Superintendent Murley's Calm Seas, Smooth Sailing

April 29, 2010, 7:00 a.m.
[May 2 Addendum on UIHC "patient satisfaction," at bottom of entry.]

[This is the eleventh in what is, as of this morning, an eleven-part series on the Iowa City schools' selection of a new superintendent: "School Boundaries: There Are Better Ways," April 16, 2010 (with links to 23 prior, related blog entries and other writing); "How to Pick a School Superintendent; And My Questions for Candidates," April 17, 2010; "Bringing Home the Bacon and Bezek," April 20, 2010, "ICCSD's Triple Play: From Bezek to Murley to Meeks; Bezek Can Talk the Talk -- On Four Hours' Sleep," April 21, 2010; "Hurlyburly Over Murley," April 22, 2010; "IC Board Peeks at Meeks; Brad Meeks Rounds Out Three Finalists," April 23, 2010; "Finalists Responses? Decision Sunday? Finalists Offered Last Word," April 24, 2010; "IC Supers' Email: Bezek Responds, Murley & Meeks Don't; Constituent Relations Important -- But No Deal Breaker," April 25, 2010; "Where There's No Smoke There's No Fire; How Many School Board Members Does It Take to Screw Up a Superintendent Selection?" April 26, 2010; "School Boards, Superintendents, Contracts & Candor; The End of the Beginning But 'What Did They Know and When Did They Know It?'" April 28, 2010.] (Photo credit: The Gazette.)

The Morning After the Night Before
and "Compared to What?" ICCSD vs. UIHC
(Brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Following the confusion Tuesday night regarding what the Board knew and did, and when they knew and did it (see "School Boards, Superintendents, Contracts & Candor; The End of the Beginning But 'What Did They Know and When Did They Know It?'" April 28, 2010), by the following morning the Gazette's Gregg Hennigan was talking to ICCSD President Patti Fields, the Board members were saying how enthusiastic they were about Steve Murley and why, and Murley was continuing to say the right things with skill.

You don't pull up your tomato plants two days after you plant them to see how the roots are doing, and you don't judge a new superintendent two days after the Board says he's hired. But, as the English channel swimmer told the inquiring reporter right after she dived in, "So far so good."

Here are this morning's reports on who said what yesterday: Rob Daniel, "Board impressed by Murley's enthusiasm; Superintendent pick stood out, members say," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 29, 2010, p. A1; Gregg Hennigan, "Plenty of Issues to Greet New Superintendent in I.C.," The Gazette, April 29, 2010, p. A3; Keith Uhlig, "Departing Superintendent Won't Receive Severance or Bonus Pay," Wausau Daily Herald, April 29, 2010.

"What We've Got Here is a Failure to Communicate"

As our sensory inputs get filtered through the electro-chemical soup that is our brain, and come out as human language, it is indeed a miracle that there is as much understanding among us as occasionally occurs. (See, Wendell Johnson, "The Communication Process and General Semantic Principles.")

And so it was the evening of April 25 after the School Board discussed the three finalists in closed session, and President Patti Fields responded to reporters' questions. See "School Boards, Superintendents, Contracts & Candor; The End of the Beginning But 'What Did They Know and When Did They Know It?'" April 28, 2010.

I am about as certain as I can be that there was no malevolence on either side. Patti, aware of what she could, and could not, tell the media tried to relay something without giving away what was apparently the fact at that time: by the end of its meeting that evening the Board had, for all practical purposes, come to a unanimous agreement to hire Murley. All that was left were the contract details.

What she said (based on the newspapers' reports, and with some approximation by me), was seemingly technically accurate. That is, until contract terms have been agreed to the Board has not picked its superintendent. So to say Sunday evening that the Board hadn't reached a decision, that no one had been eliminated, that it might hold another closed session, and that she hoped there would be a decision to announce in the next few days, was from her perspective literally accurate and the equivalent of saying, "We've unanimously chosen the one we want, but we won't be announcing anything until the contract is agreed to."

However, the professional journalists from the Iowa City Press-Citizen, The Gazette, Wausau Daily Herald -- and the amateur blogger who is myself -- were certainly reasonable, from their perspective, and within the context of what they were asking, to interpret what she said differently.

When they are asking whether the Board has made a choice, it is not unreasonable for them to interpret what they are told as a reply to that question. And "no decision," "no one has been eliminated," "we may have another closed meeting," and "we hope to have a decision in the next few days," in normal, day-to-day colloquial speech can most reasonably be interpreted to mean, "No, we have not yet been able to settle on whom we want."

And in this context, the exchange between Hennigan and Fields set forth yesterday in "School Boards, Superintendents, Contracts & Candor; The End of the Beginning But 'What Did They Know and When Did They Know It?'" April 28, 2010, regarding the distinction between "may" and "expect to" hold another closed session is kind of beside the point. Any reference to a future meeting, regardless of what words preceded it, in the context of the questions asked and the responses provided, further supports the reasonable inference that no decision had been made.

In retrospect, as suggested in that blog entry, perhaps Patti should have stuck with, "as they said at the outset, 'We have nothing to announce this evening. Once a finalist has been selected and a contract agreed upon and signed, we will let you know.'" That would have been far better than either (a) refusing to talk to the media at all, or providing them only a "No comment," or (b) using language that risked the misunderstanding that ultimately resulted, through no real fault on the part of the reporters it seems to me.

On the other hand, the reporters might have done more. Presumably they (and I) knew the process: Board members settle on a first choice and then try to work out the contract; meanwhile they announce nothing to any of the finalists, media or public (in case they end up needing to go back to one of those rejected); once the contract details are settled on the announcement is made. With that understanding, and years of experience trying to get a straight answer out of institutional leaders, they (we) might have framed some more penetrating questions than "have you made a decision?"

We still don't know exactly what happened Sunday evening, nor what happened between then and Tuesday night's meeting. But unless something sufficiently dramatic about either comes to my attention in the next few days, it's my intention that this comment is the last you'll see in this blog on the subject/s.

Compared to what?

Much in life must be addressed as Henny Youngman responded to the man who asked him, "How's your wife?" to which he replied, "Compared to what?"

Well, compared to the UIHC, the ICCSD's public/media relations rank right up there with the slickest and most professional New York, Los Angeles, or Washington public relations firms.

You don't know the story?

It turns out the hospital just found out that it somehow overlooked billing patients for $11 million worth of services. I never had that problem with them. My problem was getting billed twice for the same service. (Although I'm quite willing to grant that it was in all likelihood the result of the same kind of incompetence and lack of management oversight, not dishonest, knowing double-billing.) But wouldn't you think you'd discover a shortage before it reached $11 million? I would; I enter every receipt, every check, every weekend. If I'm off by a nickel I have to try to remember when and where I put it into a parking meter. Don't they do anything like that?


What makes it worse, it was an audit by the Regents that discovered the shortfall, not the UIHC's audit, or management oversight. (Photo credit: Opoien, Iowa State Daily, February 4, 2010 meeting.)

B.A. Morelli, "Audit finds $11M UIHC billing error; Regents also approve a 6% rate increase at meeting," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 29, 2010, p. A1; and the DI's two, page one, above-the-fold stories this morning, side by side: Emily Busse, "UIHC Missing $11 Million," The Daily Iowan, April 29, 2010, p. A1, and Nora Heaton, "UIHC To Raise Its Rates," The Daily Iowan, April 29, 2010, p. A1.

But here's the kicker: If you have any public relations sense at all, you don't announce that you've lost $11 million the same day you announce a 6% increase in your rate card, a $73 million new outpatient clinic in Coralville, . . .



. . . all while making a herculean effort to explain why "The problems were not because of a new $60 million hospital computer system called Epic" -- a computer system that has been widely criticized for a variety of reasons. (Video credit: benhillmedia; full disclosure: actors include son, Jason Grubbe (Actors Equity), Jim Van Valen, and Martin Andrews.)

Why, that would be like announcing you're no longer going to let patients park for free while they wait hours beyond their appointment time, at about the same time you announce the first question you're going to put to patients when they check in will be, "Hey, would you like to make a 'voluntary' contribution? How much?"

Oh, they did that, too? And they were all going to go to Disney World in Orlando to find out how to improve patient satisfaction?

Oh, well, never mind.

So we do need to put the Board's media relations this week into some kind of perspective. Compared to the UIHC the School Board is spectacular.

_______________
Patient Satisfaction

Here is some dramatic testimony regarding patient frustration with UIHC, and a Press-Citizen column on the subject.

I have written at some length before about "patient satisfaction" at the UIHC, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "Mickey Mouse Patient Satisfaction; UIHC's Troubles: Is Orlando the Answer?" November 8, 2009.

The serious-while-lighthearted column is by former City Council member Bob Elliott, "Cheaper customer service training," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 30, 2010.

But the most serious commentary about UIHC patient satisfaction is found in a comment entered online about Bob Elliott's column by one of the hospital's frustrated, unsuccessful-want-to-be patients:

catdancing

NickIowa,
I read your blog and I couldn't agree more on the problems at UIHC. Right now I'm in the process of trying to find another place to go for medical care. The last couple of times I tried to make an appointment, I was stuck on hold for an hour. The first time I did get through and was told that the next appointment time was six weeks from then. I had an infection in my ear lobe that was oozing pus, swollen lymph node in my neck, low grade fever. The second time I gave up. My right foot is swollen, painful, possible hairline fracture. My left hip hurts so much (probable result of limping) it keeps me awake nights. This has been the case for five months.
My insurance was through IowaCare which meant I had to go to UIHC or IowaCare wouldn't pay for it. I dropped coverage because I was paying for care I could not access. Now I have no insurance and nowhere to go and no option except to wait for Medicare to kick in.
This is beyond a customer service problem. This is systemic.
5/2/2010 6:25:17 AM

_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

School Boards, Superintendents, Contracts & Candor

April 28, 2010, 6:15 a.m.
Now with 7:00 p.m. Addendum at bottom of blog entry: "So What Really Happened?"

[This is the tenth in what is, as of this morning, a ten-part series on the Iowa City schools' search for a new superintendent: "School Boundaries: There Are Better Ways," April 16, 2010 (with links to 23 prior, related blog entries and other writing); "How to Pick a School Superintendent; And My Questions for Candidates," April 17, 2010; "Bringing Home the Bacon and Bezek," April 20, 2010, "ICCSD's Triple Play: From Bezek to Murley to Meeks; Bezek Can Talk the Talk -- On Four Hours' Sleep," April 21, 2010; "Hurlyburly Over Murley," April 22, 2010; "IC Board Peeks at Meeks; Brad Meeks Rounds Out Three Finalists," April 23, 2010; "Finalists Responses? Decision Sunday? Finalists Offered Last Word," April 24, 2010; "IC Supers' Email: Bezek Responds, Murley & Meeks Don't; Constituent Relations Important -- But No Deal Breaker," April 25, 2010; "Where There's No Smoke There's No Fire; How Many School Board Members Does It Take to Screw Up a Superintendent Selection?" April 26, 2010.]

The End of the Beginning
But 'What Did They Know and When Did They Know It?'
(Brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
The ICCSD School Board has selected Steve Murley, Superintendent at Wausau, Wisconsin, to be Superintendent Lane Plugge's replacement starting July 1, 2010. It represents the end of the beginning of the a new superintendent's tour of duty, but only the beginning of what we all hope will be a long, productive and progressive experience for Steve Murley, the Board members, and community alike.

You read it first right here, last evening at 7:15 p.m. (The Press-Citizen had the story posted online by 7:52.)

This morning that paper, and The Gazette, had further details in the hard copy and online editions. Rob Daniel, "District hires superintendent; Murley to take over position July 1," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 28, 2010, p. A1; Gregg Hennigan, "Iowa City School Board Hires Wisconsin Superintendent to Lead District; No Decision Reported After Board Members Met Sunday Evening," The Gazette, April 28, 2010, p. A1 (the link goes to the early evening Gazette Online story and does not contain everything in the hard copy version, discussed below); Keith Uhlig, "Superintendent takes Iowa job; Wausau to begin search for new school boss," Wausau Daily Herald, April 28, 2010; Holly Hines, "Murley to Be New Iowa City School District Superintendent," The Daily Iowan, April 28, 2010.

There's not much new information about Murley in those stories. But we are left with some disturbing questions about the process followed by the Board in arriving at its decision, and the candor with which it communicated about that process to the public and media.

If you're interested in how we got here, the nine prior blog entries on the process and the finalists are linked at the top of this page. The most directly applicable to Murley are "Hurlyburly Over Murley," April 22, 2010, and his statement for this blog at the bottom of "IC Supers' Email: Bezek Responds, Murley & Meeks Don't; Constituent Relations Important -- But No Deal Breaker," April 25, 2010 (he and Meeks both responded, but too late to modify the blog entry headline).

I concluded the last blog entry with an excerpt:

Steve Murley wrote, in pertinent part, "You stated that, 'Indeed, one should be extremely suspicious of anyone who would be willing to be considered for the job of working with such a school board.' Your comment was made in reference to concerns that you enumerated about the lack of a clear governance system, delineation of measurable goals, discussion of educational innovations, and absence of metrics for results measurement related to boundary changes. I am in full agreement with you that these are indeed important issues for the Board to tackle. However, the absence of these does not indicate to me that the Board has chosen to ignore them or that the Board thinks they are unworthy of attention."

That is an observant, insightful, well written and very positive and politic statement. Any superintendent who comes here acknowledging concerns regarding our Board's "lack of a clear governance system, delineation of measurable goals, discussion of educational innovations, and absence of metrics for results measurement related to boundary changes," and can articulate it in a way that expresses optimism in the possibility of solutions -- not to mention still be hired! -- is starting off on the right foot so far as I'm concerned.

"What Did They Know and When Did They Know It?"

None of what follows reflects in one way or another on Steve Murley.

As for the Board, however, the take-away from Daniel's and Hennigan's stories (and an earlier one in the Wausau paper) is troubling.

How and when did the Board actually make this decision? Were its statements to the media and public deliberately designed to be misleading? Was its process legal? Even if legal, does it owe the public and media more candor?

As Hennigan writes in the early Online edition,

Fields said the board was unanimous in its support for him. The board met for two and half hours Sunday night in closed session, but Fields said afterward they had not come to an agreement on whom to hire.

She also said the board expected to hold another closed session to discuss the matter further. If the full board met again, it does not appear it sent out notice of the meeting, as is required by state law.

It’s not clear when the board made its decision. The board is currently holding its regular meeting and is not available for questions.

The hard copy this morning continues,

Murley said he had been in talks with the board, its attorney and the search consultant on and off since Sunday evening. Fields did not say what Murley's salary will be. Murley said they were still negotiating that.

[In fairness to Board President Patti Fields, although I'm not sure it doesn't increase rather than decrease the total confusion, she has put the following comment on the Gazette Online version of Hennigan's story about 8:00 a.m. this morning: "Greg, since you and I spoke late on Sunday night maybe you don't remember what I said. I did not say the board expected to have another closed session, I said that we had the option and we had until Monday night to add it to our agenda. For clarification, until an agreement is reached all candidates are still in consideration. The board did not meet again and it is concerning to make such allegation without actually talking to any board member."]

[And now, in fairness to Gregg Hennigan . . .. I know this is getting to sound a little silly; like, why don't I just hold their coats and let them fight? But because this blog endeavors, at least on some occasions, to be "the blog of record," and because Gregg has provided a somewhat detailed explanation of what happened, I have set it forth in full at the bottom of this blog entry.]

Not incidentally, the Wausau Daily Herald story this morning, linked above, continues to report his current, 2009-10, salary at Wausau as $152,700 (in contrast with an earlier local news story saying it was in excess of $200,000).

Rob Daniel reports, above,

The selection followed a closed session special board meeting Sunday night after which Fields said no decision had been reached. She said Tuesday night that the selection of Murley was a unanimous decision. . . .

Murley said he received the first draft of his contract from district attorney Kirsten Frey earlier Tuesday. He deferred to the school board on how the offer was made to him.

Fields said the board was talking with Murley as early as Sunday, but no official decision was made.

"Until an offer is made and accepted, everyone is still in play," she said.

Fields said the board does not need to vote in open session when selecting a candidate for a position like superintendent, but the board will need to vote when it decides what will go into Murley's contract. The final salary and benefits package are still in the process of being negotiated, but Fields said the board expects to vote on the contract at one of its meetings in May.

At the outset the Board seemed to indicate that its process would involve (1) making its first choice from among the three (which would not be announced at that time), followed by (2) a time for negotiating the terms of a contract, following which (3) an announcement of their choice would be made once the contract was signed. (Unfortunately, I cannot recall off the top of my head which paper this was in and when, but I suspect it is reproduced somewhere in this series of ten blog entries.)

At a minimum, it would seem that process was not followed. (a) If the terms of the contract are still being negotiated, and are going to be voted on "sometime in May," it seems to me there is still the possibility, however remote, that this is not yet a fully done deal. (b) Both Daniel and Hennigan report they were told "no decision had been reached" at the Sunday night meeting. The Board said at that time that no one had been eliminated. (As late as yesterday morning's edition, the Wausau paper was reporting that "School Board President Patti Fields said the board hoped to have a decision in the next few days." "Superintendent Awaits Job News," Wausau Daily Herald, April 27, 2010.) (c) Thus, I think one can fairly conclude that either a decision was reached sometime between Sunday night and Tuesday evening at 7:00 p.m., or that the Board was not candid in saying Sunday night that no consensus had yet emerged. Which would be worse?

Where, when and how was the decision arrived at?

The Board says that it "does not need to vote in open session when selecting a candidate for a position like superintendent."

There are two issues here. (1) Are there circumstances when the open meetings law permits a school board to hold their discussions in a meeting not open to the public and the media? The answer to that is, "yes." (2) Was what they did, and the way they did it, legal under the terms of the open meetings law and its exceptions? The answer to that question turns on facts that are not now available to us; but from a first glance it looks like the Board may have violated the law -- and certainly the public's trust and confidence.

(What follows is based on my memory, not legal research. It is not a "legal opinion," it is a blogger's, and former school board member's opinion. So if you really care about this stuff, and need to know the law precisely, talk to a lawyer.)

The question is not whether it's possible to meet in closed session, the question is how Board members are to go about doing that. The law requires all Board meetings to be open meetings, and that, in turn, requires prior notice of the meeting, a public agenda, and other things.

Once a legal open meeting has begun, it is possible for a Board member to make a motion that the Board go into a closed meeting -- stating the legal justification for doing so. That motion is voted on, and if passed, the closed meeting begins (and must be tape recorded).

Without going into detail about what exceptions to the open meetings law permit closed meetings, it is certainly possible to make the argument that a discussion of the merits and demerits of a potential hire -- or whether or not to terminate an employee -- could sometimes justify a closed session.

Following the closed session, the Board is required to come back into open meeting before adjourning, and to vote in open meeting on anything requiring a vote.

Thus, had the Board gone through this process, it could have announced and held another open meeting between Sunday evening and Tuesday evening; at that meeting it could have gone into closed session and agreed on the finalist with whom it wished to try to negotiate a contract.

However, it does not appear to have done that.

If it believed that it could continue a "rolling" meeting from which it never adjourned until last night, it was in error. If the Board members got together for another, secret and unannounced meeting, they were in error. If they continued talking by non-synchronous phone and email messages, during the course of which a de facto decision gradually emerged, they were in error.

If they in fact had arrived at a decision Sunday night -- given that they then announced they were unanimous in eliminating no one, and now say they were unanimous in choosing Murley -- they were unnecessarily duplicitous in saying they had made no decision.

They could have simply said, as they said at the outset, "We have nothing to announce this evening. Once a finalist has been selected and a contract agreed upon and signed, we will let you know."

They did not. As Hennigan reports, they said they "had not come to an agreement on whom to hire [and that] the board expected to hold another closed session to discuss the matter further."

As with former President Nixon, the question is, "What did they know and when did they know it?"

While we wait for those answers, meanwhile we can congratulate the Board for getting this choice behind us -- or at least almost nearly so, once the contract is negotiated, signed, and voted on by the Board.

Now we welcome Steve Murley to Iowa City, look forward to getting to know him better, and the governance policy and management tools he will bring with him and work through with our Board.

7:00 p.m. : Addendum: So What Really Happened? Here's Gregg Hennigan's take:

Fields explains superintendent selection process

Posted on Apr 28, 2010 by Gregg Hennigan.

IOWA CITY – How and when did the Iowa City school board makes its decision to hire Stephen Murley as the next superintendent?

There was some confusion Tuesday night, as you can see from the story here.

I spoke with board President Patti Fields Wednesday morning.

First, some background. The school board met Sunday night in closed session, with the goal of picking a new superintendent.

I talked with Fields after the meeting. My first question was whether they had made a decision. She said the board was “still working through our process.”

I asked her what that meant and whether they had made a selection. She said that the board hoped to have something figured out in the next three days and that they had not eliminated any of the three candidates.

She also said the board could meet in another closed session to discuss the matter further.

We didn’t hear anything more until Fields announced Murley’s hiring Tuesday night.

Wednesday morning, Fields said she was not trying to be misleading the other day. She said board members were unanimous in naming Murley their “preferred” candidate, but in case they couldn’t reach an agreement with him, they did not rule anyone out.

“We can’t even say we’ve ‘selected,’” Fields said, “because when you start saying you’ve selected, then it means you also threw (out) the other two.”

She said she had to choose her words carefully on Sunday. I wish I had asked her then if they had a “preferred” candidate.

By the way, the Press-Citizen ran into this issue of semantics too.

Patti, I may have to give you the “Meet the Press” treatment from now on.

(That is a joke. Fields and I had a very good talk this morning.)

On to her comments on the GazetteOnline story. I initially wrote that she said Sunday that the board “expected” to hold another closed session.

I quickly changed that to “may” in subsequent updates and for the newspaper, but I apologize for the poor word choice in the first update.

And on her other point, I did not have a chance to talk with board members Tuesday night. Fields made the announcement during the board meeting, and the meeting continued, without a break, until well past our deadline. I did not allege that they broke the open meetings law. I just pointed out that if they met, they did not send out the required notice.

Believe me, I wanted to ask some questions.

Gregg Hennigan, "Fields Explains Superintendent Selection Process," Gazette Online, April 28, 2010.

_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

Where There's No Smoke There's No Fire

April 26, 2010, 6:15 a.m.

Update April 27, 7:15 p.m.: It's Steve Murley! (see below)

Update April 27, a.m.: ICCSD President Fields says decision in "next few days," link below.

[This is the ninth in what is, as of this morning, a nine-part series on the Iowa City schools' search for a new superintendent: "School Boundaries: There Are Better Ways," April 16, 2010 (with links to 23 prior, related blog entries and other writing); "How to Pick a School Superintendent; And My Questions for Candidates," April 17, 2010; "Bringing Home the Bacon and Bezek," April 20, 2010, "ICCSD's Triple Play: From Bezek to Murley to Meeks; Bezek Can Talk the Talk -- On Four Hours' Sleep," April 21, 2010; "Hurlyburly Over Murley," April 22, 2010; "IC Board Peeks at Meeks; Brad Meeks Rounds Out Three Finalists," April 23, 2010; "Finalists Responses? Decision Sunday? Finalists Offered Last Word," April 24, 2010; and "IC Supers' Email: Bezek Responds, Murley & Meeks Don't; Constituent Relations Important -- But No Deal Breaker," April 25, 2010.]

How Many School Board Members Does It Take to Screw Up a Superintendent Selection?
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
April 27, 7:15 p.m.: Tuned into the Tuesday evening Board meeting on cable, and caught the Board members referring to scheduling a meet and greet with "Steve" once he gets a break in his schedule, and other remarks relating to the selection of a superintendent, which makes it virtually certain that the remarks must have been preceded with the announcement of their selection of Steve Murley as the superintendent to replace the departing Lane Plugge. By 7:52 it was confirmed by the Press-Citizen: Rob Daniel, "District Names New Superintendent," Iowa City Press-Citizen Online, April 27, 2010, 7:52 p.m.

What follows is the April 26, 2010, blog entry as entered that morning:
_______________
No puff of white smoke emerged from the ICCSD Central Administrative Office last night; nor, apparently, did much of anything else emerge, except for seven undecided school board members who simply gave up and went home after a 2-1/2-hour discussion. Rob Daniel, "School board: No decision yet on superintendent; Board members may discuss hire Tuesday," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 26, 2010, p. A1.

I do have sympathy for them. I do. I've been there, done that. I'm grateful they're willing to serve -- up to and including giving over their Sunday evenings to Board business.

But honestly, what does it take to get a decision, a commitment, out of this gang? It's four months they've been at this; see, "The Plugge Era: 1999-2010," December 24, 2009; "School Board Can't Do Job? There They Go Again," January 7, 2010 (and roughly a year on boundary changes yet to be decided). As I understand it, they've had the input of a search committee, a full list of possibles, two rounds of interviews with the three who became finalists, each of whom on this last round spent a day of tours and meetings in the District, capped off with a 45-minute "meet and greet" with the public and an hour-plus in a public interview Q-and-A on camera. Board members have had the benefit of numerous newspaper stories and opinion pieces in the three local newspapers (and, he adds modestly, now nine all-too-lengthy entries in this blog, linked above). They've had plenty of time to do their own, individual calling around the finalists' communities. The video of the public interviews were supposed to have run over this past weekend; so there's been at least as much exposure of the finalists to the general public as there usually would be -- with an opportunity for individuals to pass along their reactions to the Board.

Board members have essentially four possible choices: one through three are to select any one of the three finalists; choice four is to reject all three and do another search. The Gazette reports that the Board is leaning in none of those directions: "as board President Patti Fields put it, members have not eliminated any of the three candidates." "No Decision Yet on New IC Superintendent," The Gazette, April 26, 2010, p. A3. The Wausau Daily Herald reports that "School Board President Patti Fields said the board hoped to have a decision in the next few days." "Superintendent Awaits Job News," Wausau Daily Herald, April 27, 2010.

Our Board members are well educated, experienced, well-intentioned, politically sensitive and otherwise able individuals -- unpaid volunteers, generously giving of their time. The problem seems to be, as is so often the case with boards without a fully considered and applied governance model, what happens when they try to function as a group. See Patti Fields Blog.

You may have seen this poster about "Meetings," with the caption: "None of us is as dumb as all of us." [Credit: Despair, Inc.]

Offered an opportunity to have the "last word" in this blog series (see "Finalists Responses? Decision Sunday? Finalists Offered Last Word," April 24, 2010), Steve Murley did his best to come to our Board's defense; see "IC Supers' Email: Bezek Responds, Murley & Meeks Don't; Constituent Relations Important -- But No Deal Breaker," April 25, 2010 (contrary to the heading, Murley did respond, but too late to make the original publication, so was inserted at the bottom of the original blog entry; and as of late morning today Brad Meeks also had a reply, also at the bottom of that blog entry).

Steve Murley wrote, in pertinent part, "You stated that, 'Indeed, one should be extremely suspicious of anyone who would be willing to be considered for the job of working with such a school board.' Your comment was made in reference to concerns that you enumerated about the lack of a clear governance system, delineation of measurable goals, discussion of educational innovations, and absence of metrics for results measurement related to boundary changes. I am in full agreement with you that these are indeed important issues for the Board to tackle. However, the absence of these does not indicate to me that the Board has chosen to ignore them or that the Board thinks they are unworthy of attention."

In short, in my words: "wherever our Board members may be headed, they just ain't there yet."
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

IC Supers' Email: Bezek Responds, Murley & Meeks Don't

April 25, 2010, 8:00 a.m.
2:30 p.m. update: Murley responds (see bottom of this entry)
April 26, 9:30 update: Meeks responds (see bottom of this entry)

[This is the eighth in what is, as of this morning, an eight-part series on the Iowa City schools search for a new superintendent: "School Boundaries: There Are Better Ways," April 16, 2010 (with links to 23 prior, related blog entries and other writing); "How to Pick a School Superintendent; And My Questions for Candidates," April 17, 2010; "Bringing Home the Bacon and Bezek," April 20, 2010, "ICCSD's Triple Play: From Bezek to Murley to Meeks; Bezek Can Talk the Talk -- On Four Hours' Sleep," April 21, 2010; "Hurlyburly Over Murley," April 22, 2010; "IC Board Peeks at Meeks; Brad Meeks Rounds Out Three Finalists," April 23, 2010; and "Finalists Responses? Decision Sunday? Finalists Offered Last Word," April 24, 2010.]

Constituent Relations Important -- But No Deal Breaker
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Yesterday I reported that I'd emailed an offer last Friday to each of the three finalists for the ICCSD superintendent position. It was an offer to reproduce in this blog, without editing or responsive comment from me, any last minute message they'd like to pass on to the Iowa City community. I indicated I'd report back to you here what happened next. "Finalists Responses? Decision Sunday? Finalists Offered Last Word," April 24, 2010.

What happened was that Mark Bezek acknowledged receipt of the email and provided some comments, and that Steve Murley and Brad Meeks failed to acknowledge the email in any way.

(Bezek's prompt reply said that he "really enjoyed my interview session in Iowa City... I came away very impressed with the community, school system and the administrative team, all were very personable and helpful throughout my day...... [. . .] .... Regardless of what the outcome is, I feel I gave it my best shot even with limited sleep and I feel that my interview was reflective of the type of person/leader I am.... What you see is what you get with me [. . .]." (Bracketed ellipses are mine; others are his.))

So one of those things you see, and get, from Bezek is a reply to your email, in an age in which much of a superintendent's constituent relations are going to take place in that medium.

Do I think the results of this little experiment should weigh heavily in the Board's decision of whom to pick? Of course not. But do I think it should at least be one of dozens of the variables in what I've characterized as a "back and forth discussion and fruitless efforts to resolve a classic, impenetrable, multiple-variable-comparative analysis"? Absolutely. ("IC Board Peeks at Meeks," April 23, 2010, last sentence.)

Look, I know as well as anyone the difficulty of staying on top of incoming email. I maintain a number of email addresses, each of which I monitor more than once a day. At the present time there is a substantial backlog, even after the junk mail and list-serv distributions have been stripped out, that involves the organizations, persons and projects with which I have some relationship or responsibility and for which maintain a folder of ongoing email exchanges -- plus a variety of requests from people, formerly unknown, to whom responses are also provided. My goal is to respond to every email within 24 hours. I am not, now, meeting my goal. During a couple weeks of editing student papers, and holding conferences, on top of other obligations, starting early and working into the evenings, my daily triage of responsibilities resulted in the email backlog I am now trying to dig out from under.

So I can understand and sympathize with anyone undergoing superintendent interviews (often multiple and near-simultaneously) in various communities and their triage decisions about email. There are, in short, many reasons why Murley and Meeks might have not responded other than a disrespect and dismissal of constituent email. That's why the failure to respond should not be accorded significant weight.

But the experience is an illustrative lead-in to a discussion of a superintendent's -- and school board member's, for that matter -- constituent relations by email.

So where do my attitudes and practices regarding personal email come from?

The FCC is an "independent regulatory commission," sometimes referred to as "an arm of Congress." A commissioner has no direct responsibility to the President. As Maritime Administrator, however (my first presidential appointment from President Johnson), and "presidential adviser" (White House Conference on Libraries and Information Services; President Carter), the service was part of the Executive Branch and "at the pleasure of the President."

One of the responsibilities of the Maritime Administrator, as it turned out, was to comply with President Johnson's policy on citizens' mail. (This was the pre-Internet age of postal mail.) Any letter addressed to the President, that involved issues within the Maritime Administrator's areas of responsibility, was (a) to be answered, (b) signed by a presidential appointee, and (c) mailed within 24 hours of receipt. The same policy was applied to all presidential appointees.

Senator John Pastore, of Rhode Island, was Chair of the Senate Communications Sub-Committee. Because he had formerly been governor of Rhode Island, I asked him during an informal conversation how he managed his flow of correspondence when governor. His policy was to clean his desk every evening before leaving for home.

In my later years at the University of Iowa I was impressed with President David Skorton (for a variety of reasons; he's now president of Cornell University) and his equivalent approach to email -- promptly answering seemingly every one he received. Another classy educational administrator the Regents ran off, Mike Hogan (now president of University of Connecticut), seems to do the same (as well as maintaining his own personal blog). I've noticed that other successful CEOs and institutional leaders seem to be able to do so as well.

Needless to say, having started my federal government service at Maritime at the tender and impressionable age of 29, I tried to emulate the practices of my elders.

As a school board member, I tried to do the same thing while noting, "As a school board member you may not get any pay, but at least you get a lot of grief." You also get a lot of email. No one holds a gun to your head and forces you to run for school board. Having chosen to do so and having been elected, however, the position imposes some responsibilities. The effort to learn about the ICCSD, Iowa education law, innovations in K-12 education globally and in the U.S., write a column about K-12 issues for the local paper every two weeks for three years, and time spent preparing for and attending Board meetings -- and answering email -- often added a not-insignificant number of hours to my work week.

When I commented to a superintendent (not Lane Plugge) about the email load and asked for advice, it produced what I found to be a startling response: "Just ignore it. Don't answer. If you answer their emails you'll just get more." Needless to say, I found the counsel neither responsible nor persuasive. But apparently some of the other board members followed the advice.

There have been a number of times, still to this day, when an Iowa City resident will describe some occasion and issue, and say with appreciation, "You know, I emailed every Board member and the Superintendent, and you were the only one who ever answered." That has always been reward enough for the hours and effort.

For a superintendent, or school board member, to simply ignore constituents' email is (in my opinion) the modern-day, electronic equivalent of holding a public meeting for constituent input on some issue while board members sit hear-no-evil-see-no-evil-speak-no-evil silent, with no response, as if to say, "Our decision has been made, don't try to confuse us with the facts."

I made the offer to the finalists of space in the blog sincerely. (1) It is consistent with the FCC's former "Fairness Doctrine" to give someone who has been the subject of media reporting and commentary (with today's definition of "media" including blogs such as this) an opportunity to respond to what has been said. (2) It could have been useful for the ICCSD Board and community members to have the benefit of a final word from each finalist.

But I was also engaged in a bit of an experiment. "If you build it will they come?"; if they are emailed, do they respond?

The answer, it turns out (at least on this occasion, and within this timeframe), is that Mark Bezek responds, does so promptly, and with a friendly spirit; and that Steve Murley and Brad Meeks do not even acknowledge receipt of the email.

Because most everything of what the community knows of these three gentlemen is based on what they (and others) say rather than what they do, perhaps this one example of what they do will be useful.

But to emphasize again: there can be many reasons for the failure to respond, and in no event should the experiment be given more than minimal, marginal consideration in comparing the qualities of the three.

Finally, of course the invitation still stands -- both this week and throughout the years of service of whomever is ultimately chosen by the Board: anytime they want to communicate to this blog's readership directly they can do so with whatever they want to say (including scathing criticism of myself).

As emailed Friday, I wish each of them good luck in their pursuit, have not designated any to be a personal favorite, and look forward to welcoming to Iowa City and the school district whomever the Board ultimately selects this evening.

[P.S. As an interesting sidebar on the saga of superintendent selection for the ICCSD, and the seeming inability of the District's Board members and their search firm to find any possible candidates anywhere throughout the entire state of Iowa (and its 350-plus school districts), our neighbor to the west, the Clear Creek-Amana School District is now considering four finalists for its superintendent position. How many Iowans could it find? Four. Four out of four. All of them (at least one of whom is from the sizable city of Waterloo). Amazing! How on earth could they have done that? Maybe we should ask them next time. Or perhaps we might just check the Iowa Department of Education's list of 361 superintendents with their names and phone numbers and start calling around. "CCA Announces Superintendent Candidates," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 23, 2010; Editorial, "Our Quick Take on Last Week's News Stories; Superintendent Candidates -- CCA," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 25, 2010.]

2:30 Update: Murley Responds

Upon my return home from a noontime event today I found an email from Steve Murley, timestamped 11:34 a.m.

The most significant excerpt from that email, which provides as much or more of his useful and reassuring insight into our Board members as our additional insight into him (which it also does):

One comment that you made in your blog post from April 17 deserves to be revisited. You stated that, "Indeed, one should be extremely suspicious of anyone who would be willing to be considered for the job of working with such a school board." Your comment was made in reference to concerns that you enumerated about the lack of a clear governance system, delineation of measurable goals, discussion of educational innovations, and absence of metrics for results measurement related to boundary changes. I am in full agreement with you that these are indeed important issues for the Board to tackle. However, the absence of these does not indicate to me that the Board has chosen to ignore them or that the Board thinks they are unworthy of attention. In fact, I would argue that from my limited interaction with the Board, just the opposite is true. During my first interaction with the Board concerns about board governance were raised and, to a Board member, all agreed that the issue needed to be addressed to further solidify the work in front of them. The presence of measurable goals is one that we discussed at length and that the Board seems to clearly understand are needed to assess progress over time. The issue of concern about educational innovation was also raised frequently by Board members, most notably, when I asked them to provide for me their thoughts about where they wanted to see the District in 5, 10, or 15 years during the last public interview. Finally, although the boundary discussion has been underway for the past eight months, I felt that all of the Board members were clearly concerned about the students in each of the schools and were sincerely working to find the best outcome. In working with many different Board members over the past 11 years in Wausau I would argue that dedicated, committed Board members who recognize the issues in front of the District and are willing to tackle all problems, big or small, hard or easy, are what best serve the students and residents of a community. That is why I chose to return to the Iowa City School District as a finalist and why I hope to have the opportunity to serve the students of the ICCSD.

As promised in "Finalists Responses? Decision Sunday? Finalists Offered Last Word," April 24, 2010, I will leave his comment to stand on its own, which it is quite capable of doing, rather than responding to it.

April 26, 9:30 a.m. Update: Meeks Responds

And as of Monday morning, here is Brad Meeks response in its entirety:

It was good meeting you last week. I appreciate you taking the time to study the process, perspectives of the candidates and a willingness to discuss the issues. Being a former school board member, I’m sure you can readily understand that selecting a superintendent is one of the most important responsibilities of the school board and having the citizens involved in the process is important. It was an enjoyable day touring the community and meeting the people of the district.

I wish the board and community well as the decision is made on the selection of a new superintendent. Iowa City has a great school system and community.

_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

Finalists' Responses? Decision Sunday?

April 24, 2010, 6:00 a.m.

[This is essentially the seventh in what is, as of this morning, a seven-part series on the Iowa City schools search for a new superintendent: "School Boundaries: There Are Better Ways," April 16, 2010 (with links to 23 prior, related blog entries and other writing); "How to Pick a School Superintendent; And My Questions for Candidates," April 17, 2010; "Bringing Home the Bacon and Bezek," April 20, 2010, "ICCSD's Triple Play: From Bezek to Murley to Meeks; Bezek Can Talk the Talk -- On Four Hours' Sleep," April 21, 2010; and "Hurlyburly Over Murley," April 22, 2010; "IC Board Peeks at Meeks; Brad Meeks Rounds Out Three Finalists," April 23, 2010.]

Want to know the results of the finalists' "email exam"? See "IC Supers' Email," April 25, 2010.

Finalists Offered Last Word
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
So far as this blog is concerned, the heavy lifting on the ICCSD's superintendent search is behind us -- although it is clearly not yet a done deal for the Board members. My contributions to that process (or subtractions, depending on one's perspective) are linked above. The Board members are now scheduled to meet Sunday evening (tomorrow, April 25) at the Central Administrative Office to at least begin, if not conclude, their deliberations and ultimate choice.

Meanwhile, I have offered each of the three finalists space in this blog for an unedited final statement should they want, or be willing, to make one. I've heard from some, but not all, of them at this point. My plan is to include any comments they choose to make here, in this blog entry, sometime late this afternoon. Given my support of the FCC's former Fairness Doctrine, both as an FCC commissioner and since, it seems to me only fair. Since I've had the opportunity to speak freely about matters of significance to them, I should provide them an opportunity to respond, to criticize me, or this blog's content, to make corrections in what I (or they, or the newspapers) have said, to share memories of the experience or a humorous anecdote, or just say a public goodbye to the Iowa City community. Of course, there's no obligation for them to say anything. But for those who choose not even to acknowledge receipt of my emailed invitation, that may be a matter of interest as well.

Here is the text of that email, sent yesterday:

Mark, Steve and Brad:

First off, congratulations on making it to the top of the list as a finalist and thank you for being willing to go through the process of being considered for the position of superintendent of the Iowa City Community School District. That's not an easy thing to do, from a variety of perspectives, and I for one, as a former school board member and simply a native of Iowa City, really appreciate it.

As you may know I have been blogging about the process. That's because I, like you, believe in community involvement in the schools, and an informed citizenry, and know that a number of people tell me they appreciate having the range of available information I bring together in one place. While I have been no one's cheerleader, and have some fun with the writing process, I would hope you have found nothing in my entries you would consider biased or mean spirited.

Now that the last public interview has been held, I'd like to give each of you a chance to have your own say, reproduced as a blog entry (as distinguished from a comment) and also published in the Press-Citizen's online "On the Record" (unless, for any reason, you'd prefer it only be in the blog).

You can provide corrections to what I've written, or write a comment you wanted to make but only thought of on the road going home, or answer some of the questions I posted in "How to Pick a School Superintendent; And My Questions for Candidates," April 17, http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2010/04/how-to-pick-school-superintendent.html, or criticize the fact I was blogging at all (I've never deleted a critical comment from the blog), or perhaps just write a postcard-like greeting from your district: "Having a wonderful time. Wish you were here -- instead of blogging in Iowa City."

Humorous, serious, short, lengthy -- whatever. It's your call - including, of course, the choice to not respond at all.

I plan on having it on the blog sometime tomorrow afternoon, prior to the Board's meeting Sunday (with no response by me to any of it until after the Board has met, if then).

Today's blog entry, "IC Board Peeks at Meeks," April 23, http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2010/04/ic-board-peeks-at-meeks.html, opens with links to the prior six relevant documents.

Thanks again, and good luck. (I have no inside information or even rumors as to what the Board will do; my sense is it is very close.)

Nick

So, as the billboard line goes, "Watch this space and see."

Meanwhile, Jeff Charis-Carlson, who seems to have authored the entirety of the Press-Citizen's content this morning, has included another useful column, "Meeks: Superintendent Must Hit Ground Running," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 24, 2010, p. A11 (Meeks' accomplishments at improved relations in employee bargaining, getting three schools off of "schools in need of assistance" list; "Meeks asked a very practical question of his own: What do you want a superintendent to accomplish in the first six months? The answers from the board members highlighted how difficult a transition it is going to be to go from Lane Plugge to any new superintendent.").

And see, Rob Daniel, "Board hopes to decide Sunday; Members impressed with candidates for superintendent," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 24, 2010, p. A1 ("Board president Patti Fields said each one brought a different strength, including Bezek's experience in a district similar in size to Iowa City, Meeks' work in redistricting and Murley's work in budgeting. . . . Board member Toni Cilek said she liked that all of the candidates have had experience as a superintendent and most have dealt with boundary and redistricting issues. She declined to comment on each individually, saying 'they all interviewed well.'")

These comments square with my own in concluding "IC Board Peeks at Meeks; Brad Meeks Rounds Out Three Finalists," April 23, 2010, that what the Board now has before it are "hours of back and forth discussion and fruitless efforts to resolve a classic, impenetrable, multiple-variable-comparative analysis." There simply is no clear, single metric for making a decision like this.

Fortunately, for the Board members and the community, it will be very difficult for anyone to make the case, whomever they may choose, that "they picked the wrong one."

_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

IC Board Peeks at Meeks

April 23, 2010, 7:45 a.m.

[This is essentially the sixth in what is, as of this morning, a six-part series on the Iowa City schools search for a new superintendent: "School Boundaries: There Are Better Ways," April 16, 2010 (with links to 23 prior, related blog entries and other writing); "How to Pick a School Superintendent; And My Questions for Candidates," April 17, 2010; "Bringing Home the Bacon and Bezek," April 20, 2010, "ICCSD's Triple Play: From Bezek to Murley to Meeks; Bezek Can Talk the Talk -- On Four Hours' Sleep," April 21, 2010; and "Hurlyburly Over Murley," April 22, 2010.]

Want to know the results of the finalists' "email exam"? See "IC Supers' Email," April 25, 2010.

Brad Meeks Rounds Out Three Finalists
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
With the conclusion of Brad Meeks' public meet and greet and Board interview last evening the Seven Bishops of the Board disappeared behind the curtain, leaving us to wait for either the white flag of surrender (and a new search), or the white puff of smoke, perhaps a week from now, informing the community that a new leader has indeed been anointed.

Today is our day to review the third and last finalist: Brad Meeks.

Summary: He seemed relaxed and self-assured last evening as he easily handled the questions, well regarded by those he works with (according to our local news reports), talks the talk (e.g., importance of communication and collaboration), recently (seemingly successfully) put 70% of his students in different schools (boundary changes), got in a bit of a twist (law suit) over location of new high school, comes from a district a fraction of the size of ours (i.e., five elementary and two middle schools, one high school), a 49-year-old who will have a son attending UI and already has a wife from Cedar Rapids (a prescient choice). (Photo credit: NIck's iPhone; Meeks at "Meet and Greet.")

For those following this saga, there is also an additional, insightful piece this morning about Steve Murley and his insights regarding the process of superintendent hiring and evaluation: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Clarifying the Roles of Boards, Superintendents," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 23, 2010, p. A9. Give it a read.

To begin our recap on Meeks, here are excerpts from some basics in Lee Hermiston's early overview:

Meeks said his son, Devin, is going to be a freshman on the University of Iowa swim team in the fall and his wife, Terri, spent her childhood in the Cedar Rapids area. . . .

According to the district's Web site, the population within the Farmington district is 30,000 and the student population is 6,400. The district employs almost 750 people, including more than 400 licensed teachers.

Those who know and have worked with Meeks during his seven years as the Farmington superintendent describe the Gettysburg, S.D., native as a visionary, an innovator and someone who values the opinion of others.

Julie McKnight, a Farmington School Board member . . . was looking for a strong leader with problem-solving skills. "He's displayed that and more" [having] transformed Farmington from a "mediocre district, at best," to a "very good district with a lot of great things happening." . . .

Christine Weymouth, assistant superintendent of education services for the Farmington district, . . . said "It's been fabulous working with Brad. Simply fabulous. He's a great leader."

Weymouth and Farmington School District human resources director Linda Goers said one of Meeks' best qualities is his ability to listen to many voices. . . .

"He's . . . one of those people that asks questions and gathers all of the information. He doesn't make quick, snap decisions. He values input from all the parties involved."

Meeks was involved in some controversy in 2005 when the school district and city had a dispute about the location of a new high school. McKnight said the district found a suitable location on the north end of the district, but the city wanted a location closer to the center of town to attract business. A lawsuit eventually was filed and went to mediation . . ..

"Typically, the best way is to try to be as objective as possible and get information out to the public so they understand what the two sides of the issue are," [Meeks] said.

Lee Hermiston, "Meeks Described as Innovative, Visionary," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 17, 2010.

And here are excerpts from the local papers' reports of his performance last evening:

Rob Daniel, "Candidate backs team approach; Cites how it improved test scores," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 23, 2010, p. A1 ("Brad Meeks said one of his proudest moments as superintendent of the Farmington (Minn.) School District was seeing the passage of a $112 million bond that built a new high school and a fifth elementary school. . . .

During a meet-and-greet with community members before the interview began, Meeks told the story of how Gillian Lynne became a choreographer later noted for her work on the Broadway musicals "Cats" and "The Phantom of the Opera" . . . showing it is necessary to encourage students. . . . (Photo credit: Nick's iPhone; Meeks telling meet and greet crowd his Gillian Lynne story.)

[L]last year, three Farmington area schools were taken off the federal watch list under the No Child Left Behind Act thanks to improving test scores. He said one way that was accomplished was by hiring more reading and math specialists who work with teachers on instructing students.

"It should be a team-teaching approach," Meeks said. "What our test scores are showing us is it's a more effective model."

He also . . . tries to . . . 'keep the right people in the room,' when they are developing curriculum or negotiating a new contract with teachers and other district employees.

"It starts with trust," Meeks said. "My role as superintendent is to place people ... where they're going to be successful. I'm not the keeper of all knowledge.").

Greg Hennigan, "Candidate Isn't New to Challenges of Redistricting," The Gazette, April 23, 2010, p. A2 ("Farmington opened a new high school and added an elementary school and reconfigured its middle schools. About 70 percent of its students and staff were in new buildings this year.

“We didn’t miss anything, and it went off real well,” said Meeks, the Farmington superintendent. . . .

Meeks, 49, has been Farmington’s superintendent for seven years. He started his career in his native South Dakota and also has been a teacher, principal, coach and athletics director. . . .

The city and the school district disagreed on the location of the high school, which resulted in a lawsuit that contributed to the school opening a year later than usual and seeing its price tag balloon to $97 million, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Also, voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposed $24 million sports facility addition to the school, the newspaper reported. . . .

When asked how he would help school board members prepare for a potentially controversial decision, Meeks said he’d get them as much information as possible and present them with multiple options.

Meeks cited as one of his proudest moments getting three of the district’s schools off the “in need of assistance” list under the federal No Child Left Behind law this year.").

For the insightful observations and opinions of an experienced, observant and thoughtful classroom teacher, here are the morning's comments from my wife, Mary Vasey, "Brad Meeks, Team Player," Iowa City Press-Citizen On The Record, April 23, 2010:

As a long time classroom teacher I was happy to hear Brad Meeks talk about his management style. He emphasized more than once his practice of involving the staff and community when appropriate. He talked about getting the right people in the room when planning and making decisions. When asked about accomplishments he gave credit to others instead of claiming it solely for himself.

Three schools in his district were taken off the School in Need of Assistance list. He said they identified the issues, made a plan and then used an online testing program three times during the year to monitor progress and make adjustments. I did not have a chance to ask him about it but I wonder if students took the test at various times(not as a group that is) and were involved in looking at the results. Then I would hope the students were a part of the planning process about how to proceed and make adjustments.

When asked about what he was proudest of Meeks cited two things. One was a math program but the other is what got my attention. He said that they minimized pull outs from the classroom. Specialists and special education teachers work with the teachers in the classroom as members of a team. He said that the test scores reflected the wisdom of that approach. I have talked with some teachers in Iowa City who said that, in their schools, there were more and more pull outs and that it was quite disruptive. My own experience has been that the team approach is effective.

I think both Steve Murley and Brad Meeks are strong candidates. They also have quite different styles. Murley has strong communication skills and a fairly traditional management style. I think Meeks would have a quieter, more inclusive style. Bezek’s main strength is that he comes from a district similar in size to Iowa City and he is the only one who talked about having an alternative school.

Michelle Hillenbrand, "School Board interviews third hopeful," The Daily Iowan, April 23, 2010, p. A2 ("Brad Meeks . . . said Thursday that searching within a budget for inefficiencies can allow him to stretch the dollar.

By purchasing a different type of health-care policy . . . the district saved $1.2 million . . ..

“How we build our budget should reflect our priorities, and our priorities should be in the classroom,” he said. The quality of teaching and class sizes also top his list of priorities . . ..

Linda Goers, the director of human resources in the Farmington district, hailed Meeks as a visionary. “He has the ability to look long-range and find ways to get input so everybody is kind of on the same path toward the goals in the district” . . ..

“What makes a difference in the classroom more than the class size is the quality of the teacher in that room,” . . . [b]y providing staff development to teachers, he said, he hopes to ensure their quality.

When asked by School Board members how he plans to close the student-achievement gaps, Meeks said he would begin preparing students for testing earlier by providing online tests throughout the year, a method he says would allow teachers to modify their approaches based on individual student needs. . . .

But some in Farmington criticized Meeks for accepting a salary only 10 percent less than the superintendent in his neighboring district, the Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan School District, which has 4.5 times as many students as Farmington.").

The questions asked by the Board have, appropriately, been similar if not identical for each finalist. Since I have not summarized them before, here were the ones I made a note of last evening. (This is an approximation, not a transcript of the precise language.) (Photo credit: Nick's iPhone; from left: Michael Shaw, Mike Cooper, Pati Fields, Gayle Klouda, Brad Meeks, Tuyet Dorau)

Why Iowa City?
What have been your proudest moments, and what do you wish you'd done differently?
What is your management philosophy, and how would you assess your own strengths and weaknesses?
Tell us about your dissertation, addressing "perceptions and expectations" in community-schools partnerships.
How do you decide when there is a need to reallocate funds; who is involved in that decision making process and how do you communicate about it to stakeholders?
How do you interact with your school board?
What are some specific examples of how you communicate with the community about complex and controversial issues?
How do you go about identifying an issue, coming up with an approach, implementing it, and then monitoring and assessing outcomes?
What have you done to establish good working relationships with employees?
How would you go about preparing the Board on a sensitive issue?
What do you do to encourage employee participation in organization planning, and what is an example of an idea you have implemented that came from a staff member?
How can we close the achievement, assessment and access gap?
What ideas do you have for the ICSSD relations with the City and UI?
Given the stresses of the job, how do you stay renewed?
To what extent have you been involved in legislative activity?
What is the role of the Board in curriculum development?
How important is average class size and what can you do about it?

Each finalist was also given an opportunity to ask questions of the Board. Three of Meeks' were:

What is your idea of an optimal superintendent-board relationship?
What is your sense of the priorities for a superintendent's first 30 days on the job?
What is the Board's approach to Board members' school visits? (Photo credit: Nick's iPhone; from left: Sarah Swisher, Michael Shaw, Mike Cooper, Toni Cilek, Brad Meeks)

If you're interested in the answers as well as the questions, as mentioned below I'm hopeful the District's videos of the three sessions will be cablecast on the District's channel repeatedly between now and the puff of white smoke.

One additional comment:

I have been frustrated by the Regents and UI seemingly focusing on the need to improve communication with the legislature and people of Iowa, while simultaneously failing to utilize the multi-million-dollar resource that is now called "Iowa Public Radio" (station announcements don't even hint that the University of Iowa is the licensee!), and the ICCSD Board's failing to ring all the benefit it might from its very own television channel. So I couldn't help but be impressed with how creative the Farmington District has been with its informative streaming videos for the community ("Ed Channel Online") -- notwithstanding its size.

(The District's Web site is a part of the rSchoolToday group and the "Wiki Way of Websites," which from appearances looks like a good way for small districts to go.)

Not incidentally, in this connection, the three evenings' ICCSD School Board interviews of finalists have been videotaped by the District -- initially for purposes of Board members only. Hopefully, they will be distributed for the community on the District's cable channel as well.

So, how do the three stack up? Is there an obvious choice? None is from among Iowa's 300-plus superintendents; all will start from ground zero trying to understand Iowa school finance and getting to know the legislature, Iowa City's culture, the role of the University, UIHC and major businesses in Eastern Iowa, not to mention the stakeholders already in place when they arrive. All are "white males in suits" (teaching backgrounds: two former coaches (who also did some teaching) and one industrial arts instructor). None is a national star superintendent. All are, as then candidate Obama once characterized candidate Clinton, "nice enough." None had much to say (or, in fairness, were asked) about education, curriculum, or teaching methods. All are, clearly, at least minimally competent (actually more than that, but at least that); each has his supporters and detractors, his impressive accomplishments and things for which he wished for a redo.

Although I don't have a recommendation for the Board as to whom they should pick -- nor would it make much difference if I did (except, perhaps, to lessen the chances of whichever finalist I favored) -- I will go way, way out on a limb with regard to whom I would take a wild guess they'll end up with. Mind you have have not a scintilla of a clue from anything that is first, second, or even third-hand information or rumors from any member of the Board. It's just a guess based on what I observe, know about, and my evaluation of, the Board members (as distinguished from my evaluation of the finalists). So who will they pick, after hours of back and forth discussion and fruitless efforts to resolve a classic, impenetrable, multiple-variable-comparative analysis? Brad Meeks.
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #