All right, we have slowly made our way through the agenda and we are now at board deliberation. I'll wait for Dr. Bitman to return and I'll turn it over to him and he can give us a direction on how we'd like to proceed. >> Welcome back, Dr. Bitman. I'm going to put you right on the spot. Um, we're moving into our board deliberation portion. So, uh, >> fantastic. So, in your packets, you should have a little information in terms of a bio on each of the candidates that we've looked. So, I would ask that you take those out at this time. I'll do a recap of each of the candidates that you have in front of you while you look at your notes and have the information. Again, we're basing this off the community feedback that we've had, the criteria that we've had from over 700 individuals uh through the survey, seven different listening sessions from students, families, staff, administrators, and community. You've had the application materials. You've looked at references. You've learned You've looked at Spark videos on questions that you felt were really important. You now have had an opportunity to narrow that down to five candidates to see in person specific questions related to what you believe, what the community believes, what our stakeholders believe is most important for right now. Our first candidate that we saw, Mr. Josh Anderson, the person who came with significant financial experience, had a small business in our area, etc. Um, brought to you a number of things from both his teaching as well as his uh administrative type experience. The second candidate that we were able to interview, I'm just looking getting my materials here, is Mr. Jim Wagner. Mr. Jim Wagner is a person who has uh significant experience as a superintendent. Started as a teacher and ultimately a principal in St. Cloud. Had superintendent experience in three particular different states. uh and provided an opportunity for you uh again to see some of the conversations around coming out of some significant debt in a district that he came with and then also being able to see some significant increases that folks were able to see in particular student achievement. Just going through the list one moment the next candidate Mr. Dr. Tim Shockenmeer came as a superintendent as well, not too far from Central Public Schools. Talked a little bit about his time as a elementary principal and working through the ranks. He talked a lot about relationships not only with his within his district but also with community. He spoke to some of the achievement gains that they were able to do. Uh and also uh talked about what drove him to think about Forest Lake in terms of the people, the community, etc. Today we had an opportunity to hear from two particular individuals. Becky Broaddier uh who's had some large system experience in Anoka Henipin. She talked about her loyalty and the work that she's done on changing big systems. She spoke about the Reed Act and some of the work that she did along there. She also talked about her experience here as a student, you know, going through the Forest Lake public schools and having a home here and living here. uh committed to this particular uh school district through and through. Our last candidate that we just had an opportunity to meet, Mr. JP Jacobson, serves here in the district. So, you two know him well. His opportunities that he had not only as a middle school principal, someone who was able to bring schools together, but also as a director of teaching and learning. He spoke about some of his some of his experience that he was able to bring here as well and talked a little bit about his commitment not only to achievement and students and the community but just each of you and that opportunity to really build a strategic plan together focusing on the work that is yet ahead. He also spoke about his value in the number of programs that we've been able to develop here in Forest Lake schools and the offerings that we've been able to do. Finally, he mentioned the work that happened through COVID kind of re revvolutionizing the work that happened in a very short amount of time trying to respond to the the district, the community, the needs that came out through such a such an interesting time. So, I'm going to give you a few minutes to look over all the materials you have and then I would ask that you take a look at your matrix that you have in. There's a matrix there. It's 1 through five. A little less complicated as the one before. Again, you do not get a choice to not pick a candidate when you're comparing. Um, again, I would say this is not the opportunity to land on a candidate. This is not the opportunity tonight to pick your superintendent. We still have an opportunity to meet with them again and to hone in on some of the special things that you need in a leader. This is really an opportunity to identify three now the top three that you would like to bring back and have more conversation with. When you are finished with your matrix, I'll take that matrix. I'll enter it into our system and then I'll begin a discussion with the board on where we're at. Are there any questions? Okay. We are ready. Okay. >> All right. >> All right. I now call the special school board meeting for Forest Lake Area Schools back to order. Member clerk, please take the roll call of attendance. >> Okay. Member Christensen >> here. >> Member Tyson >> here. Member Rebeline >> here. >> Member Corkran >> here. >> Member Antonson is here. Member Castle >> here. >> Everybody's here. >> All right. Uh welcome back. Um I'm going to pivot immediately to Dr. Bitman. He's going to share a little bit of information. Then I'll announce the uh the three individuals that uh um were at the top of the rubric and make a motion for their acceptance. >> Great. Dr. >> Thank you. So thank you so much. And again, just commend the board for the massive amount of information you've taken in the continued conversation. Once again, like the other night, the the board was very much in agreement on the top three candidates. And so, I had an opportunity to meet with the vice chair and the chair to go over the results and to share them. So, with that, we have identified three finalists. And with that, I'll turn it back to Mr. Chair. >> Yes. Thank Thank you, Dr. Bman. Um, I will read them in the order that we um interviewed them. Uh so the the individuals that were selected on the rubric uh were Dr. Jim Wagner, uh Mr. Tim Shakamayer, and Mr. JP Jacobson. And with that, um I will make a motion to approve the finalists of Dr. Jim Wagner, Mr. Tim Shakamayer, and Mr. Jacob JP Jacobson for the position of superintendent of schools for Forest Lake Area Schools. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Member Christensen. >> So I So this is just solely based on the rubric. We're not going to have any discussion. >> We can have discussion. That is up to you. >> Can we know what the um >> I want to know the numbers. >> So I can speak to that a little bit. I recommended I did show the numbers to the chair and the vice chair. I because these will be finalists and because they move forward. We would recommend not going through the numbers. >> Uh but certainly it's an opportunity for you uh internally you could certainly do that and or you can discuss the candidates as as you wish. >> The reason we do that is because as an individual goes into a finalist if there's a person with a lot of points and a a person with significantly less that could impact the process. they're going to see the the live stream, the conversation, etc. after this and have a full week. >> And so, we want to make sure that we just identify the top three candidates and recognize that those are the ones that the board was clear about. >> So, you're saying nobody at this table knows the numbers? >> Uh, I shared them with the vice chair. >> Then, I think everyone should know. >> Okay. It's a We would recommend we not do that just because of the candidates or that you or that I work with them offline. >> Can we can do that? Yeah, but I think if two know all should know. >> Yeah, I don't have any problem with that. Um I I think my recommendation based on what Dr. Bitman just said is please reach out to Dr. Bitman should you be interested in individually knowing the numbers? >> No, I'll reach out to you guys. >> Um I just don't want to create a serial meeting >> and I will I will stick around share that information with anyone. >> Could we just pass around a piece of paper that we can look at without discussing? >> Would that violate open meeting law if we did it at the table? it would become accessible. >> Yeah. In in that case, I would >> we can share >> I would defer to to Dr. Bitman's recommendation. >> I >> Yeah, I would I would just say to the board, we can certainly provide that to you. We can do that publicly or privately, etc. The only caution I would give you is again because of the three candidates >> and so the three candidates going into a finalist interview. >> Yeah, I I totally hear it. But I I absolutely understand and I'm I'm happy to share that with the board. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I think you Yeah, I think it'd be great if share the numbers with the board. >> But by that time, we'll have already voted on it. >> No. >> Right. Or what do we say? >> You're we have a motion. I believe we have a motion second to approve the top three candidates based on the numbers. So I will share the numbers with you, but as both the vice chair and the chair have indicated, those were the top three. >> No, I I understand that. I mean, was like the fourth person one point away or was the fourth person four points? You know, >> it was significant. >> The fourth one. Okay, >> that's good information. That's strange, too. Mhm. >> Member Castle, >> I would submit that um it would also place some jeopardy on the candidates that did not make it for their future prospects. If we were to have that at at the meeting now, publicly disclose that >> and the ones that were going to be >> and and the ones here too were all Yeah. But yes, so >> good point. >> I I wouldn't Yes. I wouldn't want to impact their futures in a negative way for certainly positively they were all great candidates. So >> good point. >> Do we have any additional discussion? >> Yes. So are we discussing the candidates like Dr. Bitman said we can? >> Um we we can if we if we >> What do you recommend? >> Yeah, it's really up to you. Boards do that differently. Some take the numbers at face value and say these are what the board has suggested in terms of the three that we move forward. Typically um >> boards boards at times talk about the things that stood out about those particular three three candidates. They also might identify some questions not by person but things that they want to learn more about the three candidates as we think about the next round. So I would just defer to you as a board in terms of the conversation you'd feel comfortable with. Are we you're part of our discussion obviously, right? Um do do we come up with a I mean I'm guessing an entirely new list of questions. >> We will so we can discuss that process once we approve Yeah. Once >> once we approve the three correct correct jumping ahead. >> Nope, that's quite right. I'll pivot back to Dr. Bitman and uh >> we'll get uh the next steps from him. So I do have some questions that are just kind of more clarifying before I go ahead and accept this. Is this the time to bring it up? >> This would be the time. >> Okay. So with um Dr. Wagner, I have talked about um a lot of success that he's had budgetarian districts. Um, I've also brought up that one thing I'd like to know more about is when he talked about teaching and teaching styles, he said that teaching science is teaching science is teaching science. So, just kind of clarifying what he meant around that. um because I know for us in Forest Lake, we've worked a lot on um diverse learning and differentiated learning and so there are different ways that we try to our teachers try to teach to our students because they don't all hear it in the same way. So I would like more clarification on what he meant when he said science is teaching science in science. And then the other thing, if you could clarify, I wasn't sure um what he meant when he brought up the pilot thing and asked about who's involved with that and I said, "Well, I've been involved with commissions with the city." But I didn't know where that was going. Was that just letting us know he's a pilot or did he need more information from us about that? >> I can find out. And then just one more thing is um talked about you know liking Forest Lake, but I wasn't sure what he meant when he said about you know I'm glad I'm here and not the Twin Cities >> because we do a lot of partnering with um metro districts. Um in my director district six I have half of Ramsey County and half of Washington County and that's clearly metro. So if he could explain or you could get that information that would be great. I'd appreciate it. >> Be happy to do that. >> Thank you. >> So I have a question like next steps. So did they have to do a presentation or >> we'll discuss that next? >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Yeah, once we accept the finalist, we'll we'll pivot it back to Dr. Bman and he'll >> explain that and help us understand that. Do we have any other discussion on uh the candidates or do we want to move to that point? >> Well, I mean I Yeah, I mean I was just surprised at the the outcome a little bit. Not that that's you know that we didn't too in ter I mean people that live in our district. I'm surprised that they didn't fare better with in our point system. So I'm surprised I and a little disappointed in that. um I have to say but it the numbers don't lie. They are what they are and um I specifically looked at them so I know they're accurate so I don't really agree but I as a board we will have to agree. So >> yeah surprised. >> Court Christensen. >> No I was also just going to say I mean we had five really great candidates. Um, but I would also say that I am um a little bit I'm surprised um that one person at least is is not um on this list and that was a disappointment. But >> I would just say from a search firm perspective, you as an opportunity have an opportunity to choose whatever candidates you feel are are the best candidates. And so if there's some discussion, you can certainly do that. This is a base for that conversation. Uh the numbers have identified the three candidates, but again, you have some opportunity here to talk about that. >> Yeah, I think I have a I have a comment. I'd like to expand on what said. >> Yeah. >> Um >> having seen the disparity >> um from the top to the bottom with with the way that it worked, I'm I'm actually encouraged. Um I'm very encouraged that this group can come together. I feel that these interviews brought forth a it exposed a lot of unity on this board and we have um we had five solid candidates. I think we have three solid finalists on the table here and that encourages me that I think uh we can make it through this final selection process and and have an extremely successful superintendent moving forward. So that that's my thought. Any other discussion? >> I mean >> anybody >> I am happy with >> it is a big decision. >> I mean and what he just said is very correct and I mean I'm sure at some level it is very hard. I mean because I think any one of those five candidates would make an exceptional leader. So I don't know what you want me to argue the numbers or what I just was asking for a discussion over there. >> I'm I'm a math geek so numbers are >> numbers the numbers are there. All right. Do we have any additional discussion or do we want to move to a vote? Discuss next steps. >> All right. Member clerk, will you please take the roll call? >> Okay. So, we are voting. >> We are voting to accept the uh finalists now. >> Okay. Read them off again, please. >> Uh the finalists include um Sorry, I put that paper down. >> Jim Wagner. >> Um Dr. Jim Wagner, >> Tim Shakamire and um >> Dr. >> Mr. JP Jacobson. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Member Tyson >> I. >> Member Rebeline >> I. >> Member Corkran >> I. >> Member Antonson votes I. Member Castle >> I. >> Member Christensen >> I. >> And the eyes have it. >> All right. The motion prevails. I will now move back to um Dr. Bitman and please help us understand what the next steps are. >> Great. So, we will have uh interviews coming up not this week but the following week at the previously identified dates of the 20th and 22nd. Those dates will be in public. They will be here so the public can come and uh observe just like they were able to do through this process. Um the board will get to decide. I too will send out some questions to think about. Happy to do that. Uh as I did before, I'll send those to the whole board. The board can then work uh with me directly on questions. I will then both work with uh Mr. Chair, Mrs. Vice Chair to look over those as we did before and we can provide an opportunity to to come back so that you have those in advance. This board also asks that we provide an opportunity for candidates to give a presentation as part of that uh report and so I will need some direction from you in terms of that presentation. would say we wouldn't want to talk too much about that right now in terms of topics because you'd give folks an opportunity to to do that. Um, so I'm open to that. Typically, you would work with the board chair and vice chair to kind of narrow that down a little bit. And then once that's finalized, I will communicate that to individuals in terms of how much time you would like them to do and what what topic they have. In addition to that, we would make time typically and you can decide how you want to do this for each of the candidates to spend time uh with the current superintendent being able to talk with them about the school district, the community etc. So those would be the three particular things. Uh one one additional discussion you can think about uh in terms of direction. Some school boards provide an opportunity for those in the audience who observe the finalist interviews to complete a survey on each candidate and then we would then take a recess. Our folks uh at corporate would then put that information together so you could have all the comments and feedback from folks in the audience to review that prior to making a decision on who you might select as a finalist. So again, another point to we've had surveys, we've had videos, we've had listening sessions. So it'd be just one more step from anyone in the audience who would want to do that. >> I would like them. I would too. >> That's an excellent idea because our community and you showed how we had just an outstanding number of involvement. So I just think that's really wise to >> It's so weird that it's so quiet tonight and like >> only Mr. Caldwell was here yesterday >> and and that would be a following day so we could have >> No, that would be that evening. >> Same evening. >> It would be during the meeting. And so we would then after we've had an opportunity to do all of the interviews, they would complete the surveys after each person interviewed. I we would then take a brief recess, typically about 15 or 20 minutes while corporate was able to put all that information together. you would then like you did the other survey comments have access to everything uh so that you can look at that again one more point to do that. We'll then talk about the candidates and then ultimately you as a board will get to be able to weigh in on a one, two or three in terms of the candidates and then uh the expectation would be that that evening you select your next superintendent in terms of entering into negotiations with them and then uh you would do that. You would work with them and negotiations. Uh you can use our firm to support that or you can do that internally with HR. You get to decide how you want to do that. Uh and then that would come back then to the next board meeting for you to approve a contract that you've worked with in terms of the parameters that you've set. >> What questions do you have for me? >> Yes. >> Will there be an opportunity for the follow-up questions as member Tyson has uh asked for that we would be able to clarify something that was not >> clear. Oh, you you mean in the next interview >> at in during the next round? >> Yeah. So, when we do the finalist interviews like we did before, you will be able to ask clarifying questions on the answers that they give. >> Okay. >> Yeah. What we won't be able to do is ask different questions, but if there's a clarifying question, you'll be able to do that. >> Dr. Bman, can you review the public dates again and the time? >> Sure. I don't think I heard a time. >> Really briefly while he's looking that up, I'm just going to add the fact that >> um per a board resolution, we did agree that we were going to record the finalist interviews, but we weren't going to uh live stream them. So, those will be made available um after the fact just like we're doing uh for the semi- finalist interviews here. Um just a clarifying matter there. >> Yeah. So, you said April 20th. April 20th and April 22nd. Joy, is that what you have on your schedule? >> And then we would start at the same time. So 5:15 for coming in where we do a quick recap in terms of the the parameters and then the first candidate would go at 5:30. >> And so I'll send out a schedule to you this week. I'll work with uh Joy to make time so that that individual has time for both presentations as well as uh meeting with the superintendent. >> Okay. So 5:15 both nights. >> Yep. 5:15. Okay, perfect. >> Um, regarding the survey that people are able to um that are in the gallery are able to answer, is that information I know you said it it's shared with us, but is that shared um like some of the other communities? So, like is that shared with the public? Do people other people see that? >> That would be a a board decision. >> So, so far, if we're consistent with the direction we've given for all the other feedback, we would make that available. Obviously, not before the vote, but we would we would make it available to the public. I wouldn't I'm going to take a quick step back and have to speak with folks at our firm because that that is private data until a person is hired. So I would need to look at our talk to our legal firm to see if because that's individual data on a candidate. >> Correct. >> So I'm not comfortable at this point saying what is. But I could certainly let you know from a legal standpoint what's available and then you could decide from there. So, I'd be comfortable saying that we will default on making it available should that opportunity exist for us. >> And and I have a question and maybe you've already answered and I must have missed it, but when they are they going to present on a topic >> or is that what we're going to decide what we want to do and they're going to present on something for their district? >> Yes. So you get to decide as a board what you would like them to present on and then once you decide I'll just communicate that information to them and then work with Joy in terms of the the technology >> and in that in that case to uh avoid a serial meeting of course we'll reach out to Dr. Bitman giving him his suggestions and we'll do our best myself member Corkran to aggregate those suggestions into a a meaningful presentation. Is that the best scenario or would it be better to submit them individually to the board to the board vice chair or board chair? >> I think you would do that right to me just to avoid any perception of conducting business. Joy, >> I heard 5:15 for the meeting on the 420, but then I heard 515 and 5:30 for 421. Which one would it be? >> That's what I had in my phone. 5:30 for 21. >> 21 or 20? >> 22. >> Wait a minute. We're doing two separate day 20 and 22. >> Yes, >> correct. >> Oh, I had 20 and 21 this whole time. Okay. >> I don't have 20 and 22. >> Okay, that's 20 and 42. >> So, the reason that it was not I think originally we had the 21st, but board members had a conflict couldn't be there. >> I have a general appointment that the crown >> 2022 >> 550 >> April 2022. So, I'll just rec. So, we will have on the April 20th and April 22nd. >> Both days they'll start at 5:15. >> Okay, perfect. >> Got it. >> I think we're just tired. >> It's a lot. >> Yeah, it's a lot. >> And I'll send that in. It's >> been a marathon >> as well. >> It is. And just just to clarify the same rule like confidentiality rules apply or not um anything you need to review there that we need to know. >> Yeah. Correct. So um I'll also go over that right before but I'm really glad that you brought that up. So the names are public so that's not a problem in terms of you've already identified that you've approved it. I'll collect the information you have tonight and then I will give that back to you again. you have them in the folders that you have just to maintain the data privacy part of that. Um but the same rules do apply in terms of confidentiality particularly around candidate information and that will remain private um until you make a decision on your final list. >> Okay. >> And then only the selected one individual gets to be public. >> Yeah. There's only and and there's only certain information that will become public and we'll base that off our our legal teams and I'll provide that for you. >> I appreciate that. >> Any other questions for me? >> If we don't have any additional questions, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So, I'll move. >> Do you need papers back? >> Yes. >> Yep. I'll take the folders back and then I'll bring them back for you when we come back and talk about the >> crazy notes I took. All right. >> All right. We have a motion to adjurnn. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All right. Motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed. All right. We are journed. Thank you everybody.