would be my only recommendation. And once again, thank you so much for bringing this item forth.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I will be adding a number 11, continue review of the student influx guide in accordance with your recommendation.

Yes, thank you so much.

Okay, perfect. Any other comments? Seeing none, yes, Board McGillard.

Just a great item, and I want to cosponsor it at the appropriate time. It's very much needed, and thank you for bringing it forward.

Thank you, sir. Motion for cosponsorship?

Move it.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion to recommend the item as amended. Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, thank you so much, colleagues. That exhausts our main agenda. On to new business. I'm going to take them a little bit out of order. Staff follow-up, Agenda H-7. I'm sorry, new business for the board members. Forgive me.

Well, actually, I'm sorry I wasn't here during the D items. I just wanted to get on the record clarification from staff that both D65 and D68 will be revised before the board meeting to reflect some errors that were in there through the chair.

Who's going to respond?

Through the chair, I can speak to D65. Yes, it was the address of Academer. That will be updated before it goes to the board.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Ms. Pauline. And through the chair, D68, Board Member Santos, D68 has been revised and is ready to go after this.

Thank you so much.

Great. Any new business from the board members?

Yes, Board Member Santos.

I'm happy to do this later if you want, but we did say that we would discuss preliminarily input from board members on the ABC process. And so during new business, we can do a brief round round.

I'm all about it. Let's do it.

Okay, great. So you have a handout in front of you that has parallel tracks. On the left-hand side has the ABC process timeline by month, and on the right-hand side has the school choice or magnet timeline on the right-hand side. And essentially, on the back end of your handout, you'll see the main misalignments that I mentioned have heard and my team and I discussed specifically are that we are notifying initially targeted and advised schools in November, often right around Thanksgiving and holiday breaks. That became a real pain point this year because parents felt like we come back from break and then there's gonna be a meeting and I barely had time to even think about what this means. The second one is that school magnet applications close in mid-January while our ABC community meetings run through the end of January. So a lot of families were making decisions about where to apply before seeing even proposed boundary scenarios. Thirdly, families have to accept or deny magnet seats in March, even though our boundary decisions are not actually gonna be finalized until June. And that became a pain point for a lot of families. Of course, we know for schools, they are planning as early as early spring, and our decisions, again, are not final until June. And when we think about the district at large, everything from the five-year capital plan to facilities and maintenance, aligning those strategies to what happens at the ABC is really difficult if it doesn't finalize until June. So just some best practices that I think we should consider. Of course, earlier release of recommended boundary changes. I'm open to hearing specific dates that anyone has in mind. Multi-phase and multi-modality public engagement. I know mid-process we were able, at least in the community meetings in my district, to add real-time sort of in-ear translation, which helped a lot, because at some point principals were tasked with translating in real-time, and rooms became really loud and a little bit chaotic. Use of public-facing data dashboards, so a lot of the districts we've seen across the nation, similar to our discussion earlier on the strategic plan, have very clear dashboards where the public can just access all the information, not PowerPoints that are static, and of course, aligning this with enrollment budget and facilities planning cycles. So those are the pain points we see as we draft the item for next month. We'd love to hear your input.

Thank you, Board Member Santos. I was looking forward to this. I really was. I mean, I had heard first, I'm sorry to interject, but I had first heard through comments at ABC that we both had expressed to the administration some challenges that we experienced during important transitions in ours. Does anybody want to go ahead and speak first on the item?

I'll continue if that's okay.

Yeah, I mean, so I encountered almost all of these things that you mentioned here. I think one of the biggest issues is fine, they get caught off guard. You can potentially catch them up. But then even when they buy into the idea of the fact that it doesn't get approved until June left parents with a lot of concern of just, well, am I going to be able to get in? And so for Miami Springs, which will now be Miami Springs Preparatory Academy, it's a school-wide magnet with an attendance boundary. So the kids are, you know, if you're in the boundary, you're getting in, and if you're not, you can just transfer in. But the moment we introduce the word magnet, even though it's not a district-wide magnet or a closed magnet, parents are still concerned, well, do I have to select one and then I can't rotate out? And we got a lot of that. Manny Garcia ended up having to just take a lot of comments from parents as anecdotal expressions of interest, if you will, on actually enrolling because there was no form that we could give them to pre-enroll them. It just doesn't exist yet. And so I agree wholeheartedly that if we move this entire process up so that at a minimum it aligns, if not even sort of gets a little bit ahead, you can now evaluate, well, this, that's, because even still, if we are still mid-process, and I don't want to, I mean, we're, I don't want to, I'm not giving any dates per se, but if we're still mid-process, them not knowing our process, they're like, I still get questions right now. Well, how certain are you that this is going to pass? I'm like, administration's supportive, ABC's supportive, I'm supportive, it's going to pass. Yeah, but it's not, it doesn't exist yet. So I don't really know what the right timeframe is, but certainly just moving the entire process forward, potentially to the end of the summer as a commencement time. I know that there's a lot of other things going on, but it really would just start shifting, and I wouldn't feel like we're so behind. I don't know if any of my colleagues have similar experiences.

Okay.

From my point, I welcome taking that feedback and running with it, Board Member Santos, and seeing what you come up with, and we'll make the sausage next month.

Perfect. And since staff is here, and obviously they have to do all this, I also wonder if staff has any recommendations on the month that feels appropriate. I know the ABC members at some point shared, you know, can we do it at the end of the previous school year to have the summer to work through and then not even wait until August when opening of schools. But by the end of the year, we know with enrollment trends what schools will need to be – more or less on the targeted and advised list.

Any preliminary feedback from the administration? I'm not going to hold you to it, it's okay.

Through the Chair, Board Member Santos, the one thing that I would say about ABC, we remain flexible. Every now and then, we figure out and find better ways as far as doing or conducting business. And once we do realize that, we make the necessary adjustments. Along those terms, we're always open. I know for a fact that Ms. Abner has already proposed several adjustments to the ABC calendar itself. I can share that information with you. The only concern that I do have as far as the summer months, sometimes they can be a tad bit challenging, not only for staff, but just more so outreach to the community. But once again, we continue to remain open, we continue to remain flexible, and we will always do what's in the best interest of our families and, of course, our communities.

Thank you. Through the chair. So you don't see currently any, um, issues with other than engagement, which we have to solve for with doing it at the end of the school year through the chair.

Um, you know, some of the documented concerns that you raise, um, one being the, the fact that the ABC process isn't finalized until June. Yes. I've heard that argument before in the past. Um, and it continues to be an argument. And so therefore, like I said, you know, we stand flexible and open to not only any recommendations, but also even on our end, you know, a few years ago, we were tasked with starting a little earlier. We were able to do that. Transparent conversation. We continue to do that. And so as related to this particular recommend, like I said, we can definitely explore some different timelines and so forth.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you all. I'll bring an item and we can workshop the next committee.

Thank you, Board Member Santos. Appreciate that. Any other Board Member items for discussion? Seeing none, let's just jump one ahead to follow up for agenda item H7. I believe this is your item, Board Member Colucci. Any comments on that?

Yes.

And I'll be very brief. Let me just... And I just wanna stay for the, I don't wanna harp on anything here, but the item, the response clearly states that there were procedures that weren't followed. And that's evident in the response. And I just, for the record, I just wish that there would have been more detailed explanation of how it would be addressed. I didn't see that in in the in the follow up. But, you know, I do see that all of the policies are in place there. And unfortunately, due to lack of communication or what have you, some were not, they were not followed. So I'll leave it at that. And, and I don't know if anybody else has comments on that. Thank you.

Colleagues, any other comments? The only thing I'll say is I had an opportunity to speak to the superintendent about this, and specifically about the items that were discussed at the last meeting. And again, I tend to be very candid up here, and it's just, I think bringing, to use your saying, with you on the takeoff, with you on the landing, I think that was a premium example of that where most of us, especially with regard to your items, weren't on the takeoff, didn't even get brought in until we're about to land, And as we're screaming towards the earth, you know, people wonder why. I mean, so I think that it's just a matter of having a much more collaborative experience with our offices to get to a solution. Okay. Seeing no other comments, we'll move on to staff follow-up of April 26th agenda item H2 related to comprehensive integrity-based selection and appointment process of the next superintendent. Mr. Harvey, would you mind leading us in?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. There was a document that was distributed to the committee earlier yesterday, and that's actually within the 48 hours, so in order for that document to be discussed at this committee, I need a motion for the board to consider it.

Entertain a motion.

Second.

Yeah, move it.

I moved it.

Okay, you second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

But before we get to that, if you can just lead us in. And then what I'd like to do, board members, is hear his presentation, have discussion, and then when we're ready for it, bring the presentation in.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. So this, I have Mr. Adam Lechner from Hazard Young and Associates here to present today. And just as a reminder, again, as repeat Mr. Chair's comments, at the school board meeting of April 22nd, the board approved an item, H2. It was part of that item and recommend one was to obtain an independent facilitator that reports to the school board with knowledge of the district and community to work in collaboration with the human capital officer and the district engagement team to develop and implement an internal comprehensive selection process for the next MDCPS superintendent of schools to bring an action item with proposed dates, established goals, and coordinated actions for the implementation of the search with the target date for the naming of the next superintendent by the opening of the 2026 through 2027 school year by August 13th of 2026, or as soon can be facilitated. TO THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR HIS REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION AT THE MAY 6, 2026 SCHOOL BOARD COMMITTEE MEETING. SO THIS MR. LECHNER IS HERE TO PRESENT BASICALLY NUMBER ONE, AND THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT AS FAR AS THIS ITEM IS CONCERNED, PROPOSED DATES, ESTABLISHED GOALS, AND COORDINATED ACTIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEARCH WITH THE TARGET DATE OF AUGUST 13TH OF 2026. And based on the discussion today and his proposal, I'll hopefully develop a good cause item for the chair's consideration to bring to the board at the next meeting based on the discussion today.

Thank you, Mr. Harvey. What I'd like to do is... So in my mind, there are two things that we're talking about here. One is the contract with the facilitator. The other thing is... the dates and process for the remaining part of it, because really I thought that ultimately they would be synthesized as opposed to accepting somebody else's as you've gone through this process. So first on the concept of the facilitator, this was a continuation of the item that was approved, so I'm willing to entertain any comments on that portion. Board Member Geller.

I have some real trepidation about what's been presented to us. that has nothing to do with Mr. Lechner personally, with the firm, or with their ability or reputation. And it certainly is not my reflection on your judgment, Mr. Harvey, which I always respect. But if the term mission creep is familiar to anybody, that's what I'm concerned about here. You know, we voted... twice that we did not want to use an executive search firm. That was the policy that we've established and I hope that we're moving forward and not in any degree moving backward on things that we've already decided. When I first heard that the facilitator, which Candidly, I envisioned when we talked about it as being essentially ministerial and administrative in nature and nothing more, basically to recognize the fact that Mr. Harvey and also Dr. Baglos and Ms. Yopis are busy people and to add substantial responsibilities for completing this on top of the duties that they already do would be burdensome to them. So I thought, well, having somebody maybe part-time, someone like that, I kind of was thinking it would be maybe somebody who had left the district recently and was around and might have some time that could assist. Somebody made the comment at the time to make sure, you know, the sign-in sheets were properly coordinated. tremendously high-level executive necessity. That was okay. When I heard that we were looking at an executive search firm to be the facilitator, I had some concern about what they thought they were being engaged to do. And in looking through the proposal, I see, you know, a number of places where that seems to be the case. You know, I'm looking at where they had roles in the process. The role of the facilitator, an independent point of coordination across phases, stakeholders, and timelines. That was of some concern to me. That's rather more than I anticipated. Synthesizes input and revises the framework. I had some concern with that. There were other things when we get to have a board search framework, which was a term I didn't even expect. What board search framework? Do we really need a whole new document for that? I mean, we're trying to get this done in a timely fashion. We have some concern. We have a target date that we've set that's kind of, you know, it was a compromise between board members who wanted something immediately, and some who were looking at a somewhat longer timeline, I thought we've reached a pretty good compromise, the beginning of when students, and that means parents, are back in town for school. It has a little bit of play in it, you know, but I look at how the board search framework, whatever that is, will be used, and it's to provide a clear structure to organize recruitment, input, and here it is, screening. I don't think we really need much help with screening, much less selection. And so I look at these things, and it just seems to me, I mean, there's a four-phase what the board search framework is. Seems like a lot of work, not all of which I'm sure we need. Structured candidate pool and consistent interview process. It just doesn't seem that complicated to me. I understand we're going to get all the resumes. We'll be told which ones appear to meet the minimum qualifications. As Dr. Gallin wisely said, we could always dip if there was somebody who was very close on one. We could dip in because we're going to see the resumes. That didn't seemed to require much assistance. Look, I'm not interested in our being penny wise and pound foolish. $30,000, I mean, that's kind of more than I thought a facilitator to do what I thought was a pretty simple and administrative ministerial task. I think that was kind of more than I was thinking. If that's what it needs to cost, if that's what the cost of getting somebody to help the people we've asked to coordinate it on our behalf, our attorney assisted by the HR department and the board secretary, then so be it. I mean, this isn't about quibbling over $5,000. Maybe it should be $5,000 less. It's just that it reflects to me kind of an enhanced view of the scope of services beyond what I was anticipating it to be, and I'm not really interested in that, and I think that the board is not really interested in that. I don't particularly object to this gentleman or this firm being the facilitator, but I think we need to rein in what the role that they would fill. It kind of seemed to me in reading this through, to use a term I haven't heard used, that They're not the search firm. I get that. It's not an executive search process that's board-directed. I get that. But it's considerably more than I anticipated facilitator to be. And it seemed to me like they thought that they were going to be, if I can create a word, the manager of our process. And I don't think we need a manager. I'm continually impressed with the abilities of my colleagues, the knowledge they have. experience, the dedication they have. We have excellent staff in charge with our attorney. We just sang his praises in his annual report, and I feel the same way about HR and the board secretary. So I think we need to, if this is who we're going to pick at all, I'm open-minded, but I think we need to rein in what the role is consistent with decisions that we have made as a board, I don't wanna spend any time going backwards. I do wanna say that there's, although I have a number of objections to some of the things, you know, even on the phase one, synthesize input and revise the framework. I mean, I don't even know that this framework is not overdone. I will say there's a timeline. And the timeline for the four phases does appear to me to be satisfactory because it gets us to where we want to be by August 13th. And I don't have a particular objection if this is, you know, how we break this down. I just don't think we need as much help from the facilitator. Their job is to facilitate, not to manage. So those are my concerns. Thank you, Board Member Geller. Board Member Santos?

Thank you. Through the chair, with all due respect, I think in order to have a more informed conversation, I would appreciate if we could hear the presentation first. I know what you were getting at, chair, where you wanted some initial input, but clearly we dove right into the presentation and what's right or wrong with this. I think out of respect, maybe we should hear the presentation then and then have our conversation.

If I can, the only reason I said to speak first is because, the board members to speak first is because Talk about a transparent process. I know that it has taken long and been sometimes protracted conversation, but everybody can see exactly how we're getting from one point to the other point. This would be the first time in our process that something external comes out and says, this is how we should do it. So I personally had consternations with it, and I figured that we would have a discussion first because, for example, when I get an opportunity to speak, I have an idea which ultimately could be use the word synthesize, could be synthesized for the proposal and get to a good spot. I would like to hear the board members first. I think Vice Chair Colucci wanted to hear you.

Yes, and thank you. Thank you, Board Member Santos, and I too do want to hear the presentation, but I do have some concerns as well. My understanding when we voted on this at the last board meeting was that it would be an independent facilitator, and what I'm reading is is the word firm. Now the role perhaps is strictly a facilitator, but, and I will stay for the record again, the last time we had a search that it was done by our department, and if Dr. Baglos could answer how much did we spend internally, through the chair approximately $10,000, yes. So now we're looking at spending $30,000. Again, I am on the record by saying maybe just a little under, yes, I see you signaling me, Dr. Baglis, a little under 10,000 for something that we could do internally. I think that as an elected official and during these financial times that we're having, we have to watch every penny that we're spending. I understand this is a very important process, but we, and for me, I'm speaking for what I believe, I, the framework needs to be set by this board, not by anybody else. That's me. I am the constitutional officer. I look forward to working with my colleagues. I want to see every single resume, every single application that comes across this that meets the minimum of qualifications because it is my due diligence to look at every single qualified candidate to ensure that Miami-Dade County picks the next superintendent that is best suited for the job and that will take this district to the next level. We've just sung the accolades of our general counsel. He has done an outstanding job. I have confidence in him. I have complete confidence in our HR department. I understand what we voted on was a facilitator to assist and to go through the process and to help coordinate. But what I'm seeing here is different from what I voted on, which I actually didn't vote on. It was to have an independent facilitator. and I'm seeing the framework of a search firm. So those are my two cents, thank you.

Thank you so much. I have a question for my colleagues. We did approve an independent facilitator. What I see in front of me, especially on the slide that outlines the roles in the process and what the facilitator would do versus the school board, I thought it was really clear, unlike other search firm frameworks where the search firm, for example, would take on a lot of the components that currently are under the school board bucket, a facilitator role, as outlined on this slide, the school board solely as outlined on this slide, we are responsible for defining the process direction and the priorities for leading recruitment and candidate outreach, for leading interviews and candidate evaluation, for conducting vetting and due diligence, for coordinating candidate communication and logistics, for making the final decision. And I do see that the facilitator is very much clearly synthesizing that input, organizing materials, tracking progress against our timeline, which we are in charge of creating and approving, making sure that we hit those key milestones, and serving as that independent point of coordination. I did see that as the person who's going to organize, let's say, some of those town halls and help us synthesize all that information so that we, in an organized manner as opposed to my team having to do it and each of our teams having to be at these spaces, then figuring out a way to share that with each other. I think this slide gave me clarity that this is not the traditional kind of search firm process setup. This slide clearly gives, ensures that the board remains in charge of many more things than I think usually a body would be in charge of with a firm involved. So I wanted to put that on the record. And then I did hear my colleagues say, you know, this is not a framework that I voted on, so I am very curious, because we did give a general timeline, which is target date of August, and that's reflected here, as Board Member Geller said. As far as engagement and input, phase two, we did give pretty clear guidance on who we wanna hear from, by when we wanna hear from them, sample ways that we wanna hear from them. So maybe I would love to hear from my colleagues that have spoken which parts of what you see in front of you felt not aligned with what we have voted on so far, because maybe then we can inform how, as Board Member Espino was saying, we merge those and we move forward. I also do want to put on the record, as I have done every meeting, and I know I've been in the majority minority on this, but we are a $7 billion serious enterprise. we cannot not take this seriously. And I respectfully disagree with Board Member Geller on thinking that, and having been through this in 2022, that we, are the experts in, we're gonna make the final decision, that's our job. But in sorting through all these applications, in 2022, as Dr. Gallin said last time, people that frankly weren't qualified were in our documents, because they were, They had to be. And I think we can still make sure that we see every single candidate. I'm not advocating for not seeing every candidate that submits, but I do think we could benefit from this independent facilitation to keep us organized. Thank you.

Thank you, Board Member Rosales. I'm going to go ahead and jump in since there's anybody else willing to speak. And I had a conversation with Mr. Harvey where I also... like Board Member Geller said, anticipated somebody coming in for oversight and for an independent third party that would have a role in coordinating and liaising, but this took it a step further. And as I mentioned, this will be the most transparent superintendent selection at least in the last two. I can't speak before that because I wasn't paying attention. I mean, I was in government but doing something else. And everyone could see on TV, on the web, every step of what we have done. What I told Mr. Harvey is I said, listen, I'm going to take this as our facilitator presenting a general sample roadmap of what he's done historically in other places as an example. And I'm not taking this as gospel. I'm taking this as something he put down on paper to facilitate a discussion about it. Fine. But I also have, so I sort of put that aside, and I'm going to get to that part in a minute. The part that I was disgruntled about was, We took definitive steps to say we will not have centralized town halls. Each board member will do them. I've had two so far where I bring up and I have the QR code to bring it up at the end of the town hall. I take that information. I'll be posting it on social media as well because I don't need my information synthesized. I want to take every piece of data point that comes in from the conversation to the QR code response, and I don't need it to be synthesized. What's more is we all have our independent districts that are going to speak to us and say what our priorities from our districts are coming from, And it's incumbent upon us to give voice to those concerns to each other so we hear them, as opposed to saying, I'm now going to take synthesized data from South Dade, which is coming through a third party versus coming from you, Board Member Santos, for example. And so I think that I probably would have been in a better position. And by the way, I also agree with the sentiment that $30,000 at a time when we're cutting costs is a decent amount of money for us. If this is what requires to get a solidified process, I'm going to go with it. And I also value Mr. Harvey bringing us this gentleman who, from all accounts, is a professional. And my understanding is, well, he's a firm. He'll be doing independently as an individual. If he needs some back support, that's fine. But I don't need him doing town halls, synthesizing data. And, you know, what is he doing? Vetting the information meets minimum criteria. It doesn't meet minimum criteria. We get all of it. We make a selection. We move on the process. As to the second part of that, and I think that's why there was a little bit of consternation, is that we hadn't finished the rest of this process, right? If we had finished the rest of this process in terms of steps and action items and said, here, our presentation would likely be reflective of that. So I'd like to circulate this, which is not a Denny's placemat. It's just a large enough version so that everybody could see it, which is the roadmap that we've gone so far and options for where we go next. essentially if we're able to synergize a completed version of this and it's adopted by us and then he says I can do it then I think we have an alignment of process and facilitation so everything up until up until May 13th is what we've done everything going forward or action items to be had with date ranges except for, of course, what we've already agreed upon, which is selection and honor before August 13th. And then, of course, as I mentioned during the first time we spoke about this, the TBD is because we have no idea when that person here or she might come on board, so let's not even talk about it. But the idea would be by May 13th we approve a process facilitator, approve a time frame, authorize search commencement to begin, and facilitate to host coordinated meetings with staff and general counsel about how they're going to do their part, not necessarily the external part. That's our job. And then, of course, update the website accordingly. I think, I forgot, it was either Board Member Blanco that mentioned the landing pages on the website. Then after that, the rest of it is the, and again, this is not an exhaustive list, but it meant to be exemplative of what the work needs to be done. But recruitment, as Board Member Alonzo had said, promotion through professional networks and organization, I believe I saw in the proposal that they even have their own profile that they can post on their website, which is fine. The more transparent, the more publication, the better. Accept and log all applications so that ultimately we can get the entirety of the materials and screen them. I agree with Board Member Vice Chair Colucci because in light of what Board Member Gallin said is that if there is a person that meets the criteria by like a month, I think we reserve the right to say this person should be evaluated and should be looked at for whatever reason that person, and we would decide as a board whether or not we want to accept that. This does call, and what I'd like to see is that This calls for at least two special meetings where we take the names, we make a recommendation of whatever number of names we want, one, two, three, to the facilitator. That results in a special meeting for an initial vetting, a culling at that point, and then a second meeting that facilitates in another public vetting of the finalists. Open to action items on this, open to date range changes or actual date specific. One of the things I think we should do is specify the actual dates for special meetings, but if we can work on this and we come to an agreement on it, then essentially the question is, Mr. Facilitator, can you do this? Do you feel comfortable in this environment? The answer is yes. I think that answers the first part. So I know there's a lot of colors. That'll be easier that way. Board Member Alonso. I'll take the number five. Right. To me, it looked a little bit like Jeopardy.

I'll take screening for 500. Well, First of all, I want to start off by thanking Mr. Harvey for taking our board's vision to the best of his ability and going out and trying to find a facilitator in such a short time frame, right? And then also a short time frame even after that to be able to run this process, which I'm sure there's not a lot of companies or individuals that want to take this job right now in the current state. It is exciting to be a part of this process, but it is one that's going to take a lot of effort and focus from whoever does it. And I would have loved to find an independent person. I was actually very impressed when I saw the name come and the company or the organization, the firm, that actually said we're willing to come and do this work. I mean, this is a nationally recognized firm that does facilitating, recruiting, searches, they do a plethora of different things and they even do strategic planning. So they do a lot of work with K-12 districts across the country, which being the third largest district in the nation and a $7 billion budget, this really brings another level of transparency and sort of like respect to the process, right? That, look, somebody else was taking a look at this and walking the board through it, and not walking it, walking step-by-step with us on it, right? Because we are the ones leading it, and I think it's there. I agree there are some things to be changed here in this presentation. I spoke to Adam for the first time this morning at 10.30. I had never met Adam, never heard of the company until I did the research on my way back from D.C. this morning, and then jumped on a call. So I I appreciate you getting on a plane, if you had to get on a plane to come over here, and being here available to us to work with us through this, because I think this is just a preliminary framework, right? And I think if we put it together, Board Member Spino, with your Denny's placemat, and this framework, I think we can get to a point where we want, because look, I want to be fully transparent. I shared this with Adam, and I've shared this with Mr. Harvey. My phone's not ringing off the hook with a bunch of people wanting to take this job. This is a job that's going to take a lot of responsibility. It's a job that's going to take a lot of focus in going out there. And, you know, as you mentioned, Board Member Spino, I've always talked about recruiting, right? Recruiting that top-notch individual, whether they're here at Miami-Dade, whether they're in the state of Florida, or whether it's a national. I mean, I'm hoping we can find somebody in the South Florida area that can fit this role and understands our district, because I think that's very important to this role. But... We are the third largest district with a very large budget with a lot of different changes and responsibilities that are going to be needed, and we need to do that. But I do think that we do need this facilitator. I was the one that really brought it up and stood behind it because, you know, I just look at items that you have on here as action items, like authorize a search commencement and facilitate, you know, the coordination of all that, you know. We were just talking to Dawn Baglos this morning, telling her, how are we staffing substitute teachers at our schools and how are we trying to finish off the year? She's got a lot on her plate. How is she gonna be able to manage that? Then we talk about launching recruiting campaigns We know our communications team is already doing a lot of communication work, and Desiree has to prepare for the next board meeting. Who's going to launch that, and who's going to work on that recruitment campaign to be able to manage it? And I understand your viewpoint in that you're having a town hall, and I'm sure Mr. Geller will have one, and Board Member Colucci. And I'm going to have some myself. I've already had some. But I do want to hear what's happening in Doral. I do want to hear what's happening in the beach. And I would love somebody to be able to bring that information together for us because we do work under sunshine and I can't go to every single one of your town hall meetings. So if a facilitator could bring back to me and just say, hey, Board Member Alonso, this is what happened in Doral last week. This is some of the feedback that came back. This is what's happening in Homestead. I represent District 4, but I truly say that I represent the entire district. And I think we all do in the responsibilities that we have. So I think it's important that we do get that feedback. So I think it's just an adjustment of this, an alignment of it, to make sure that it aligns with our views. And I appreciate the organization coming over here, putting the effort to put the presentation together, because we can then make adjustments based on some of the suggestions. So I think if we make it a collaborative effort, we can land in a place that everybody feels comfortable, and we get the process going and get us to that timeline, right, that we have, which is that August timeline. And it's something that I believe in strongly, and I think we need to move towards. Thank you, sir. Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. First and foremost to our board attorney, it was an extremely limited period of time that you had, and I want to put that out officially on the record. With the timeline that you've had, I want to thank you for doing to the very best of your ability and understanding what we agreed upon after a very extensive discussion, not only at the last meeting but the ones that we had prior to that, what the board voted for. And again, an independent consultant is what we wanted to have because there's nothing more important, and I've said this before and I'm gonna say it again. Trust is earned. It is not given. The integrity of this process can never be questioned by anybody. And our community is looking very closely at everything that's happening as they should be. They're the taxpayers. and they want the very best for their children, and that's what they deserve. And I wanna thank you, sir, for coming and being here in front of us. I do wanna say before I even say anything else, with all due respect to everyone here, we have three colleagues that are not here today. Their input is extremely important as well into this conversation. So I know we're gonna talk about different areas with you sir and you're going to give us an explanation in a little bit after you hear from all of us but I just want to put it on the table that it's imperative that there are nine board members who are constitutional officers who will all be held responsible for the decisions that we make and I think that conversations related to this very important topic need to have all nine colleagues present and today we're missing three with that said It's like an airplane again. I'll bring that up again. You're with us right now on the takeoff, and the takeoff sometimes is a little difficult, right? There's still little areas that we have to iron out. But in taking off together and listening to all of us making the statements, we all wanted a facilitator. That's what we voted for. All right. And again, it's the will of the board. It is never the will of one individual person on the board. It is the majority of this board. And so the reason why we wanted that was for full transparency. That's where someone as an independent person coming from the outside, a facilitator, would be there to ensure the public that there is full transparency. Now, accountability, that's on us. That's on every one of us. And whatever decision we make, it is a decision that we are going to have to own, just like we did the last one. I think we did pretty good. We're an A-rated school district for six years now. We have graduation rates never seen before at a 95.4 or something. I don't even remember the final number, but 95.2 or .4? .2, there we go. We have choice options for parents never seen in the past. And I can go on and on about all the accolades. So I think that the board, although it was a process that was very short, very limited in time due to a very different set of circumstances, I think we did well. If you look at us compared to the rest of the state and to this entire country, we're way up there. We are way up there because every board member, every constitutional officer that was present at that time took it very seriously. And I have to agree with comments that have been made. Board member Alonzo, you know, you're absolutely right. Not only managing all this. from specific members of our staff is going to take an extensive period of time, but it's not even part of their job description, honestly, for them to take on some of these responsibilities, although they will do it regardless. But it makes much more sense to me for us to make the decisions and go through all of the candidates, as Vice Chair Colucci said, and review them if we'd like, that's great. But I do want to as well hear what's happening in Board Member Geller's district and what his people are saying. Board Member Espino's district, Vice Chair Calucci, Alonso's, Santos, all of us, to see what is the input, what is occurring. All that has to come from a facilitator, because I don't see how it can be done in another way by others. What I have in front of us right now that Board Member Espino handed to us, thank you, I know you did your due diligence in this in trying to do the very best you can, but again, it's aligning some of what we already have with that. I do not, and I had originally said when I first discussed this issue that I had concerns with the fact that we were dealing with a period of time where the budget is a massive issue. But then again, being the third largest school district in the country, $30,000, as opposed to how it was because, by the way, years ago in this very district right here. And it was brought under a board item by a previous board member whom I knew very well. It was $200,000. for that period of time when that was done. And so 30K seems something reasonable if we're going to have that transparency and the accountability and the integrity of a process hopefully not being questioned by the community. And so again, I hope we are able to discuss this further when all nine board members are together because their input is as critically important as any one of our individual ones are. So thank you, sir. And I do look forward to hearing your presentation at some point after we all get to speak. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Vice Chair, you had a comment?

Yes, just a quick comment. And I'm glad you brought that up about all nine board members being present. That's why it's imperative that when we schedule things that we take action at the board meeting. So that's why we're not in this situation where we're having all of these discussions, everyone's not present. So I think it is imperative, Mr. Harvey, that we do have a good cause item for the 13th to keep us on track and have something that we can actually vote on. So when all the members are here, so that we can move forward, whatever the will of the board is.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. I concur with that. I mean, the only thing that I would say is, and I agree with everybody's saying, I go, I, the only thing I would say is the fact that, I think you might have said it, either you said retread or go back or something, and I agree with that. I mean, every time we make a decision, it should be the beachhead for the next one. And so, for example, we said no to a search firm. And this is a facilitator. That's fine. We'll make that distinction, and the scope and roles will be adjusted accordingly. We said no centralized meetings. What you're saying, Board Member Alonzo, is that to the extent that we have meetings, he can be dispatched to attend them and synthesize the data? That's fine. But the idea – and so as long as we know that we take action and move forward and we build off of that, that's important. Board Member McGill, you had a comment.

Yeah. Like I said, I think the timeline that was advanced by the gentleman is fine. It matches what we said. It lines up. It's critical that we do what the Vice Chair just said, which is that we get this vote in and so we can move this. I mean, same with the placement. To keep an alignment on it, we have to, you know, take this next action. I don't have any particular difficulty with who Mr. Harvey is selected. It's up to us, not to the gentleman, to define that role the way we want it. That is on us and certainly Madam Chair is right and she says we need our nine members and hopefully that will be next week. I did have the opportunity to go through this and I have, first of all, Nice piece of work, board member.

I'm going to take particular pride of authorship in it myself.

It's very nice. I got two nits to pick with it, but, you know, I think that's expected.

Is it too many colors?

Yes. It was mostly that, those of us who were color challenged. You know, and I can't name a couple of these. I think I see a chartreuse here, but I'm not really sure. In the interest, again, and I want to, to the extent I can, I try to be consistent here. I may be wrong, but I'm at least consistently wrong when I'm wrong because I try to be consistent. I do favor a fairly broad screen, and I think I've made that clear. So in the lilac, if that's correct, it says that each board member should advance two semifinalists. I know there are nine of us, but let me assure you from a lot of searches, I know that they weren't for superintendents. I've been educated that this is different, I get that. But I promise you that there will not be the maximum possible number of names advanced by, you know, All nine of us are not going to say all completely different names no matter what we do. There are going to be some names that people look at and say, oh, clearly this person needs to be considered. I really would rather see at the semifinalist stage that every board member gets to advance three instead of two. We're still going to narrow it down to finalists. I particularly liked that there's not a fixed number of finalists because you don't know until you see them how it's going to break and where the line is going to be, and we can make that decision when we get there. But for the initial stage, I'd like to see it be three semifinalists. And then the other thing I thought here was there was a comment that the public interviews of semi-finalists and it says optional. I don't suggest that it be a requirement that there be a public interview if somebody's out of town and it's difficult for them to make it and we think they're a great candidate and they can advance to finalists, that's fine. But I'd like to remove the optional to say that we're going to have public interviews of semifinalists to the degree that people can make it. Again, not as a disqualifier, but whoever can come, and assuming that many of them will be from South Florida and we're flexible with their schedules, it doesn't have to be the same night, doesn't have to be the same minute, but I would like to be sure that to the extent we can, we let the public see who we're interviewing as semifinalists. Other than that, I mean, well, I didn't see anything here I didn't like. So let me just say, when we get to this presentation, as I guess we're about to shortly, I'm anxious to hear it. And let me just say again, sir, that, you know, to the extent that what you've done is to give us something to react to, Thank you very much. That's great. You know, I think the board has agreed, and I think everybody has said today, we're not looking for a search firm. We're not looking for somebody to manage research. the search. We're doing that. So, you know, we've made some comments. I'm sure people will make some others. You know, I hope you can adjust, as Board Member Espino said, adjust accordingly in what you view your role to be. It's got to be what we view your role to be. But that's my principal concern. And as long as we're moving forward, and not backwards, and we've got our timeline, and we define this along the way that the board chose to define it. I thought Board Member Alonso had some helpful comments there. So that's fine with me. Thank you.

Thank you, Board Member Alonso. You're next. Excellent. Well, just moving the ball forward. Absolutely. I think it's important. I agree with the timelines, and hopefully we can have something in front of us for the board meetings that we can all agree on. And I think in the discussions, Adam would be meeting with each board member virtually or in person before the board meeting that I think will be helpful in kind of making sure that he explains and listens to us today after our presentation. But I had three things that I just think are important that we have there is obviously board communication before the 15th, which is our meeting next Wednesday. The other one is we've already identified a profile as well as a job description. I know HR has been working with that. As a facilitator, I think it's important so that we don't waste any more time that next week at our board meeting, we vote and approve a final, you know, kind of like this is what's being posted on the website. Right, a packet. This is our packet that the facilitator can work with HR and with our legal counsel to prepare that packet that we approve, and that way we're launching. And then a recruitment plan. I know that we're very hopeful that we're going to have all these candidates coming to us and that board members are going to be able to select out of a large pool of candidates. I'm hopeful that that happens, but we'll probably have to recruit. I think as a board, who do we foresee being that recruitment method? I mean, are we each gonna just start making calls to people across the state that we believe should be candidates? Are we gonna expect HR to make calls? How are we gonna... recruit people to wanna apply for this job. I know that we can put it on Indeed and all these other superintendent websites and so on, but I think there's gonna be a level of outreach to people who fit this profile, right, that we might wanna recruit, like we would recruit a top teacher or a top principal or a top athlete. Who would we foresee as that point person? Because I think it's important for the facilitator to know who they will be working with to be able to recruit individuals to here.

Board Member Alonzo, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you had said when you were advancing the facilitator that the facilitator would assist in that recruitment.

If we're okay with that, I'm okay. Just because I was hearing Board Member Geller and how he didn't want him involved, you know, we didn't want him. So that's why I just want clarity. I think the facilitator can help us on recruiting and kind of putting the message out there, but I just wanted to make sure. It's more of a question to the board. Is that what we want? Just so that he has clear directions when he starts his presentation and when he meets with each board member to then know what his responsibilities are because I think As we said earlier, he dropped a bunch of things that are helpful here, and I think we need to give direction so that we have a full package ready to go on the 15th, and he can take off running on the 16th in the morning with the duties that we've assigned him to and with the profile and job description that we've assigned as well.

Hold on, I'm sorry, Madam Chair had a comment beforehand. But thank you, Board Member Alonso, appreciate that.

Thank you very much. And to Board Member Alonso's comment, I would definitely say the facilitator should be, in my opinion, the one to do the recruitment piece. That's my personal opinion. In addition to the public interviews, I want everyone to know that those of us that were sitting on this board Last time, we had public interviews. They were all held on the same day. And every single board member sitting on the dais asked questions publicly. And this is where the institutional knowledge comes in. That's very important. Because that made it a very, in my opinion, extremely significant to the public and to us as to whom we thought was going to be the best candidate for the position based, again, on their responses to us on that day. And in addition to what was also on all of the documentation that they submitted as part of their application package. And lastly, I learned this when we did our workshop. We spent hours, hours on the workshop. We thought we all came to an agreement on the same thing, and I learned one lesson. You have to have action items. And I said this at the board meeting. You must have special board meetings if you have to, or regular board meetings. But if you don't take action, we're gonna come back to a new discussion every time, and that's just gonna delay the process over and over and over again. So if we want to have this process done in a manner which abides by the timelines that were agreed to, we need to be able to take action so again via a regular board meeting or if it has to be a special board meeting I can call a special board meeting as a chair of this board and I and I said before I would do so but I'm not going to get involved in anything anymore that's not going to require action on whatever the nine board members decide and with that said those are the comments that I have thank you sir thank you madam chair the only thing I'll just comment is I think what board member Geller was saying

is not whether or not to have public interviews, is whether or not to have one or two rounds of it, meaning a semifinal interview round and a finalist interview round, both of which, or one of which, if we only did one, would be open to the public.

Thank you for that clarity, and just, again, based on my institutional knowledge and that of my colleagues that were on the board at that time, we did the finalists. Just the finalists. We did not do the semifinalists. We did the finalists. They were the ones that we were able to interview. It was very productive, in my opinion. I thought it went very well. The questions that were asked were, you know, very viable questions. And the outcome was with Dr. Jose L. Dodris. And so I... Thank you for the clarity. I would go with just, for me, the finalists. But I don't know what the majority of my colleagues would like. But for me, I feel that the finalists would be enough for me.

Thank you. Board Member Geller, and then we'll hear from our friend here who is like a guest at a family dinner. Sorry for talking about family business.

I think we have to be guided by some practicality, much as I hate to bring that topic up to the board. But If we have 25 semifinalists, which we won't. I mean, if everybody advanced three and the max was 27, I assure you, you're not gonna have more than about 15 because not everyone will have three. And more importantly, a lot of them will be the same names. So maybe we'll have 15, maybe we'll have 18. We're not gonna have 25. It might be cumbersome if there's 20 to try to schedule Public interviews with the semifinalists, although, you know, again, some of them may be unavailable, some of them may be out of town. And I do think we, you know, we don't pick one day and try and get them all in regardless. And, you know, people have conflicts on a particular day if we have to be flexible for somebody we really like. And it's not a requirement that there be a public interview. interview. But I would like to expose the semifinalists to public interviews and let the public see them if we can do so. If the number is at all manageable, then I think that would be preferable. By the way, the other thing, I went through at the beginning some particular concerns I had the presentation about particularly the role of screening you know screening is for us so that's but let me say that you know if we're gonna spread the word about this being available we're gonna let people know I mean it's not like I object to the the facilitator if there's some other posting that we didn't think of that'll let more people know, I don't have a problem with that. You know, I don't want it to be controlled, but if it's supported or supplemented, I'm an issue. I really don't feel like it's, there's nine of us. I don't think it's absolutely necessary that this gentleman have the opportunity to have a private meeting or conversation with each board member. We speak as a corporate body. We speak and we've spoken on the record. And there's a videotape of the conversations we've had. And certainly, you know, Mr. Harvey, Dr. Baglos, Ms. Yopis are available and watch it. I mean, I don't want to prohibit it. if you have a question or something that somebody said wasn't clear. But frankly, I think that's another example of kind of mission creep. I just don't think that that's really necessary in the same way that I don't think some framework that some hard and fast rule that will inhibit us from getting where we want to go instead of help us is an absolute necessary document. I just don't think that's necessary any more than I think interviewing everybody. It's a limited role. I'm sure it's a role you can do and, you know, if this is what it takes for us to move this process and move it quickly and to go forward and The company, the firm, understands. Engage somebody. You're engaging the firm. That's just a reality. He's got people who help him do his jobs. But I have no issue with that. But as long as they understand what the board voted, and we're not going back over that again, and we're moving forward, let's do it.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Is it Adam Lechner or Lechner? Lechner. Mr. Lechner, thank you so much for indulging us. for your patience. The floor is yours.

Thank you. Thank you, Board Chair, members of the board. I took a lot of notes throughout this conversation. Let me just say this, the conversation that it was just kind of part of, you all are pretty well advanced into this process, believe it or not, the kinds of questions you're thinking through. I was just talking to Mr. Harvey about some decision points and other things that you all are already on top of. So let me just start there. The board is pretty well advanced in this process. And let me also just say I'm all about moving forward. We're not moving back. You made a decision. I did watch some of your board meetings, your workshops. Not all of it, quite honestly. I got some AI summary from that. But I do have the items. Mr. Harvey has briefed me on the previous items as well. Yes, we are a large search firm. I will go over that. That is not what this is. To say from the upfront here, I am an independent facilitator. of your process. It's not my process. The framework that you see in front of you and that I brought with you is a draft. We're going to update that. We're going to revise it. I love the placemat. We can actually merge both. Don't eat on it. Well, I wrote on it. It's not laminated. I'm actually surprised by how much alignment where I think there is. And so I'll go through the presentation, but in all open ears here, it is not a locked process. I will say it is informed by doing this for 40 some odd years where the largest executive search firm doing this work. To Board Member Alonzo's point, yes, we do lots of different work at our firm. We are not doing a full-scale superintendent search. The board has decided you're going in a different direction. That's great. I'm here to support. But know that what you see in this presentation is informed by thousands and thousands of engagements of doing this at the largest school districts all across the country. With that, I'll go into just a little bit about the firm. We talked about it. The thing I would name here is we are an education consulting firm. There are lots of different executive search firms, Korn Ferry, many others. We do education only. We are made up of 130, 35 associates all across the country. We are all former systems leaders, former board members, former superintendents, of all shapes and sizes of districts all over the country. We are truly a group of folks who do this for the right reasons to support boards in doing what is arguably the most important responsibility that you have, selecting your superintendent. But know that while I will be your engagement lead, this was mentioned before, we have a whole bench of folks. Our firm president is engaged in all of our work. So I'm the face here. I am your facilitator and glad to be back here. I used to work here. So I am familiar with the community. But know that at the very least, our firm president is on the bench supporting us for a facilitator role. targeted, facilitative role for the board's process. All right, I want to talk about our core approach. These are our guiding principles that we'll have should we move forward with this framework, but it's also, you should know, guiding principles that are part of all of our engagements with a superintendent search process. As I said before, and want to name it here publicly, this is your decision, each of you who sit on the dais, the nine of you and only you. You're elected by your constituents to do this most important responsibility, this awesome responsibility of selecting the leader of now the third largest system in the country. It's not anyone else's job in this room, it's your job. There's a lot of weight that comes with that, and so as a firm, we recognize that and understand that it is your responsibility, you set the direction at every step of the way. Secondly, the framework that we'll go through is, I think, designed to align to what the board had previously decided to help the board move forward. So you'll see the timeline that was alluded in there at August 13th. We backwards mapped from there with some critical inflection points. We'll go over that in a minute. This third bullet is extremely important. We say this at every engagement that we have. It doesn't matter if it's a facilitative role, targeted approach like we're doing here and proposing here, or a full scale superintendent search process end to end. It does not matter for us. We facilitate a process. The board places a superintendent. HYA never places a superintendent. That is your decision. And I say that because there are some executive search firms that will get in the business of trying to steer certain candidates, to try to lobby certain candidates. We do not do that. I will not do that. Nobody in our firm does that. It's something that we protect. We understand our role in this process as facilitating the board's direction, the board's superintendent search process. No lobbying. That is your decision. You will go through your deliberative process to arrive at a decision for the next leader of Miami-Dade County Public Schools. And again, you make that final decision, which is the last bullet here. This was talked about a little bit. Based off of the conversation, there are a few bullets that I do want to highlight. So I believe Mr. Harvey had shared a more detailed proposal last weekend. Let me just say outside, that is a little bit more detailed than what's here on the slide. The way this structure works as a facilitative role in your search process is I am the coordinator between the many offices that are gonna be helping execute your vision for the superintendent search process, whether that's Mr. Harvey's shop, whether that's Dr. Baglow's shop, whether it's your communications team, we often support to the extent that the board wants in communications, especially once you get towards that final selection round where that becomes really, really important. We'll use the framework to develop what we call a more detailed action plan. This is the thing that gets all the teams organized and coalescing around critical milestones that the board has set. We'll go through the second phase, this is about community engagement, but that'll be an important thing to coordinate. I understand that there's no centralized component here, but we still want to be transparent with the community, we still want to update the website along the way. So my role is to make sure that those tasks are getting done and in accordance with where this board has decided to go. It will be the board and the district and your designees that you appoint to actually execute. That means, I know there was some discussion around recruiting. That's not how we had envisioned our role of being a proactive recruiter. We can talk about that. But this is merely facilitative, making sure that the board and district is hitting those milestones to move from phase to phase. Think of me as sort of the connective tissue between those phases, making sure that we're wrapping up one before we get into another, and I'll talk about why that's really important. Again, just based off of our experience, but totally we can adapt to this framework or where you all want to go. All right. I just talked about this, but this framework, I'm hoping you'll see on the next slide, it's building upon your previous actions. My hope is that you see nothing in there that is in conflict with what you previously decided. However, if you think that there is, if there's some adjustments that we need to make, I am totally open and taking notes to anything that you all think needs to be adjusted. But the point is, This phase of the work is about alignment, whether the board, how the board wants to approach community engagement, the discussion that you were just having, how you want to conduct your public presentations and how many. These are all the critical decisions that you all need to make. I'm just here to help guide you to make sure that those decisions are being made. not to influence, not to recommend, you all will go through your deliberative process, but merely to facilitate that process along the way so that you are actually getting to the August 13th deadline that I know this board has set to announce its next superintendent. Okay, so broadly speaking, this is the framework. Phase one is today, and it's the board meeting next week. Next week? Next week. It's an initial framework. It's an updating of the framework based off of today's conversation, based off of subsequent input that you provide. But the key here is really creating alignment because the last thing that you want is the district going out and executing and doing different things because those could be in conflict and not aligned with the board's shared vision. And so that's really important. We spend a lot of time in this phase before we get into phase two, which is typically your community engagement and recruiting. So, engagement, I understand that there'll be no centralized community engagement approach, but one thing that we could help with, should you want it, are things like questions that you may want to ask your constituents. Maybe you're already doing it. It sounds like QR codes are up, so maybe there's no support needed for that. Others may want that, and so part of the interview process or the one-on-one was to really get what does each board member expect in terms of their level of engagement with their community and what type. I'm then gonna take that information back, put it in a nice document so that everyone here who's responsible for executing that has that information so that we're moving forward in a coordinated fashion. Phase three, built between these two, I had built into the proposal three, workshops or onsite presentations. Today is one of them. I have others built in between these critical phases. Part of the pause between two and three is to make sure that before a board typically gets into kind of interviewing the candidates and the screening is just to make sure that everything is lined up with Dr. Baglos' team, how the board has previously decided how it wants to conduct its screening. I know there's a lot of discussion on screening. Let me just say this. There's no filtering on my part at all. You get all of the information. You'll get all the applications. As soon as that application window closes, I will be working with the HR team to make sure that you have all of that information. What I would like to hear is how do you want to organize that information? We'll talk about rubrics, how you want to score it, but that is your process, that's how you want to do it. I'm merely here to make sure that that really important task is done after the application closes. And then phase four, you were starting to talk about this around the finalist selection. There's all sorts of decisions that need to be made around that. Is it a slate of candidates? What tasks are you asking them to do? Is it a performance task? Is it a SWOT analysis? A lot of boards will do that. That is up to this board and how you all want to decide. But the point is before you get into phase three and phase four is to make sure that those decisions are are ironed out because you really want a tight process in phase three and phase four in order to meet your deadline by August 13th. But again, I have the key outputs at each phase. I am merely the connective tissue between these different phases, making sure that all of the departments that you've tasked with helping you are moving along, okay? All right, so I want to spend just a little bit of time on phase one because this is the phase that we're currently in. The second bullet, this was alluded to around kind of meeting individually. Again, this was about, well, one, getting to know me a little bit so you know who I am, but also trying to get your specific level of expectations around community engagement because that will be really important for the Office of Community Engagement to have that information. In addition to that, I think it's made clear, at least in today's conversation, when we talk about school board involvement, it's both about school board member involvement in your own community engagement activities, but it's also about school board involvement in the initial screening stages versus the initial interview stages versus the final stage. That's up to you, that's how this board wants to go. I heard everyone wants to see all that information, that's great. We'll make sure that that's get done should the board decide to go in that direction. But then we have to really iron out what does the initial interviews look like, what does the final interviews look like? That's really what that conversation was in trying to tease out what does the board individually want from those expectations. But after today and over the course of the week, we will update the framework after today's conversation. From there, once that's solidified, it's all hands on deck. I get the action plan going. I will have a planning team here with the district folks to make sure that we are implementing that plan. Last few slides here, this is the timeline. You'll see that we backwards map here from August 13th, and I have kind of the key stages in between, but again, we're building in a workshop in between two and three, phase two and three, and then likely at the beginning of phase four, somewhere in phase four, building in a process to where I can come in and to support how much the board wants my level of support, at least at that point. But in total, four engagements, including today, backwards mapping from your set date of August 13th. So immediate action steps is, for those members who want to meet, it's really targeted at your community outreach expectations, synthesizing that input, updating the framework, sending it back to you through Mr. Harvey, and as long as we're aligned with there, and as long as the board votes on the items next week, then we'll get that action plan done. With that, I will take any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Lechner.

Board Member Alonzo. You mentioned it a few times, and I just want to get full clarity and transparency in this. HYA, is it a lobbying firm? Do you lobby at any rate? No. So you guys do not represent any possible vendors that our district would ever have to work with?

We do not.

Okay, just wanted to clarify that, because I think it's important in having a transparent process.

Thank you. Colleagues, any other comments? Board Member Santos.

Thank you. And this is, I did go back and look at the action recommends from H2, and realized, because Board Member Spino, I heard you say explicitly, we decided no central community meetings, and I had a different recollection. And you're right, in the action recommend, what we voted on was inviting certain community groups to come speak at our meetings. That's what we actually voted on. We didn't explicitly say, and no central town halls. I have certainly been posting to get community engagement, but have always directed people toward our centralized MDCPS website, which I know each of us got the report, literally every single detail by name, person, and of course a summary as well of all that input. and I appreciate the clarity in the presentation that we can each basically work with this independent facilitator to craft what we would like our district's community input to look like and that we would all, as was stated earlier, have the chance to review each other's sort of summary so that we get a full outlook of our entire county's input. Through the chair, I just wanted to clarify that that's sort of where we all agree we can move forward with community engagement.

Thank you, Board Member Santos. Look, I agree with you. The only thing I will just bring up, just a slight different perspective, is that while the revised H-2 didn't exclude it The replacement, there was a Section 8 that said scheduled town hall meetings in North, Central, South, and we decided to strike that. So the exclusion of it essentially in the new item is its exclusion by extension. So we didn't have to prohibit it if we just took it out. But listen, to your point, from my perspective, you need facilitation to do your stuff, and if I do stuff over the summer too, I have no problem with them coming out. The only thing is, I will just point out that he said four engagements. And so without facilitation, it means him coming out and taking minutes. That's an additional facilitation. That's an additional, you know, travel point that's certainly going to go beyond the $30,000. So that's the only comment I'd like to bring up for Member Geller.

On that one point, maybe there's, again, I always try to see if there's middle ground. I don't think we need four of them, and I don't think we need a north, central, and south. Maybe what we could do, though, in deference to Board Member Santo's point, what if we simply had, at some point in the course of these few months, we had one particular, could be after a board meeting, could be when public comment is otherwise scheduled, just open it up, say we're gonna have a public hearing, we'll have one, for the people that come to the board or want to come to the board. And we still all have our own individual ones to the extent we deem necessary. But we have one called as a public hearing and say anybody who wants to come and offer an opinion, this is your chance to come. Please come down, say whatever you have to say. And that way, instead of having three or four of them, at least we would have one that we would all have in common, and then we're not overburdening the gentleman.

Just a point of clarification. I mean, so there's a difference between his engagements and our number of engagements that we might have that he might facilitate. So what he's saying is this is an engagement, next week is an engagement, we have two more under that $30,000 proposal. You know, it didn't necessarily mean workshops within that engagement. It would mean that within the remaining process there would be two additional meetings at which he would be present. which if you look at it, there's an opportunity for at least two, because there's a special meeting, to at least screen to the semifinalists, and then another one to screen to the finalists. If we wanted to do another one in the screening meeting where we advance our numbers, I was thinking that we would do that. We would tell him, hey, we want to advance these three names, and he would compile all of them, and those would be the finalists that go out, because we all get equal billing in terms of how many we want to review. But I think that's, I just want to make sure that we're talking about the same thing, which is our public engagement and his engagement with us. Is that right, Mr. Legner? That's correct. Okay.

And, Mr. Chair, I don't think it, in deference to Board Member Santos' point, if one of those we just make clear is open to the public, then we're having a chance for the public to comment without having to schedule all these other, you know, one in every corner of the county.

And through the chair, to answer that, all of our special meetings will have public comment. We have to. And so I understand that, and we can use them as that opportunity where generally people come. I do... So I hear my colleagues, I think you've made it clear and you're right, we have limited engagements, so you don't even have nine to get to each of us if we wanted to each use some of that facilitator role in our community engagement. But we do have, of course, our centralized website and we can each add, as we have all done, additional input points. The second point that I wanted to bring up, which Mr. Lechner said we have to have a conversation on, and it's true because I heard different perspectives, as far as, of course anyone who applies, regardless of their qualifications, we will see and we will have and it will be public record as well. As far as the conversations for recruitment or reaching out to people who might not be thinking about this but may be great candidates, that is a role that I believe we should have. in our clearly outlined in our independent facilitators, you know, responsibilities, only if we, as Board Member Geller said earlier, like posting where we might not have thought of we need to post, or if, you know, in our conversations, we might say, you know, can you reach out to this person and see if they might be interested, if this is something that might not be on their radar yet. I do think it's very important that we allow for that flexibility within the outlined roles of the engagement. And I heard some board members say, yes, I want that. I heard one board member say, no, I don't. So I just wanted to get some clarity from my colleagues.

I mean, I guess that's like a polling question, right? I mean, is anybody, as we're sort of, this game of inches we're playing, just trying to move the ball down the field a little bit. From my perspective, if it's part of the portfolio of services they're providing, I do think that there is a limited pool of people that would take this job. And so to pick up a phone call, post, you know, they want to post it on their website, that's something we wouldn't have had access to previously. If they know, because this is what they do, have access to put this in front of people to get their attention, I don't see an issue with that. That's just more advertising, more marketing of the position. Madam Chair, you wanna speak?

Mine is related to the public input. Each one of us can have as many town halls as we want. I said this at the board meeting last April 22nd, I think it was the date. That's up to us. That's up to each and every one of us. I'm going to have to have them in separate locations because my area is too wide. So my people from one end of town are not going to go to my meeting that's going to be held in the opposite end. But that's me. That's on me. And I can have as many as I want. Additionally, we voted on... having at the April 29th board meeting, and I have it right smack in front of me, all the different things that we have gone through in this process, we voted for that meeting to have involved, send invitations, and we did, because I made sure to check very closely with our superintendent and his team. I wanted everybody invited that we agreed to. I go by the recommend, again, I am a student from Dr. Stinson, and he taught me the recommend. You must follow always the recommend. The recommend was the general counsel in collaboration with the chief human capital officer, independent facilitator, if we had one, and the district community engagement team shall send invitations for representatives of the following community groups to speak and provide input, which we gave them three minutes each. at the April 29th, 2026 special board meeting for board members to consider. Who did we invite? The five labor unions and two professional associations. The leadership council of the Miami-Dade County PTA, PTSA, they were there. the Student Government Association representing students in Miami-Dade County Public Schools, community-based organizations, the CBOs serving Miami-Dade County Public Schools, the Citizens Participation Groups as applicable and feasible, and we also invited members of our Business and Industry Association serving Miami-Dade County, the Citizens Advisory Groups, and anyone Unable to accept the invitation or unable to attend or to send a representative to that meeting the special board meeting may provide public input at any other school board meeting at any other school board meeting that we have and so I It's clearly articulated right here how the participation and the involvement of the members of our community should be. And I think we need to stay focused on what we approve.

Agreed.

If not, we're never going to end this process.

I agree. Thank you, Madam Chair. You're welcome. Madam Vice Chair.

Yes, and I just have to concur with Madam Chair, what she said. We have to go with what we approve so that we move forward in a steady direction. And I believe that there is ample opportunity for our community to be involved through the website, through our board meetings, through town halls, as many as we would like to have each as a board member. So I just want to concur with you.

Perfect. Thank you. To Board Member Sandoz's point, what I'd like to do is just sort of check off some of these things. Is there consensus to add recruitment to the scope?

Yes.

Yes, I think we definitely need it.

Well... Additional recruitment, I don't want to substitute what we've already done or wait on them to get that done. It's not, if they don't get it done, we can't move forward. If they want to add something and supplement, that's fine.

Okay, thank you.

I would just wait on that until we're all present so that we can, yeah, for me.

At the end of the day, this is simply to get to tee it up a little bit, and we're not taking any definitive action here. This is going to advance the board anyway. So the additional comments were Board Member Alonso wanted a board update on the 13th where we receive the final package. One item that, of course we have the timeframe, one item that Mr. Lechner brought up is, which we can bring up now, well actually hold on, before we get to that point, public interviews on the semifinalists, yay or nay?

I think we definitely need it. I think that's something that when you speak to each board member, you can prepare for next Wednesday's board meeting so that we all vote on it. If we're just asking who's here right now, we say yes.

Right, just to get an idea.

We're still going to give, and I think it's important for Board Chair Rojas and for Vice Chair to know that you're asking this question just for who's here. Obviously, Adam's going to follow up with board members that are missing today to make sure that we can have a constructive conversation.

I agree, but the question is, does the collective that we have here right now, do they want two rounds of interview or just one? It's the difference between interviewing... 20-something candidates potentially in public, or as was done in the past, one round of finalists? Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, sir. I go with one round, just like we did last time. That's my opinion.

Okay.

I agree with finalists, ensuring that, of course, as we always have the right to, we can each reach out individually to anyone who applies to screen.

Okay. There's Board Member Geller. I'd rather keep a little flexibility on our part. Let's see how many semifinalists we have. I'd prefer to have them interviewed publicly, but if there's 20 of them, it's not very practical.

So let's leave it at public interviews and semifinalists optional, and if we pull the trigger on it, we pull the trigger on it. If not, we don't. There's one point that Mr. Lechner brought up that we haven't brought up, which is a rubric, if you will. I mean, so the idea is that we have criteria, and it's not pass or fail, but there'll be checks next to each one of those things. How do you typically... compile that screening material for consumption by board members.

So step one is what does that rubric look like? So obviously we would want to align it to the board's job description, what you post out there. Um, uh, but our process is typically like a skilled process and one through four or five across a lot of different dimensions. Uh, but that's just up to how you all want to do your screening. Um, I'm sure Dr. Bagelos, uh, uh, has a process as well, but it, go ahead. Sorry.

Dr. Bagelos, what was, what's been used in the past? I mean, is it just simply. A check box or a dozen or from a scale of zero to five meets all the criteria, meets none of the criteria?

Through the chair in the previous search, we vetted and just went through the initial resumes that were provided to make sure they met the minimum qualifications. Those were provided to the board. The board then selected from all of those applicants the ones with whom they wanted to conduct final interviews. And then we scheduled final interviews in person. There was a scoring rubric that was provided at the time of the final interviews.

Okay. Yeah, I mean, I would, colleagues, I don't know about you, but I would not like a scoring that prevents us from identifying semifinalists where essentially we get equal billing to advance those particular individuals because somebody that may, have something less than another, maybe the person we pick. Maybe we pick the most qualified because they have everything checked off. But, I mean, I think part of the conversation we've had up here is that there'd be, and I think you said it, no filtering.

I agree with what you just said. The way I understood what Dr. Bagos said, I'm okay with it. If there's, you know, five that are minimum criteria or however many there were that were not just very general and we get a checkmark for each, I don't mind if they say, here's a candidate that met four of the five but was deficient in this one by a month or something. That's fine, but what I don't want is I don't want to see numerical scoring. Certainly I don't want to see it coming from any staff, but even from us. Let's just pick the semifinalists. If that's, quote, pass-fail, I'm okay with that because I want us to be able to look at anybody we think is worthy of being looked at as the semifinalists, whether, and I assume most of us will try to interview as many of the semifinalists as we can before we pick the finalists. Thank you, Board Member Miller. Madam Chair.

Thank you, sir. I just want to say the rubric must align to the minimum qualifications. It has to align with the minimum qualifications, and that's what I'm going to keep in mind.

on the rubric question uh first of all dr bagel's draw my memory i don't remember a rubric being distributed in 2022. through the chair there was not a rubric at the time of semifinals like so you'll recall last week right on the special board meeting of the 29th we did the desired attributes there's potential for If the board wished to align a rubric to that, they could. But in 2022, when the board reviewed the applicants, there was no rubric initially at all. The board selected based off of their conversations, the individuals with whom they wanted to meet for final interviews. Thank you. During the final interviews, there was like a little jot down conversation.

Through the Chair, in the attachments that I circulated over the last few meetings we've had, I did put in there a sample non-binding. That's very important, as Board Member Geller said, not that we're submitting numbers and then the numbers will tell us who it is. but rather just a guideline to sort of, as a body, discuss, okay, from those attributes, and of course, minimum qualifications need to be met. We voted on those. Beyond that, attributes and some sort of rubric to guide us. They're not published, they're not aggregated, but I do think that is important, and I did submit one that could anchor our conversation around that. So maybe that needs to be an action point at Wednesday's meeting, or we can do it at the next special meeting, but I do think some guidance on what we are, We adopted 22 sample duties. We adopted a multitude of minimum qualifications. The attributes are long as well. I think minimizing that to like, okay, what are we looking for? Top five and rating as a tool for each of us to use or not use. You don't have to use it.

Vice Chair Colucci.

And I just want to state also, the rubric for me, as a tool, but it's not something that I'm going to bind myself to. Correct, 100%. Because there's some times that you use a rubric and then you meet the person, you discuss with the person, and there's other elements that you can't capture on paper. So that's what my sentiment is on that.

Board Member Geller. And I agree with that. And let me just say, Board Member Santos, I appreciate what you said. But when you say not published, it's all public record anyway. So I just assume not getting – get us into some situation where somebody is going to say, oh, you didn't take the highest ranked. person, how could you take the person who was ranked number four because we're stuck and everybody's going to end up looking at it. I'm just a little nervous about assigning numbers even informally. I'd just as soon not do that. I like whoever said pass fail. If it's somebody that I want to see that we're going to look at as a semi-finalist, I don't care about where they fit on this one or this one or this one. We're looking at the totality of somebody and If they're number two or number three but consistently and they have no weakness, that may be who I want.

So it sounds like, Chair, I'm in the minority on this. I definitely like some objective tools to guide me even in my hiring in my office, but it sounds like we want more flexibility than that. That's okay.

That's all right. And, again, we each can individually deliberate and use whatever metric we want. I think we're at the point where we could probably entertain, if it's the board's, will to recommend approval of the contract with the understanding that there will be a modified framework with our input leaving it general enough because there's still input from other board members at this time to still obtain and incorporate move it is there a second all in favor say aye aye all in favor say nay oh sorry i'll again say nay seeing none that's recommended to the next board and uh do we

have any role or is it strictly the chair that determines whether it's good cause? Can we recommend to the chair that it would be nice if she found it to be good cause?

It'll be on the 13th as a good cause item. If not, we'll just browbeat her. Okay, I think that exhausts the items for the personnel committee meeting. May I have a motion to adjourn?

Move it.

Do I have a second? All in favor say aye. Aye.