Michigan Department of Education Special Meeting for November 11, 2014


>>ORDER. THANK YOU, EVERYONE. FIRST, I NEED A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ORDER OF PRIORITY.>>SO MOVED.>>SECOND.>>THE MOTION’S BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY “AYE”.>>AYE.>>ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT, MOTION CARRIES. WE HAVE ONE ITEM TODAY AND THAT’S WITH JEFF BROWNLEE, WHO’S WITH US, AND HEATHER CALLAHAN FROM THE TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET TO HOPEFULLY COME TO A DECISION ABOUT A SEARCH FIRM THAT THEY WILL ENGAGE ON OUR BEHALF FOR AIDING US IN THE SEARCH FOR SUPERINTENDENT. SO JEFF IS GOING TO QUICKLY JUST TELL US HOW WE CAN PROCEED TO SHARE OUR RANKINGS, WHICH MOST EVERYONE HAS DONE, AND WE CAN SEE WHERE THAT LANDS AND THEN HOPEFULLY SEE IF WE CAN MAKE A DECISION. SO, JEFF, HOW DO WE MARCH THROUGH THIS?>>SURE. UM, THANKS, JOHN. SO, FIRST, LET ME ASK, EILEEN, I KNOW YOU JUST WALKED IN THE DOOR, BUT IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE YOUR SCORES, IF I CAN JUST GO RIGHT THROUGH THEM AND RECORD THEM ON THIS PAPER.>>I DO. THAT MUCH I GOT.>>YOU WANNA HAND THEM TO ME OR YOU WANNA SAY THEM OUT LOUD? I DON’T CARE.>>YEAH. NO. WHAT I DON’T HAVE ARE MY NOTES BECAUSE THEY’RE ON MY COMPUTER.>>SO IF YOU’LL ALL JUST GIVE ME, UH, 30 SECONDS TO WRITE THESE DOWN.>>NOTE THAT 30 SECONDS IS HAPPENING NOW. [ LAUGHTER ]>>AND I JUST WANT TO SAY–>>SORRY, WAS I SUPPOSED TO PUT THAT TO A VOTE?>>I’VE HAD PLENTY OF TECHNOLOGY CRASHES BEFORE, BUT I HAVE NEVER HAD A COMPUTER CRASH AT THE SAME TIME AS MY CELL PHONE. SO I CALLED THE LOVELY OCTOGENARIAN WHO HAS YOUR THREE-YEARS-AGO CELL PHONE NUMBER, WHICH POPPED UP IN MY– I MEAN, I DIDN’T EVEN KNOW I STILL HAD IT IN MY COMPUTER.>>HMM.>>SO WE CHATTED FOR A WHILE AND– [ LAUGHTER ]>>YOU GOT IT STRAIGHTENED OUT?>>NO-NO, IT’S JUST THAT THE TECHIE’S COMING, HOPEFULLY, BUT ALL MY SYSTEMS ARE DOWN. AND I DIDN’T EVEN HAVE MY CALENDAR, SO WHEN MARILYN CALLED, THANK GOD YOU CALLED, MARILYN, BECAUSE AT THREE MINUTES AFTER TWELVE I THOUGHT, “THAT MEETING MUST BE “AT ONE AND NOT TWO!”>>WELL, THANKS FOR MAKING IT HERE SO WE CAN HAVE A QUORUM.>>OH, I JUST APOLOGIZE PROFUSELY. THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE AND HOPEFULLY IT WON’T HAPPEN AGAIN.>>SO, I HAVE SCORES FROM JOHN, CASSANDRA, MICHELLE, KATHLEEN, DAN, AND EILEEN. RICHARD AND LUPE DID NOT PROVIDE SCORES. UM, SO LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I SEE, BUT AFTER I ASK A FIRST QUESTION, WHICH IS; DOES ANYBODY SEE ANY REASON WITH EITHER FIRM THAT’S AN ABSOLUTE SHOWSTOPPER THAT WE SHOULD DISCUSS.>>THAT IS AN ABSOLUTE–>>SHOWSTOPPER. WE CANNOT DO BUSINESS WITH THIS FIRM OR THAT FIRM BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT YOU SAW.>>I DON’T.>>WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION. THE PROACT, AS I RECALL, SAID THEIR ONLY EXPERIENCE IN MICHIGAN WAS WITH THE EAA, AND I WONDERED IF THAT MEANS THAT THEY WERE THE FIRM THAT SEARCHED FOR SELECTING THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EAA?>>I’M NOT SURE. DID THEY?>>THEY DON’T IDENTIFY IT. THEY SIMPLY SAY THAT THEY WORKED WITH THE EAA. THEY DON’T SAY THAT THEY CONCLUDED A SEARCH, OR THEY DON’T SAY– I’M SORRY, KATHLEEN, THEY DON’T SAY WHAT WORK THEY DID FOR THE EAA. AND IT WAS AROUND THE TIME THAT JOHN COVINGTON WAS HIRED, BUT IT MAY HAVE BEEN FOR OTHER PURPOSES.>>WELL, THAT’S WHAT I’M ASKING.>>YEAH.>>THAT’S WHY I’M ASKING, ‘CAUSE IT WASN’T CLEAR THERE WHAT THEIR ROLE WAS WITH THE EAA.>>WELL, AND THEY ALSO DON’T SAY THAT THEY PLACED HIM.>>RIGHT.>>SO.>>SO MAYBE THEY DIDN’T, BUT I DON’T KNOW.>>I DON’T SEE ANYTHING DISQUALIFYING EITHER ONE.>>AND THE OTHER FIRM ALSO SAID THEY DID WORK WITH THE EAA, SO I DON’T KNOW IF THEY WERE INVOLVED. I’M CURIOUS BECAUSE COVINGTON WAS NOT AN IDEAL CHOICE, I THINK, AND FROM WHAT I READ IN THE PAPERS–>>WELL, IT COULD BE A– I DON’T THINK ANY OF THE SEARCH QUALIFIED.>>REMEMBER, THE SEARCH FIRM DOESN’T MAKE THE CHOICE.>>RIGHT-RIGHT.>>THEY RECOMMEND CANDIDATES.>>I WOULDN’T NECESSARILY DISQUALIFY THEM AS A SEARCH FIRM FROM BEING CAPABLE.>>WELL, THAT WAS THE BIG QUESTION IN MY MIND ACTUALLY FOR BOTH OF THEM.>>OKAY, NOTED. SO, WITH ONE EXCEPTION– I’M SORRY, GO AHEAD.>>I DON’T KNOW IF THIS IS THE PLACE FOR IT, BUT THERE ARE SOME RESERVATIONS I HAVE WITH BOTH AND THEIR EMPHASIS ON WORKING WITH THE BROAD FOUNDATION. ARE THE BROAD SUPERINTENDENTS SCHOOL BECAUSE IT’S AN UNACCREDITED SCHOOL. IT HAS AN IDEOLOGICALLY AGENDA, WHICH I AM VERY SUSPECT OF, AND SO, THAT IS A CONCERN. THEY BOTH EXPRESS AS BEING FOUNDERS AND VERY INVOLVED WITH THAT BROAD ACADEMY. AND, LIKE I SAID, I’VE GOT CONCERNS, BECAUSE IT’S AN UNACCREDITED PROGRAM AND IT IS IDEOLOGICAL. IT’S NOT A NEUTRAL, IT HAS AN AGENDA, A POLITICAL AGENDA, WHICH I’M CONCERNED ABOUT.>>THAT’S REALLY FOR THE REST OF YOU MORE SO THAN IT IS FOR ME. UM… SORRY I’M JUST TAKING A NOTE HERE.>>ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE THAT THEY WOULD PRESENT CANDIDATES FROM THE BROAD SCHOOL? BECAUSE THAT’S OURS TO CHOOSE OR NOT CHOOSE.>>RIGHT. AND I KNOW THAT. YOU KNOW, I THINK– I GUESS IT WAS IN PARTICULAR THE RAY AND ASSOCIATES, WHERE THEY REPEATEDLY SAID THEY WERE ONE OF THE FOUNDERS AND THE MICHIGAN REPRESENTATIVE DOES STILL WORK AND TRAIN WITH THEM. I HEARD THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE, AND I WOULD LOVE TO CONFIRM THIS, THAT TIM QUINN WAS THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY RECRUITED COVINGTON TO COME TO DETROIT. SO, IF THAT’S TRUE, WHEN THAT GETS OUT IT’S GONNA CREATE A FIRESTORM AND I’D LIKE TO KNOW THAT UP FRONT.>>WELL, THE ONE THING THAT ATTRACTED ME TO THE RAY AND ASSOCIATES BID WAS THEIR AFFILIATION WITH COUNCIL OF GREAT CITY SCHOOLS FOR WHOM I HAVE UTMOST RESPECT. THE URBAN SUPERINTENDENT’S ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA. THEY DO LIST THE BROAD URBAN SUPERINTENDENT’S ACADEMY, THE ASSOCIATION OF LATINO ADMINISTRATORS AND SUPERINTENDENTS, AND THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF BLACK SCHOOL EDUCATORS. WITH THAT LIST OF CONNECTIONS, I FELT AS IF WE HAVE THE BEST POSSIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A SEARCH FIRM. I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS TO LOOK AT IS THAT THAT BROAD ACADEMY IS INCLUDED IN A LIST OF BROAD CONNECTIONS NATIONALLY. AND THERE ARE OTHER STATES THAT WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS INCLUDED. I DON’T THINK YOU COULD EXCLUDE A SEARCH FIRM BECAUSE THEY’RE DOING THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL SEARCH.>>RIGHT, NO. YEAH, IF ALL THAT WAS LOCATED WAS JUST THAT, I WOULDN’T– WHEN THEY LIST ALL THESE GROUPS– WHEN THE OTHER GROUP, I THINK, LISTS THE IDENTICAL LIST– WHAT BOTHERED ME WAS THAT TIM QUINN AND MICHELLE KEITH, WHO ARE THE ONES WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SO VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT MICHIGAN ARE FOUNDERS AND AWARD– YOU KNOW, VERY, VERY IMMERSED IN BROAD. IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR PERSONAL DESCRIPTIONS, UM, THEY ARE, UM, UH, VERY CONNECTED WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT AND, UH, ONGOING, UM, TRAINING. AND, UM, THEY SEEM TO REPEATEDLY HIGHLIGHT THAT, ESPECIALLY WITH TIM QUINN. IT MUST HAVE BEEN REPEATED FOUR TIMES ABOUT HOW PROMINENT HIS ROLE IS WITH THE BROAD FOUNDATION. THAT’S WHAT BOTHERS ME. IT’S NOT SO MUCH THAT IT’S LISTED AS ONE OF MANY, BUT THEY’RE USING THAT AS A BIG SELLING POINT AND IT’S NOT SELLING ME. [ LAUGHTER ]>>WELL, JUST BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, DAN, GO AHEAD.>>JUST WONDERING, MICHELLE, ARE YOU ARGUING THAT THEY SHOULD BE SCORED POORLY BECAUSE OF THAT, OR THAT THEY SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM CONSIDERATION BECAUSE OF THAT?>>WELL, WHAT I’M THINKING IS, WE SHOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION AND IT SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR THAT WE HAVE CONCERNS IF THERE’S AN OVER-RELIANCE ON USING CANDIDATES FROM THE BROAD FOUNDATION. THAT WE WANT A VARIETY– I DON’T, YOU KNOW, THERE CAN BE SOME FROM, SOME NOT. BUT I DON’T WANT– I-I WANT-I WANT THAT TO BE, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, TO BE MADE CLEAR THAT WE’RE NOT LOOKING FOR FIVE BROAD CANDIDATES AND ONE NON-BROAD CANDIDATE, YOU KNOW? I– YOU KNOW, WE’RE– I WANT MORE OF A DIVERSITY THAN THAT.>>AND I THINK, MICHELLE, THIS IS– I THINK IT IS CERTAINLY OUR ROLE TO ENSURE AND TO SHAPE THE PHILOSOPHY AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF WHAT WE’RE LOOKING FOR IN A SUPERINTENDENT. I THINK THAT WE CAN, AND WE ALREADY HAVE IN TERMS OF OUR JOB DESCRIPTION, MADE THAT PRETTY CLEAR WHAT KIND OF PERSON WE’RE LOOKING FOR. AND THAT ANY SEARCH FIRM, IF THEY’RE AFFECTIVE IN HELPING FACILITATE A SEARCH, WE CAN DIRECT TO IN THE NATURE AND THE SCOPE OF THE TYPES OF, UH, PEOPLE THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY’RE LOOKING FOR.>>RIGHT.>>I WAS ACTUALLY ENCOURAGED BASED ON, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS WE WERE LOOKING FOR A SEARCH FIRM THAT QUINN, IN PARTICULAR, WAS VIEWED AS BEING SOMEONE WHO COULD FACILITATE ACROSS A RANGE OF, FOR PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES, INCLUDING FOLKS WHO I TRUST ON THE LEFT AND FOLKS ON THE CENTER AND ON THE RIGHT, INCLUDING ROBERTA STANLEY TO OTHERS THAT SAID HE WOULD BE A VERY AFFECTIVE HELP-MATE IN THIS. SO I WAS ENCOURAGED ON THAT SCORE, AND MAYBE THE SEARCH FIRMS, BOTH OF THEM HAVE JUST ‘CAUSE THEY WORK FOR A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT ORIENTED BOARDS, UH, THAT AT LEAST THEY’RE HONEST IN SHARING THE VARIETY OF WHO THEY’RE WORKING FOR. SO GIVEN ALL THAT, UM, JEFF, DO YOU HAVE– YOU WANTED TO LOOK AT WHERE WE’RE SHARING OUR PERSPECTIVE ON THESE TWO, UM, CANDIDATES.>>YEAH, SO, AS I’VE RECORDED ALL THE SCORES FROM THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE SUBMITTED THEM. MICHELLE, YOUR SCORES PRESENTED A TIE BETWEEN THE TWO VENDORS.>>YEAH.>>I CAN’T– CAN YOU SAY THAT A LITTLE LOUDER, PLEASE?>>MICHELLE’S SCORES TIED. SO SHE HAD BOTH VENDORS EQUAL. KATHLEEN, YOU HAD YOURS AT 14 TO 15 IN FAVOR OF RAY AND ASSOCIATES. THE REST OF THE SCORES SHOW A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT GAP IN FAVOR OF RAY AND ASSOCIATES DOWN THE LINE. SO, UM, WHAT I COULD DO IS I COULD SIMPLY AVERAGE THESE AND TELL THE STORY THAT RAY AND ASSOCIATES IS THE PREFERRED, BUT I THINK, UM, BOTH KATHLEEN AND MICHELLE SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS, AND I WOULD ASK IF IT IMPACTS HOW ANY OF YOU WOULD CHANGE YOUR SCORES. BUT CLEARLY, YOU KNOW, BY A SIGNIFICANT MARGIN, RAY AND ASSOCIATES IS CARRYING THESE NUMBERS, AND I CAN DO THE AVERAGES WHILE YOU GUYS TALK ABOUT THEM AND GIVE YOU EXACT SCORES THAT I SEE. UM, BUT THAT’S-THAT’S KIND OF THE WAY THIS-THIS LOOKS RIGHT NOW ON PAPER. IT’S BLACK AND WHITE TO ME.>>AND LUPE AND RICHARD, DID YOU WANT TO OFFER ANY OTHER DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES IF, ON BALANCE, RAY APPEARS TO BE FAVORED BASED ON THE COLLECTIVE RANKINGS OR-OR-OR PERSPECTIVE GENERALLY?>>WELL, I FOR ONE SAID AT THE BEGINNING THAT I WOULD GO WITH THE CONSENSUS OF THE GROUP. SO, THEN, IF THE CONSENSUS OF THE GROUP IS THAT RAY IS THE VENDOR THAT WE WANT TO GO WITH, THEN I CONCUR WITH THAT. RICHARD?>>FINE WITH ME.>>DID YOU SAY FINE WITH YOU?>>YEAH, HE SAID FINE WITH HIM.>>I HAVE A-A QUESTION ABOUT, UM, WITH GO– AND I, YOU KNOW, AM– I THINK THAT’S GREAT, BUT I WONDER IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY– ‘CAUSE I NOTICED THAT– I THOUGHT THAT PROACT WAS A LOT MORE PARTICIPATORY. THE BOARD LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE INVOLVED IN MORE DECISION MAKING AND MAYBE THE OTHER PEOPLE HAVE. IF I’M-IF THAT’S MISUNDERSTANDING ON MY PART, LET ME KNOW. BUT THEY WOULD BE HAVING SOME OPENING DISCUSSIONS WITH, UM, THE, UH, THE BOARD. I’M JUST WONDERING IF RAY AND ASSOCIATES, UH, AND I DON’T– I DIDN’T BRING THE PLANS WITH ME, ‘CAUSE I FORGOT MY COMPUTER.>>YOU CAN BORROW MINE.>>OKAY. I CAN’T REMEMBER IF THEY, IN THEIR TIMELINE, HOW MUCH OF AN EMPHASIS THEY WERE GONNA HAVE AND IF WE CAN HAVE ANY SORT OF, UH, SAY ON, UM–>>YEAH.>>I THINK IT’S BOTH, I NOTICED. KATHY, WHATEVER ELSE YOU WANT TO OFFER, UM, I NOTICED. CASSANDRA AND I NOTICED– I THINK BOTH OF THE PROPOSALS HAD, UM, A FIRST STAGE WHICH WAS BASICALLY INPUT GATHERING AND, YOU KNOW, INPUT FROM BOARD, INPUT FROM OUTSIDE STAKEHOLDERS. ALL OF WHICH WE’VE MARCHED THROUGH OVER THE LAST, YOU KNOW, FOUR MONTHS. THAT-THAT WE HAD BASICALLY DONE THE WORK THAT BOTH OF THEM WERE PROPOSING WAS THE FIRST STEP. AND, THEREFORE, I WOULD SAY WE MOVED THROUGH THAT PART. IN FACT, WE HAD, JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE HAD HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF PUBLIC EMAILS, FACEBOOKS, PERSPECTIVES, GROUP-SHARING THAT GAVE US INPUT, WHICH, AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE AT OUR OWN RETREAT, AT OUR OWN SPECIAL MEETING WHERE WE DIGESTED THAT AND MADE OUR OWN COLLECTIVE. LISTENING TO EACH OTHER. PERSPECTIVE TAKING ON WHAT WE’RE LOOKING FOR ON THE KIND OF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, JOB DESCRIPTIONS. SO I THINK ALL THAT KIND OF 360 DEGREE INPUT PIECE IS DONE. WE HAVE IN HAND. BUT WE-WE DO WANNA MARCH FORWARD NOW WITH THE-THE THOUGHTFUL SOLICITATION PROCESS. SO, AND I-I GUESS, ON BALANCE, UM, THE FACT THAT, OH, IT APPEARED TO ME THAT RAY HAD A LITTLE MORE FULSOME CAPACITY IN JUST THE SCOPE OF THEIR ORGANIZATION AND THEN THE NUMBER AND NATURE OF THE SEARCHES. THEY WERE A LITTLE MORE ATTENTIVE. I MEAN, BOTH WERE KIND OF BOILER-PLATEY, BUT THEY WERE A LITTLE MORE ATTENTIVE TO OUR ACTUAL REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS. UH, AND THE FACT THAT THEY HAD FOUND A PARTNERSHIP WITH A MICHIGAN-BASED RESOURCE WITH SOME CREDIBILITY HERE WAS TO THEIR CREDIT. IT SHOWED A SENSITIVITY TO, AND ALSO JUST AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT’S GOING ON HERE IN MICHIGAN THAT A POTENTIAL INTERESTED PARTY, QUINN, WAS MADE A PARTNER IN THEIR PROPOSAL AND THAT SEEMED TO BE A USEFUL MICHIGAN CONTEXT WHICH WAS ALMOST TOTALLY ABSENT FROM THE OTHER FOLKS’ BID. WHICH WAS, UNDERSTANDABLY, KIND OF OUT OF THE BLUE. SO THAT’S WHY I SCORED THEM RELATIVELY VERY HIGH RELATIVE TO PROACT WHICH WAS ALMOST ALL BOILER-PLATE, IN MY VIEW.>>WELL, I MADE THE SAME OBSERVATION THAT WE HAD ALREADY DONE LOTS OF– PRESUMABLY IT COULD BE REDUCED. THE PRICE WOULD BE REDUCED ACCORDINGLY.>>AND JEFF AND I WERE TALKING BEFOREHAND. I THINK IF WE COME TO A CONSENSUS DECISION, THEN THE NEXT STEP IS TO, UM, SHARE THAT PERSPECTIVE WITH JEFF AND COMPANY AND ENCOURAGE, AND HAVE THEM NEGOTIATE THE FINAL DOLLAR AMOUNT BASED ON WHAT WE NEED DONE WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION OR ENCOURAGEMENT BASED ON A LITTLE SORT OF OFFLINE DISCUSSION JEFF AND I HAD, ‘CAUSE I REALLY DON’T THINK WE NEED EVERYTHING THEY SAID THEY’RE GONNA DO. EITHER ONE.>>I’D SAY, WELL, WE’LL NEED SOMETHING FROM YOU GUYS TO GIVE US THE DIRECTION TO EXACTLY HOW YOU WANT TO SCALE IT DOWN AND WHAT YOU NEED FROM THEM. I’M GLAD TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AND LEAVE THAT WITH HIM, BUT I GOTTA MAKE SURE THAT I’M DELIVERING ON YOUR EXPECTATIONS.>>IS THERE– BECAUSE THE CONTRACT HASN’T BEEN LET, THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I WOULD HAVE IS THERE SOME WAY TO SHOW THEM, REALLY, WHAT WE’VE GOT AND ASK THEM NOT TO RE-BID BUT TO SPECIFY WHERE. WHAT I’M WORRIED ABOUT IS THAT OUR SEMANTICS MAY NOT BE MATCHING UP. I DON’T WANT TO, UH, I DON’T WANT TO DUPLICATE ANYTHING THAT WE’VE DONE, AND, UH, THERE’S ONE OF THESE PROPOSAL TALKS ABOUT BOARD INTERVIEWS, FOR EXAMPLE. UH, WE HAVEN’T, UH, I’M NOT SURE WE WANT TO TRUNCATE THAT PROCESS JUST SO THEY CAN– JUST AS MICHELLE WAS SAYING. SHE’S UNSETTLED ABOUT BROAD APPLICANTS. OTHER PEOPLE MAY HAVE, UH, SPECIFIC CONCERNS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, UM, AT LEAST DISCUSSED. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, WHATEVER WE DO WITHIN THIS, THAT WE DON’T ARBITRARILY DECIDE THAT WE DON’T NEED A CERTAIN STEP. UH, I DON’T KNOW HOW TO GET TO THAT SPOT WHETHER WE SHOULD TALK THROUGH THE FIRST, UM, COUPLE OF STAGES REALLY QUICKLY OF THE, UM, UH, OF THE PROPOSAL AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A CONSENSUS ON WHAT PART OF THIS WOULD NEED TO BE DONE.>>AGAIN, THE-THE WHOLE OPEN MEETINGS THING, LIKE I SAY, IT COMPLICATES THINGS BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE AND HOW YOU WOULD DO THIS. THE NEXT STEP FOR ME, AND UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES. ANYWAY, UM, IS I-I WOULD WANT TO BRING ACCORDING TO MY AVERAGES. WE HAVEN’T DECIDED, FOR THE RECORD. [ LAUGHTER ]>>YOU’RE GETTING THE HANG OF IT.>>LET’S ASSUME THAT RAY AND ASSOCIATES MOVES FORWARD. THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP WOULD BE TO HAVE THEM SITTING RIGHT THERE AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT, “OKAY, AND HERE’S “HOW IT’S GOING TO WORK. “IS EVERYBODY ON THE SAME PAGE?” HOW DOES THAT ALTER THE PROPOSAL? IS THERE, YOU KNOW, A CHANGE IN THAT UP OR DOWN?>>THAT’S, UH, INTERESTING, ‘CAUSE I WAS GONNA ASK, IS THERE ANY WAY OF MEETING THESE PEOPLE?>>I THINK YOU SHOULD.>>ONE OF THE THINGS I THOUGHT WAS THAT IF WE MIGHT LIKE THE PEOPLE FROM ONE OR THE OTHER. BETWEEN ONE OF THEM AND US AND NOT THE OTHER.>>OH, KATHY. I’D HOPE YOU’RE-I HOPE YOU’RE– THAT WOULD TAKE US, AGAIN, ANOTHER HUGE PROCESS.>>NOW THAT THE ELECTION IS OVER, IT’S–>>WELL, IT’S CLEAR WHO’S GONNA BE MAKING THE DECISIONS, RIGHT. WELL, ONE SUGGESTION, IF WE MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE USUAL WAY THESE ARE MADE, WHICH YOU’VE BEEN COACHING US THROUGH, THAT BASED ON OUR RANKINGS, ET CETERA, WE FAVOR ONE, WE NEED TO FORMALLY VOTE ON THAT. THEN POTENTIALLY WE COULD LOOK AT, I WAS JUST EVEN LOOKING AT, UH, THE TIME LINE OR ACTIVITY, WE COULD GIVE SOME GUIDANCE AS A BOARD. WE THINK THESE ACTIVITIES ARE REDUNDANT OR HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE AND WE COULD EMPOWER YOU. I’M TRYING TO PUT YOU IN A POSITION WHERE YOU CAN NEGOTIATE THE FINAL DETAILS OF A CONTRACT SO WE DON’T HAVE A STATE BOARD FULL COMMITTEE MEETING DOING THAT. UM, AND SO THAT– BUT WITH THE GUIDANCE THAT WE ARE MAKING TOGETHER, WE COULD FINALIZE AN AGREEMENT ONCE WE DECIDE ON A FIRM WITH EITHER A MODIFIED SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES, WHICH I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY QUICKLY DO EVEN.>>WE CAN. IT JUST MAKES ME A LITTLE NERVOUS NOT HAVING MY CLIENT, IN THIS CASE YOU, NOT SITTING AT THE TABLE AND NEGOTIATING EXACTLY HOW THINGS ARE GOING TO WORK. I MEAN, IN TERMS OF HAVING PRICING DISCUSSIONS. I CAN DO THAT ALL DAY LONG. BUT I WOULD FEEL A LITTLE BIT ODD REPRESENTING THIS GROUP AND NOT BEING ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS INTELLIGENTLY THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE.>>OKAY, WE DEFINITELY– A NEXT STEP WITH ANYONE WE CHOOSE IS GOING TO BE TO MEET WITH THEM AND TO GO-GO OVER THE WHOLE WORK PROGRAM AND MAKE SURE WE’RE IN SYNC.>>AND I WOULD DO THAT NEXT. I MEAN, I WOULD– BEFORE YOU EVEN WRITE YOUR CONTRACT, I WOULD BRING THEM IN ON THEIR DIME TO SAY, “HERE’S THE EXPECTATIONS. EVERYBODY’S ON THE SAME PAGE.” YOU WALK OFF–>>YEAH, THE RAY ASSOCIATE ONE SAYS DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, AND I ASSUME THIS IS ALL BOILER-PLATE, WHAT THEY DO WITH THE SEARCH PROCESS. IT SAYS, “THE STATE “SUPERINTENDENT SEARCH SERVICE “IS A PROCESS PROVIDED ABOVE “THAT CAN BE ADJUSTED TO MEET “THE SPECIFIC NEEDS OF “THE MICHIGAN STATE BOARD “OF EDUCATION.” SO THEY’RE OPEN TO, UH–>>RIGHT.>>’CAUSE I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT WE WOULD HAVE MET WITH BOTH OF THEM FIRST BEFORE WE’D PICK ONE. BUT WE’RE GONNA PICK ONE AND THEN WE’RE GONNA MEET WITH THE ONE THAT WE PICKED?>>THAT’S WHAT WE DECIDED.>>UM-HMM.>>IT SEEMS A LITTLE BACKWARDS, BUT THAT’S WHAT–>>WELL, AND JUST KEEP IN MIND ALL THAT WE’VE BEEN THROUGH TOGETHER IN THIS. SO LET’S, UH, UM, I THINK– ON BALANCE TO ME, IT’S NOT THAT CLOSE, BUT THIS IS A COLLECTIVE DECISION, SO DO WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON SELECTING A VENDOR AND THEN, JEFF, WE CAN ENTERTAIN DISCUSSIONS ON HOW WE BEST PROCEED TO GET FROM HERE TO A CONTRACT.>>SURE. LET ME READ THE SCORES.>>OKAY.>>OKAY, THESE ARE THE FINAL TALLIES OF THE SIX FOLKS THAT PRESENTED SCORES. SO FOR RAY AND ASSOCIATES, AGAIN, THESE ARE TOTAL SCORES OF THE SIX PEOPLE. TWENTY-TWO, TWENTY-TWO, SEVENTEEN, FIFTEEN, TWENTY-THREE, TWENTY-FOUR. AGAIN, THIS IS BASED ON A TWENTY-FOUR POINT SCALE. FOR PROACT, TEN, SIXTEEN, SEVENTEEN, FOURTEEN, TWENTY, AND FIFTEEN. SO THE AVERAGES ARE RAY AND ASSOCIATES, 20.5 AND THE PROACT AVERAGE IS 15.33. SO, AGAIN, A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT MARGIN THERE BETWEEN THE TWO ON THE AVERAGE.>>WHAT WAS THE RAY ONE?>>THE RAY AVERAGE IS 20.5.>>RAY IS 20.5, AND PROACT IS?>>FIFTEEN POINT THIRTY-THREE.>>AND WE ALL HAVE COMMENTS, I’M SURE, AND I MADE A FEW OF MY OWN, BUT ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR PERSPECTIVES PEOPLE WANT TO SHARE TOWARDS A CONSENSUS POTENTIALLY. VOTE OR DECISION?>>THE ONLY COMMENT I WOULD ADD REGARDING RAY AND ASSOCIATES. THEY DID NOT SCORE ANY ONES. THEY WERE ALL TWOS, THREES, AND FOURS. WHERE YOU HAD SEVERAL ONES FOR PROACT. JUST IN EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL BOXES. SO TO ME IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR BASED ON YOUR VOTING.>>I LIKE THE FAMILIARITY WITH MICHIGAN AND OF RAY, BUT I HAD A QUESTION, AND MAYBE YOU COULD HELP ANSWER IT. ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK THEY, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, RAY AND ASSOCIATES SAID THEY WOULD JUST GIVE US THE FINALISTS, AND I THINK PROACT WOULD INVOLVE THE BOARD IN SELECTING THE SEMIFINALISTS. WOULD IT BE A PROBLEM WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT IF WE KNEW PERHAPS THE SEMIFINALISTS, OR OTHER APPLICANTS, WHY THEY WERE REJECTED AND ON WHAT BASIS? UM, OUT OF THE POOL. WOULD THAT REVEAL THEIR NAMES? WOULD THAT BECOME OPEN?>>MICHELLE, I FLAGGED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE THAT THERE WAS A WHOLE SET OF ISSUES LIKE THE ONES YOU’RE RAISING, THAT AS WE TAKE THIS NEXT STEP AND BEGIN TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY HOW WE PROCEED WITH A SEARCH FIRM, WE NEED GREAT CLARITY ON ALL OF THOSE ISSUES. INCLUDING ISSUES SUCH AS, OH, CAN THE APPLICANTS REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL, AND UNTIL WHEN IN THIS PROCESS? CAN THE SEARCH FIRM SORT OF VET FOR BASIC QUALIFICATIONS? CAN THEY WINNOW THE FIELD IN ANY DEGREE WITHOUT THE BOARD BEING SOMEHOW INVOLVED? WITHOUT VIOLATING THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT? ALL OF THOSE ISSUES YOU’RE RAISING. I THINK A NEXT STEP, AFTER WE ENGAGE WITH A SEARCH FIRM WITH THE AG’S GUIDANCE, IS TO WORK OUT THE DETAILS OF THAT. ‘CAUSE THOSE ARE IMPORTANT AS THE FIRM ARTICULATES THE SOLICITATION. THIS IS HOW YOU WILL BE TREATED. THIS IS WHAT TO EXPECT IF YOU TOSS YOUR NAME IN. THIS IS HOW THIS WILL UNFOLD IN GREAT DETAIL.>>SO, WE WOULD GET A CHANCE TO SEE THE NAMES AND WHY THEY WERE REJECTED?>>WELL, I THINK THAT WE-WE WOULD– WE WOULD COME– WE WOULD HAVE AN AGREEMENT IN THE FORM OF AG OF EXACTLY HOW THAT CAN PROCEED, UH, AND WHETHER WE WANT IT TO PROCEED THAT WAY, YOU KNOW?>>OKAY, SO IT GOES TO THE AG, NOT A–>>WELL, WITH THE AG’S ADVICE, WE WILL MAKE THOSE DECISIONS, BUT THE-THE– THAT’S A SET OF DECISIONS WE NEED TO MAKE AS WE PROCEED, SO–>>OKAY.>>IT INCLUDES– ONE OF THE THINGS THEY SAY IS THAT PROVIDING THE STATE BOARD WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE EACH SEMIFINALIST CANDIDATE INTERVIEW WITH QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION– MICHIGAN BOARD OF EDUCATION.>>AND THAT’S– THAT’S RIGHT.>>I’M WONDERING IF THIS IS OKAY–>>RIGHT.>>UNDER THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.>>RIGHT.>>WHAT HAPPENS– I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION AS MICHELLE. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE ONES THAT AREN’T SEMIFINALISTS? DO WE GET– THEY-THEY ARE THE ONES WHOSE NAMES ARE NEVER PUBLICIZED.>>WELL, THAT’S THE– THESE ARE DETAILS THAT WE NEED TO DEFINE, THE BOARD, WITH THE AG’S ADVICE. ABOUT WHAT WE WANT AND WHETHER WE CAN DO IT THAT WAY. YOU KNOW? SO THAT’S THE NEXT STEP FOR US WITH THE AG’S AND THE SEARCH FIRM. HOW DO– SO I FLAGGED FOR THE AG’S OFFICE. WE’RE GONNA NEED YOUR HELP AND ADVICE ON ANSWERING THESE TYPES OF QUESTIONS AFTER WE MAKE THIS DECISION. YOU KNOW, ONE STEP AT A TIME HERE.>>YEAH, I AGREE.>>SO–>>THE LAST COMMENT I WOULD MAKE FROM A PROCUREMENT PERSPECTIVE BEFORE YOU TAKE YOUR VOTE, UM– THERE IS A PRICE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO FIRMS, AS YOU’RE AWARE. UM, IT’S MY OPINION THAT THE PRICE DIFFERENCE, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE-THE-THE SIGNIFICANT GAP IN SCORING, TO ME I THINK WARRANTS THE EXTRA $10,000 IN BASE PRICE. I– THE NUMBER ONE CONCERN HERE IS QUALITY AND, UH– AND FOR $10,000, I DON’T THINK YOU, UM, SACRIFICE THE QUALITY IF– FROM– WITH THAT RAY AND ASSOCIATES IS THE BETTER OPTION FROM THE QUALITY PERSPECTIVE. I THINK THAT-THAT’S– CONSTITUTES BEST VALUE, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE MOST CONCERNED WITH.>>THAT’S ENCOURAGING. BUT I STILL THINK WE WOULD BE ABLE TO CUT THE PRICE IF WE– THEY DON’T HAVE TO DO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO.>>ABSOLUTELY. THAT’S WHY YOU NEED TO HAVE THE-THE SCOPING CONVERSATION.>>YEAH, OKAY.>>GOOD. THANK YOU FOR THAT PERSPECTIVE AND– ALL RIGHT. UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?>>YEAH, I WAS GONNA ASK– DID YOU SEND THE RFP TO… TO MORE THAN THE TWO FIRMS? OR WAS IT–>>THREE.>>WERE THERE OTHER PEOPLE THAT WERE–>>IT WENT TO THREE, RIGHT? AND– IS THAT CORRECT?>>IT WENT TO MORE THAN THREE. I–>>I KNOW IT WENT PUBLICLY, BUT WE KNOW THAT WE SENT IT SPECIFICALLY–>>YES.>>TO THREE FIRMS AND THEN WE ALSO MADE IT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE TO ANY-ANY FIRM WHO WAS INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING.>>AND THE THIRD FIRM DIDN’T RESPOND?>>THAT’S CORRECT.>>AND JUST-JUST SO PEOPLE ARE CLEAR, THE COMMITTEE THAT DAN CHAIRED IDENTIFIED THROUGH VARIOUS NETWORKS QUALITY POTENTIAL SEARCH FIRMS WHO WERE POTENTIALLY INTERESTED IN BIDDING. AND IN OUR MEETING WITH JEFF AND HEATHER, AS WE GOT STARTED WE AGREED ON OUR SORT OF SCOPE AND IT WAS– THAT WAS SENT TO THOSE SEARCH FIRMS AND WAS PUBLICLY POSTED SO THAT ANY FIRMS COULD LOOK AT IT AND THAT’S WHERE PROACT CAME FROM, TOO.>>OH.>>SO THEY WERE NOT ONE OF THE ORIGINAL THREE.>>I DIDN’T KNOW THAT–>>THAT WAS IDENTIFIED BY THE PRE– YOU KNOW, PRE-PROCESS.>>OKAY.>>SO-SO THERE WAS A OPEN SOLICITATION.>>DO WE HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION?>>YEAH. I– WE DO. SO I MOVE THAT WE, UM, VOTE TO SELECT RAY AND ASSOCIATES AS SEARCH FIRM, SUBJECT TO SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION OF FINAL TERMS WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE.>>SECOND.>>MOTION MADE AND SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.>>AYE.>>AYE.>>AYE.>>ANY OPPOSED? SOUNDS LIKE THE AYES HAVE IT. SO, GOOD. SO PROCEEDING FROM HERE, WHAT ARE SOME DIFFERENT OPTIONS? UM, ONE WOULD BE– I GATHER AND, JEFF, HELP ME OUT– WOULD BE TO HAVE, OH, THEM SHOW UP AS YOU ARE SUGGESTING AND HAVE ANOTHER FULL MEETING WHERE WE, UH, DISCUSS DETAILS OF THE SEARCH AND-AND DETAILS OF A CONTRACT FOR MUTUALLY AMENABLE BEFORE YOU LET SUCH A THING. ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE THAT WE TALK NOW A BIT ABOUT WHAT ARE SOME POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE CONTRACT AND, UH, HAVE A, UH, DISCUSSION WITH THEM– WITH YOU ALL, AND MAYBE A REPRESENTATIVE OR COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD IN THAT DISCUSSION REPRESENTING THE SPIRIT OF THE BOARD, KNOWING YOU’RE NEGOTIATING THE CONTRACT. I’M NOT PUSHING– OR MAYBE THERE’S A THIRD OPTION. I’M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE GET FROM HERE TO THERE AND TO THE DISCUSSION WITH THE SEARCH FIRM ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT WE’RE LOOKING FOR. MAYBE IT’S ANOTHER FULL GROUP MEETING. I WOULD SORT OF LIKE TO GET THEM UNDER CONTRACT AND THEN HAVE THAT BIGGER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DETAILS OF THE SEARCH.>>THE ONLY DIFFICULTY FOR THAT WITH ME IS-IS PUTTING A PRICE AROUND AN UNKNOWN. UM, UH, AGAIN, IF I HAD IT MY WAY, IT WOULD BE TWO OR THREE PEOPLE GET IN A ROOM AND HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THESE GUYS TO MAKE SURE IT’S UNDERSTOOD AND, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE SMALL COMMITTEE, UH, REPRESENTING, YOU KNOW, ALL THE VIEWS THAT NEED TO BE REPRESENTED HERE. UM… YEAH.>>THE-THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT BETWEEN PAGE FIVE– THE PROPOSAL RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS– AND IS IT PAGE NINE? WHERE THEY LIST A TIMELINE– THEY HAVE PRETTY MUCH ADDRESSED THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT I THINK ALL OF US WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE SEARCH. I’M JUST NOT SURE WHAT, IF ANY, WE CAN DROP OUT FOR COSTS SAVINGS. NO, IT’S JUST FOR– IT’S JUST ALL THE THINGS THAT THEY’VE GOT. I MEAN, I’M PRESUMING THAT-THAT, UH, WE ALREADY DID THE, UH, WORK THAT WAS NECESSARY TO GAIN THE PUBLIC INPUT THAT WAS NEEDED.>>RIGHT.>>RIGHT.>>SO, UM, BUT WE DIDN’T– THEY HAVEN’T TALKED TO EACH OF US INDIVIDUALLY. THAT KIND OF THING, SO–>>AND IT’S– IS THAT NECESSARY, GIVEN WE TALKED TO EACH OTHER INDIVIDUALLY ABOUT WHAT WE’RE LOOKING FOR?>>I THINK– I THINK IT IS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE ARE– CERTAINLY MICHELLE RAISED SOME RED FLAGS FOR HER. THEY SHOULD BE AWARE OF THAT. SO, UM–>>AND I’M NOT OPPOSED TO THAT. I’M JUST TRYING TO SEE WHAT– WHAT HAVE WE DONE FRUITFULLY TOGETHER IN TERMS OF A CONSENSUS SORT OF VIEW, UM– I DEFINITELY AGREE. THE FULL– THE ONLINE AND INPUT FROM OTHERS AND OTHER ASKING OF INPUT FROM THE FIELD, WE HAVE DONE. SO THAT WOULD BE CERTAINLY THE ONE PIECE THAT WOULD DROP OUT.>>THAT’S– I-I– YES. I THINK THAT THE THINGS THAT ARE ON THE TIMELINE THAT ARE STICKING POINTS THAT THERE ARE– I-I-I LIKE ALL OF THE WORK SCOPE ON PAGE FIVE EXCEPT FOR A COUPLE THINGS THAT I THINK WE’VE ALREADY DONE. WHEN-WHEN IT’S STAGGERED OUT HERE IN THE TIMELINE, IT BECOMES A LITTLE MORE CONFUSING BECAUSE– IT SEEMS LIKE WE’VE DONE QUITE A BIT OF IT.>>WHAT IS NUMBER SEVEN, ANYWAY?>>YEAH.>>CAN YOU-YOU PROPOSE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS HOW WE CAN PROCEED? CAN WE CHOOSE A SCENARIO THAT WE’RE GOING TO PROCEED WITH? I LIKE THE IDEA OF, UM, MAYBE TODAY LOOKING AT THIS PROPOSAL AND-AND OUTLINING THOSE THINGS THAT WE THINK WE STILL NEED TO CONTINUE WITH AND WHAT THINGS WE HAVE– WE THINK WE HAVE ALREADY DONE? I LIKE THE IDEA OF MEETING THEM IN PERSON. IF WE’RE GONNA HIRE THEM FOR– THIS IS A MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT, AS A BOARD MEMBER, WE DO. AND IT IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. WE’RE GONNA HIRE SOMEBODY THAT’S GONNA COST A LOT OF LOT OF MONEY TO HELP US WITH THIS PROCESS. I LIKE TO MEET THEM. I LIKE TO-TO, UM, BE ABLE TO– ALL OF US– ASK QUESTIONS, WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE. I WANNA MEET THE-THE VENDOR. THE COMMIT– THE COMPANY. WHATEVER THEY’RE CALLED. UH, BUT I– I THINK THAT, IN MY MIND, INSTEAD OF SCRAMBLING HERE AND THERE, WE NEED A CONCRETE SCENARIO THAT WE’RE GOING TO FOLLOW. WE’RE GOING TO DO THIS AND THEN WE’RE GOING TO DO THIS AND THEN WE’RE GOING TO DO THIS. IF IT TAKES ANOTHER MEETING, IT’S THAT IMPORTANT. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. SO WE HAVE TO FOLLOW A PROCESS, AND IF WE CONTINUE…>>I WOULD SAY THAT, UM– BUT I– ALTHOUGH I APPRECIATE THE OFFER TO HAVE ONE-ON-ONE MEETINGS. (COUGHING) BLESS YOU, I THINK.>>THANK YOU. [ LAUGHING ]>>FOR A COUGH. UM, I MEAN, IF WE JUST MET– IF I DIDN’T HAVE– IF WE MEET AS A– HAVE THIS COMMITTEE MEET AND THEN ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO COME, EITHER BY PHONE OR, UM, IN PERSON WANTED TO COME TO EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS OR VIEWS– I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE IN THAT WAY, EXPRESSING MY CONCERNS. I WOULDN’T NECESSARILY NEED A ONE-ON-ONE MEETING. I’M NOT SHY ABOUT HOW I FEEL, SO, UM, IF THAT WOULD MAKE IT ABLE TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS AND EXPEDITE THE PROCESS. SO, UM, I’M WITH THAT–>>THEY’LL DO SKYPE AND GO TO MEETINGS. THEY’LL DO ALL THAT STUFF INDIVIDUALLY. IT CAN BE VERY QUICK. IT CAN BE LIKE A DAY IN WHICH THEY TALK TO EACH OF US AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY’S COMFORTABLE ON-ON SKYPE, SO–>>WELL, I– CERTAINLY, I’D BE THE ONE– IF WE WANTED TO HAVE ONE-TO-ONE MEETINGS, THAT’S PART OF THE– UH, ONCE THEY’RE FORMALLY ENGAGED, THAT’S PART OF THEIR– THEIR PROCESS AND OUR PROCESS TO MAKE SURE WE’RE ENDING UP, YOU KNOW, HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I’M JUST– I’M TRYING TO BE VERY CLEAR ON HOW WE GET FROM HERE TO–>>NEXT.>>WE JUST VOTED TO SELECT THEM CONTINGENT ON WORKING OUT THE DETAILS. SO HOW DO WE, UH, MAKE SURE WE WORK OUT THE DETAILS OF THE BROAD SCOPE AND THEN ENGAGE THEM IN OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT FRAME EXACTLY WHAT WE’RE GOING TO GO DO? I MEAN, ONE IDEA MIGHT BE TO HAVE– I-I-IT SOUNDS LIKE THE ONLY THING IN THEIR WORK PLAN FOR SURE THAT WE WOULD WANT TO DROP OUT IS THE PUBLIC INPUTTING PROCESS, WHATEVER THAT IS, RIGHT?>>FOR SURE.>>SO, UM, WE COULD, UM, EMPOWER A COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OR THE PRESIDENT TO SIT DOWN WITH JEFF AND THEM AND JUST NEGOTIATE THE FINAL TERMS. AND IT’S REALLY JEFF AND COMPANY MAKING THAT ARRANGEMENT BASED ON DROPPING OUT THAT PUBLIC ITEM IF AT ALL.>>RIGHT.>>AND THEN WE BRING THEM IN AND GET STARTED WITH THE FULLER DISCUSSIONS WITH US ABOUT THE WHOLE SCOPE– NATURE OF THE WORK. UM, WOULD THAT WORK FOR PEOPLE? AND, JEFF, DOES THAT WORK– WOULD THAT WORK FOR YOU, IN TERMS OF APPROPRIATE PROCESS? UM, YOU WERE SAYING MAKE THEM FLY IN ON THEIR DIME AND HAVE THAT NEGOTIATION? OR WAS THAT MORE–>>I-I MEAN, WE CAN MAKE THIS WORK. HOWEVER ALL YOU W-WOULD LIKE TO. UM, IT’S JUST MY PREFERENCE THAT YOU GET IT ALL IN THE CONTRACT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. UM, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, YOU SEE THIS TIME LINE HERE AND THEIR RESPONSE. THAT’S CLEARLY GONNA HAVE TO CHANGE, UH, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT’S NO LONGER OCTOBER.>>RIGHT.>>UM, MY FEAR IS THAT IF WE REMOVE ONE THING OUT OF THIS AND-AND DON’T HAVE THAT DISCUSSION, THEN ALL OF THIS GOES INTO A CONTRACT AND THEN THE FIRST TIME YOU SIT DOWN WITH THEM YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION AND YOU HAVE THAT, “OH, THAT’S WHAT YOU MEANT. WELL, HERE’S WHAT WE WERE THINKING.” ALL OF A SUDDEN WE’RE DOING A CHANGE NOTICE TO A CONTRACT AND ONLY TWO WEEKS INTO IT. SO THAT’S THE ONLY REASON WHY I’D PREFER TO HAVE THAT, YOU KNOW, MEETING OF THE MINDS EARLIER THAN–>>UM-HMM. I DO TOO.>>SOONER THAN LATER.>>THAT-THAT MAKES SENSE.>>WELL THEN, CAN WE– CAN WE HAVE A, UH, MEETING WITH THEM WHERE WE NEGOTIATE THE FINAL TERMS? THAT IS, A COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD, OPEN TO ALL AND NOT HOSTAGE TO HAVING A QUORUM FOR US TO PROCEED IF-IF– AS WE DID WITH OUR SOLICITATION OF THEM PROCESS. IT’S-IT’S DTMB THAT IS MAKING THE AGREEMENT, UH, BASED ON A SENSE OF DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD. SO WE-WE-WE DON’T– WE-WE NEED TO AVOID MAKING DECISIONS AS A BOARD. IN THIS CASE, ENTERING THE CONTRACT WOULD BE YOUR DECISION BASED ON FULSOME INPUT FROM US. SO WE COULD CALL A MEETING WITH THEM– WITH THE COMMITTEE. WE COULD DO THE SAME COMMITTEE– ME, CASSANDRA, AND EILEEN JUST AS A NUCLEUS, WITH OTHER MEMBERS INVITED. JUST TO WORK OUT THE DETAILS AND HAVE MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT WE’RE DOING. IF WE MAKE AN AGREEMENT, WE– LET’S GET STARTED. THEN WE– THEN WE TAKE THE NEXT STEP, WHICH IS– THE NEXT STEP. A FULLER CONSULTATION WITH ALL OF US AND MAPPING OUT THE TIME FRAME.>>YUP, SOUNDS GOOD.>>WOULD THAT BE COMFORTABLE FOR PEOPLE?>>UM-HMM.>>YUP.>>WELL, I GUESS. [ LAUGHTER ]>>ANYBODY STILL ON THE PHONE?>>SOUNDS GOOD.>>OKAY. SO, WE WILL, UH– AND YOU THINK IT’S APPROPRIATE IN TERMS OF TREATMENT OF THEM? UH, JEFF? THIS IS ALWAYS A LITTLE DIFFERENT WORKING WITH US IN THE PUBLIC– WE JUST TOOK A VOTE TO ENGAGE– CONTINGENT ON WORKING OUT THE DETAILS– RAY AND ASSOCIATES. SO WE’LL HAVE A COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE BOARD, UH, WITH, UH, WITH DTMB AND RAY ASSOCIATES TO, UH, TRY AND NEGOTIATE THE FINAL TERMS OR TO PROVIDE BOARD INPUT INTO DTMB’S NEGOTIATION OF THE FINAL TERMS WITH RAY AND ASSOCIATES. IS THAT THE RIGHT WAY TO PUT IT?>>YES. I WOULD– I GUESS I WOULD, UM, ARTICULATE IT THAT WE’LL-WE’LL HAVE A MEETING WITH DTMB AND A COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD TO, UM, FINALIZE THE SCOPE OF THE DEAL AND, UH– AND THEN FROM THERE, DTMB CAN DRAFT THE CONTRACT AND THE PRICING SCHEDULE ACCORDINGLY.>>OKAY. AND ASSUMING THIS ALL WORKS, THEN IT STARTS– WHY DOESN’T ANYBODY SHARE ANY PARTICULAR REFLECTIONS ON WHAT THEY DON’T THINK IS NEEDED IN THE SCOPE. I THINK THE ONE PIECE IS THE PUBLIC INPUT, BUT THERE’S LOTS OF READJUSTMENT THAT WOULD BE MADE, UH, BASED ON THIS FURTHER DISCUSSION. AND I DO THINK, THEN, WE HAVE ANOTHER ROUND OF PLANNING TOGETHER ON EXACTLY WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE WITH IN– WITH A LOT OF INPUT FROM THE AG ON EXACTLY HOW WE WANT TO AND HOW WE CAN MANAGE THE PROCESS. TO BE APPROPRIATE TO THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND-AND BE IN LINE WITH WHAT WE– WE AS A BOARD WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN TERMS OF TREATMENT OF CANDIDATES, ET CETERA.>>RIGHT. SO I-I THINK WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN FROM THIS POINT REGARDING THE CONTRACT– UM, OBVIOUSLY IT’S A NEW SITUATION FOR ALL OF US WORKING IN THIS SORT OF COLLABORATIVE APPROACH, WHICH IS A GOOD THING. [ LAUGHTER ] UM– I-I WOULD SUGGEST WE HAVE THAT– THE MEETING THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT AND CLARIFY THE SCOPE AND WE DO THAT AS SOON AS WE CAN POSSIBLY GET IT SCHEDULED. UM, WE WILL– THIS IS JUST– THIS IS PROBABLY DANGEROUS. I’M THINKING OUT LOUD HERE. UH, HAVE RAY AND ASSOCIATES– ASSUMING IT’S A POSITIVE DISCUSSION– UM, COME BACK WITH, UH, ANY DRAFT CHANGES TO THEIR PROPOSAL AND, UH, I’D PROBABLY ASK FOR IT IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FORMAT THAN THIS SO WE CAN EASILY INCORPORATE IT TO A CONTRACT AND MAKE THAT PROCESS AS SEAMLESS AS POSSIBLE. SO BASICALLY ASK THEM FOR A STATEMENT OF WORK, IF YOU WILL, THAT GETS-GETS ATTACHED TO, UH, OUR CONTRACT. BUT I DON’T THINK WE’LL GET INTO A WHOLE LOT OF DETAILS ABOUT THE– HOW YOU WORK WITH ONE ANOTHER. WHAT I’M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT IS-IS THE OUTPUTS. RIGHT? YOU GET PAID WHEN YOU DO X, Y, AND Z. AND LEAVE IT AT THAT. THE WORKING RELATIONSHIP, I THINK– I THINK YOU CAN WORK THAT OUT, UM, BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE– AND THE FIRM AND YOUR ATTORNEYS.>>OKAY.>>I THINK BOTH OF THEM SAID THEY WOULD WANT TO BE PAID IN THREE INSTALLMENTS? ONE WHEN THE CONTRACT IS SIGNED AND ONE AFTER WE DO– THEY DO SOMETHING–>>A LITTLE LOUDER, PLEASE, KATHY.>>OH. I SAID IN THE– B-BOTH OF THESE PROPOSALS, THEY-THEY SAID THAT THEY PROP– THEY WILL BE PAID– THEY’RE PROPOSING THAT THEY BE PAID ONE-THIRD WHEN THE CONTRACT IS SIGNED, ONE-THIRD WHEN CERTAIN THINGS ARE DONE, AND ONE-THIRD AT THE END. UH, WHEN THE PERSON IS PLACED. IS THAT STAND– THEY PROBABLY THINK THAT’S STANDARD, BECAUSE BOTH OF THEM SAID THE SAME THING.>>AND WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. UM, I– TO ME THAT’S-THAT’S PROBABLY THE LEAST IMPORTANT PIECE OF ALL THIS IN TERMS OF-OF-OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE IN THE CONTRACT. MY POINT WAS I DON’T INTEND FOR THE CONTRACT TO, UM, SPECIFY HOW YOU INTERACT WITH ONE ANOTHER AND TO COVER ALL YOUR OPEN MEETINGS AND CONCERNS AND ALL THAT. THAT’S NOT GONNA BE ADDRESSED IN THE CONTRACT. THAT’S SOMETHING YOU’LL ALL NEED TO WORK OUT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND YOUR ATTORNEYS AND HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING. IF YOU NEED THAT TO BE IN THE CONTRACT, THEN YOU BETTER LET ME KNOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, ‘CAUSE I’M GONNA HAVE TO START MAKING STUFF UP.>>NO, I-I AGREE COMPLETELY.>>SO YOU WANTED US TO LOOK AT WHAT– JOHN, WHAT-WHAT SHOULD BE DELETED NOW?>>JUST A GENERAL SENSE OF WHAT– OF ANY– OF ANYTHING THAT, UH, YOU THINK SHOULD INFORM THIS DISCUSSION OF THE OVERALL SCOPE. THE STUFF IN THEIR PROPOSAL THAT YOU THINK WE’VE ALREADY DONE. UM, AND WE’LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT TOO.>>I’LL GO FIRST.>>OKAY.>>NUMBER SEVEN ON PAGE FIVE. THAT’S THE ONE THAT’S–>>WELL, WHEN I WENT THROUGH PAGE FIVE, UH, I REALLY FELT THAT THE ONLY THING THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE, UH, THAT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT, UH, WAS, UH, THE THIRD ONE. REVISING PAGE NINE AND TEN. BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE THAT’S HERE, UM– UH, YOU COULD TRY TO SKIP NUMBER SIX, WHICH, UM, IS THE SAMPLE LETTER STAGE, BUT KEEPING EVERYTHING CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I BELIEVE IS ONE OF THE BEST THINGS THEY’LL OFFER US– NUMBER SEVEN. “PROVIDE A PROVEN CONSENSUS BUILDING MECHANISM FOR OBTAINING INPUT FROM VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS AND THE BOARD– THE BOARD.” I REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE, IF WE GO TO EVALUATE, LIKE SOMEPLACE IN HERE HE TALKS ABOUT EVALUATING THE CANDIDATES AND THEY HAVE A MODEL FOR THAT. AND I THINK THAT WHEN WE HIRED, UM, UH, MIKE THAT ALL OF US HAD DIFFERENT SYSTEMS GOING ON ON PAPER TRYING TO MATCH UP THE QUALIFICATIONS WITH THE PERSON. SO HAVING A CONSISTENT MODEL ACROSS THE BOARD FOR DOING THAT WOULD BE REALLY GOOD. I’M NOT SURE SEVEN IS THE RIGHT ONE. I’M SORRY. IT’S SOME PLACE IN HERE. IT’S THE CANDIDATE SCREENING. HANG ON. CHECK REFERENCES. THERE’S SOME PLACE IN HERE. HERE IT IS. IT’S THIRTEEN. NOPE, THAT’S NOT IT EITHER. UH, HERE IT IS, FOURTEEN. PROVIDE AN IMPARTIAL AND OBJECTIVE CONSENSUS BUILDING MATRIX INSTRUMENT TO ASSIST THE BOARD IN DETERMINING THE FINALISTS. SO ALL I WANT TO DO IS LOCK INTO WHAT THEY– HOW THEY DO THAT AS EARLY AS WE NEED TO. AND IT MAY NOT BE– IT MAY BE THAT SEVEN IS NOT NECESSARY, ‘CAUSE IT’S FOR STAKEHOLDERS.>>YEAH.>>YEAH.>>BUT FOR THE BOARD, THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT’S–>>I-I THOUGHT TWO AND SEVEN WAS WE– BASICALLY WHAT WE’D DONE QUITE SUCCESSFULLY TOGETHER.>>WELL, THE BOARD– BOARD MEMBER INTERVIEWS. I THINK IN– THAT’S THE INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBER INTERVIEWS. THAT’S THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH EVERYBODY BY SKYPE.>>WELL, IT-IT STILL MAY BE A GOOD THING TO DO BOARD INTERVIEWS AS WE MOVE AHEAD. I JUST THINK– I THOUGHT THEIR NUMBER TWO WAS, UM, TO DEVELOP CRITERIA AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT. THAT’S WHAT WE DID TOGETHER. SO IF THERE’S A DIFFERENT PURPOSE FOR DOING BOARD MEMBER INTERVIEWS JUST TO GET– TO GET FORWARD-LOOKING ISSUES AROUND THE SEARCH A LA WHAT MICHELLE RAISED, IT STILL COULD BE A GOOD THING TO DO.>>WELL, THAT ONE– WHEN YOU FLIP OVER TO PAGE NINE– UH, WE DON’T NEED THAT IN THE TIME LINE AT ALL, SO–>>RIGHT.>>WE DON’T NEED THE– YOU KNOW, START FROM SCRATCH, TALK TO THE BOARD MEMBERS.>>RIGHT, RIGHT.>>BUT IT-IT DOES– THERE IS A CONSTRUCTIVE MOMENT WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, TALKING TO THE EX-OFFICIAL, MEMBER– THE GOVERNOR’S EDUCATION ADVISOR– WOULD BE SMART FOR THEM. UH, AND I THINK JUST THE OPPORTUNITY. INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS COULD SAY, “I DON’T NEED TO DO THAT.” YOU KNOW? OR, “I WANT FIVE MINUTES.” IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE EXTENSIVE. AND, LIKE, IF THEY DO IT BY SKYPING, IT’S JUST A PHONE CALL. LUPE, DO YOU USE SKYPE? YOU DO TWITTER. THIS IS THE MOST TECH–>>I DO EVERYTHING.>>YOU ARE A SLEEPER. I DON’T DO ANY OF IT EXCEPT SKYPING. ‘CAUSE I-I MEAN SHE SITS THERE AND YOU JUST DON’T KNOW IT, BUT THIS IS A TWITTER, FACEBOOK KINDA GIRL, AND I BARELY DO ANY OF IT, SO…>>ANY OTHER THOUGHTS RIGHT NOW? AND YOU CAN SHARE THEM– SO THE COMMITTEE WILL BE THE FORM– THE– I’M ASKING MYSELF, CASSANDRA, AND EILEEN TO BE THE COMMITTEE, UM, AND LET’S, UH– WHO CAN ORCHESTRATE THE MEETING BETWEEN MARILYN AND JEFF IN YOUR OFFICE? LET’S TRY TO GET THIS SCHEDULED. AND IS-IS IT REQUIRED THAT THEY BE HERE IN PERSON IF THEY HAVE TROUBLE GETTING HERE?>>UM, I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL.>>YEAH.>>I WANNA SEE THEM IN PERSON.>>IT WOULD BE NICE FOR THEM TO MEET US OR FOR US TO MEET THEM. NOT JUST THE COMMITTEE.>>TRUE. THAT’S A GOOD THING.>>FLESH AND BLOOD.>>SO CAN WE DEMAND– CAN WE ASK THEM TO DO THAT ON THEIR DIME WITHOUT A CONTRACT?>>I CAN ASK ANYBODY TO DO ANYTHING.>>ARE YOU– REALLY?>>YEAH.>>BUT IS THAT YOUR– IS THAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION?>>YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.>>OKAY, ALL RIGHT. SO–>>IF-IF THEY’RE INTERESTED.>>IF THEY WANT THE CONTRACT, THEY’LL COME.>>YEAH.>>AND THEN THERE’S SOME SENSE THAT THEY’RE LIKELY TO– IT’S LIKELY TO WORK OUT, WE JUST VOTED TO PICK THEM IF WE CAN WORK IT OUT.>>YEAH. IF THEY DON’T COME– IF THEY DON’T WANT TO COME ON THEIR DIME, THEN I GUESS THEY DON’T WANT IT VERY BADLY.>>RIGHT. NOW DO YOU– DO YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED TO HAVE THE PROTEST TIME OR IS THAT AFTER A CONTRACT IS NEGOTIATED?>>NO. UM, I DON’T– I DON’T SEE ANY REASON WHY WE CAN’T PROCEED WITH THAT.>>OKAY.>>SCORING VARIATION IS BIG ENOUGH.>>YEAH. YEAH, I DON’T. THERE’S-THERE’S NOTHING HERE.>>OKAY. SO YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED IN TERMS OF MATERIAL TO HAVE A, UM–>>YOU FEEL ANY DIFFERENTLY?>>CREDIBLE SCORING, UH, CONSENSUS EMERGE?>>YES.>>OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO, MARILYN, CAN YOU WORK WITH THESE GUYS TO TRY TO ORCHESTRATE THAT MEETING AS THE NEXT STEP? I WILL, AGAIN, TICKLE THE AG’S OFFICE THAT WE’RE GOING TO NEED THEIR INVOLVEMENT AND THEN EVERYBODY SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN THIS NEXT MEETING IF THEY CAN, TO HAVE THAT KIND OF DISCUSSION. BUT THEN WE’LL– IF WE MAKE A DECISION, WE’LL PLOT THOSE MORE FULSOME ACTIVITY TO FLESH OUT THE PROCESS FROM HERE. THAT MAKE SENSE?>>I WOULD JUST ASK, UM– MARILYN, I’M GONNA THROW YOUR NAME OUT THERE, SO IF YOU’RE NOT OKAY WITH THIS, LET US KNOW. IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS, PARTICULARLY AS YOU LOOK AT THIS PROPOSAL PAGES FIVE AND SIX, WHICH IS REALLY WHERE THEY KIND OF LAY OUT WHAT THEY’RE GONNA DO, IT MIGHT NOT BE A BAD IDEA TO HAVE A SET OF NOTES WITH EVERYONE’S PERSPECTIVES ON THIS STUFF AHEAD OF TIME.>>OKAY.>>SO WE KNOW THAT WE’RE ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. ‘CAUSE THE WORST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN IS YOU FLY SOMEBODY IN– OR THEY FLY THEMSELVES IN, IN THIS CASE– AND YOU SIT DOWN AND GO, “SO WHERE DO WE START?”>>HAS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT ANY OF THESE PROPOSALS?>>UM, I DON’T KNOW. I DON’T THINK SO.>>WELL, NOW THAT THEY ARE– NOW THAT WE’RE CHOOSING–>>RIGHT. SO NOW I– RIGHT.>>THAT THERE’S ANY THINGS THAT ARE CONTROVERSIAL OR NOT LEGAL, THEY CAN PICK THEM OUT.>>YUP, THAT WE CAN DO. WE CAN SHARE THIS WITH WHAT’S HER NAME AND ASK HER–>>MICHELLE BRYA?>>WHO– RIGHT. UM, I-I-I’LL– WHY DON’T I DO THAT, MARILYN, AND ASK HER– AGAIN, WE’RE GONNA NEED SOME HELP RESOLVING SOME ISSUES AS WE FRAME AHEAD. AND HERE’S– WE’RE GONNA BE TALKING MORE ABOUT THIS. SO-SO WHY DON’T YOU SEND– EVERYBODY SEND MARILYN IF THEY’VE GOT SPECIFICS AS WE WERE JUST NAMING ISSUE– THINGS THEY– I THINK THIS MEETING IS– HOPEFULLY– WHILE EVERYBODY SHOULD COME AND GET A FEEL, HOPEFULLY IT’S ABOUT PRECISELY NARROWING A BIT OR AGREEING ON A CONTRACT THAT INCLUDES MOST OF THESE ACTIVITIES, BUT MAYBE A FEW THAT, UH, WE FEEL WE’VE ALREADY DONE. AND THEN WE-WE MAP OUT THE FULLER PROCESS AFTER THAT. EVERYBODY OKAY?>>UM-HMM.>>OKAY. LISTEN, THANKS– LET ME– PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STATE BOARD EDUCATION MEETING. MARTY? [ LAUGHTER ]>>I CAN’T THINK OF A RESPONSE TO THAT.>>OKAY.>>OH.>>UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS FOR THIS MEETING? ALL RIGHT, ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. THANKS, EVERYBODY.>>THANKS, BILL.>>THANKS.>>AGAIN, MY APOLOGIES.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *