May 2, 2025 Special Board Meeting Minutes
MINUTES OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DISTRICT NO. 40,
YAMHILL COUNTY, McMINNVILLE, OREGON
The Board Business Meeting was held May 2, 2025, both in person and via Zoom at the
McMinnville School District Office, 800 NE Lafayette Ave., McMinnville OR 97128
The link was https://msd40.zoom.us/j/215496199
Provisional Minutes-Not Board Approved
At 3:00 p.m., the Board of Directors of McMinnville School District opened the special board meeting in Regular Session. The meeting was called to order by Chair Jason Bizon.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Chair Jason Bizon
Vice-Chair Abbie Warmbier
Ms. Lu Ann Anderson
Ms. Christine Bader – via Zoom
Mr. Gerardo Partida
Ms. Doris Towery – via Zoom
Mr. Larry Vollmer
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ADMINISTRATION
Steffanie Frost, Director
Cherice Bowden, Board Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Jason Bizon
1.3 Review of Agenda
There were no changes to the agenda.
-
1.5 Review & Discuss Search Firm Proposals
Director Vollmer made a request online and planned to make a statement, but Steffanie said we might not need to change the agenda. That’s why I’m asking—should I still bring it up, or just leave the agenda as it is?Director Frost commented that you can discuss anything related to the superintendent, interim superintendent, or the search process. If it’s outside that scope, we’d need to add it to the agenda. Otherwise, you’re fine to discuss it as is
Director Frost stated to the Board that we have a couple of options. I’ve shared the search firm evaluation scores with you. We can either start by reviewing those scores, or take a step back and first discuss the process the Board wants to follow before making any decisions.
Director Anderson said that while the Board received a rubric, it would have been helpful to discuss it beforehand to ensure everyone had a shared understanding of the scoring and its meaning; what she referred to as inter-rater reliability. She regrets not bringing it up earlier and hasn’t seen the final results yet, so she’s unsure how consistent the scoring ended up being. She also noted that Jason seems to have received information from OSBA before the Board had fully discussed whether OSBA was even under consideration. In her view, it makes the most sense to look at an interim and then a full-time superintendent, but she hasn’t heard from the rest of the Board on that or on their views about the rubric and scoring before moving forward with selecting a firm.
Director Anderson shared a comment rather than a question, emphasizing the importance of having a shared understanding of rubric criteria when evaluating future candidate responses and applications. She noted that different interpretations of the same criteria—such as diversity and inclusion, where some proposals were detailed and others had nothing—can lead to inconsistent scoring. Anderson stressed the need for open Board discussions so everyone understands each other’s perspectives, as private conversations between individual members don’t support transparency or collective decision-making. She referenced advice from Lisa Freiley, who encouraged group discussions for this very reason. While acknowledging that the current rubric process is already underway, she expressed a desire for more collaborative conversation moving forward. She also shared her current thinking: the Board should consider conducting an internal search for an interim superintendent, using that time to engage in a thorough process to select a permanent superintendent next year or whenever the timeline allows.
Vice Chair Warmbier clarified that she heard Director Anderson say she preferred starting with an internal process first and asked if that was correct.
Director Anderson shared that she believes there may be strong candidates within the district who deserve a chance to be considered before opening the search more broadly. While this idea isn’t set in stone, it reflects her belief in supporting internal growth, aligning with the district’s “grow your own” programs for teachers and the Administrator Academy. She sees giving internal candidates an opportunity as a natural extension of the district’s commitment to developing its own staff.
Chair Bizon said he strongly disagrees and, based on advice from legal counsel Lisa Freiley, believes best practice is to include both internal and external candidates in the evaluation process, unless there’s an exceptional case. He noted that while Freiley confirmed it’s ultimately the Board’s decision, the recommended approach is to evaluate all candidates together using the same rubric. Chair Bizon added that he doesn’t disagree with the Board’s authority but wanted to finish sharing her perspective.
Director Towery responded to Director Anderson by saying she supports giving internal candidates a chance, but believes a full search helps confirm the best choice, especially if the top candidate is internal. She’s confident strong internal candidates will stand out either way. With past public concerns about a lack of transparency in superintendent searches, she sees this as an opportunity for the Board to improve the process and make it more open. She also noted that some search firms offered discounts or waived fees for the interim search if chosen to do the full search, which could help with consistency and timing. She stressed the need to have an interim superintendent in place by July.
Director Bader pointed out that the proposals in front of the Board are structured around conducting a one-year interim search now, followed by a permanent superintendent search. She emphasized that time is limited and if Board members have different ideas about the process or timeline, now is the time to speak up. If the Board agrees on a different approach, they can identify the top firms capable of adapting to that plan and move forward at the next meeting. However, if the current approach stands, she urged the Board to begin reviewing and discussing the proposals right away.
Director Partida said he was part of the previous superintendent search and agreed with Director Towery that transparency was lacking. He acknowledged that and wants to do better this time. However, he’s concerned about the time it takes to do a full search, recalling that the last one took around four to five months. His main concern is whether a new superintendent could realistically be in place by July 1 if they start the process now. He was then reminded that the current plan involves two steps: a quick interim search to have someone in place by July 1, followed by a full, longer-term search.
Director Vollmer commented that he is very supportive of looking internally first, emphasizing that they could step in immediately and have a positive impact due to their existing knowledge of the district, proven work, and leadership. He believes internal candidates pose less risk during the interim period because they are already familiar with the systems, staff, and needs of the district, which allows them to continue momentum or make swift improvements. In contrast, an external interim would likely focus only on maintaining operations without initiating major changes. Director Vollmer said internal candidates have essentially been “pre-qualified” through their existing performance and commitment. He’s open to using a search firm for the full, permanent position, but believes it would be a mistake not to seriously consider internal talent for the interim role, especially since the commitment is only for a year.
Director Frost and the Board reviewed the rubric scores for each search firm, engaged in discussion, and asked clarifying questions.
1.6 Review Characteristics of Interim Superintendent
Director Frost shared the Recommended Characteristics for an Interim Superintendent with the Board.They are:
Proven Leadership Experience
Strong Communication Skills
Student-Centered Focus
Knowledge of District Operations
Collaborative Leadership Style
Cultural and Community Awareness
Stability and Continuity
Integrity and Professionalism
Strategic Thinker
Transition-Focused Mindset
The board reviewed and discussed the characteristics. Each board member gave their top two characteristics they feel the interim superintendent should have.
1.7 Public Comments
We did not receive any public comments.1.8 Selection of Search Firm Finalists
Chair Bizon asked for a motion to approve the selection for the search firm finalists, NW Leadership Associates and McPherson & Jacobson, LLC as presented.On motion by Director Gerardo Partida, seconded by Director Christine Bader , the motion passed unanimously to approve NW Leadership Associates and McPherson & Jacobsen, LLC as the search firm finalists. Directors – Larry Vollmer – aye, Gerardo Partida – aye, Lu Ann Anderson – aye, Christine Bader – aye, Vice-Chair Abbie Warmbier – aye, Chair Jason Bizon – aye and Doris Towery aye, with 0 nays.
The meeting adjourned at 4:14 p.m.