December 2, 2025 Special Work Session Meeting Minutes

 MINUTES OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DISTRICT NO. 40,
YAMHILL COUNTY, McMINNVILLE, OREGON

The Special Work Session was held December 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/97721628814

At 6:30 p.m. the Board of Directors of McMinnville School District opened the special work session meeting.  The meeting was called to order by Chair Larry Vollmer.  Roll call indicated the following:

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Chair Larry Vollmer
Vice-Chair Gerardo Partida
Director Lu Ann Anderson
Director Christine Bader
Director Jason Bizon
Director Jasmin Juarez
Director Abbie Warmbier

BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
None

ADMINISTRATION
Kourtney Ferrua, Interim Superintendent
Cherice Bowden, Board Secretary

AUDIENCE
Brian Crain,Jason Hall, Hiran Amerasinghe, Kim Price, Emily Linnertz, Shelly Simonyi, Cielo Tahmaseb and Erik Svec.

• Superintendent Selection Process Options
  Chair Vollmer opened the special work session by welcoming attendees both in person and online. He explained that the meeting was scheduled outside the board’s regular times so they could begin the superintendent selection process promptly. Because the hiring season for superintendent searches begins as early as January 1, the board needs to decide quickly whether to pursue a full search.

  1. He outlined three options for the board to consider:
     Current Superintendent Appointment:  If majority prefers  this option, then action Item at Dec 8th 2025 Business Meeting. 
  2. Current Superintendent Confirmation Review:  Middle  ground between options 1 & 3. Gathering additional info and feedback to confirm existing selection.  5-6 weeks of calendar time and occasional board involvement.  Estimating $3K-$5K in additional costs.  If majority prefers this option, then action item at March 2026 business meeting. 
  3. Full Search for Permanent Superintendent:  Full search  would require selection of a search firm, 12 weeks of additional calendar time to discuss criteria, applicant selection, interviews, deliberation, and finalist selection.  Estimated cost $25K-$30K. If the majority prefers this option, an appointment would be Early April 2026. 

  He  then invited board members to volunteer to begin the discussion, or else he would call on them in order to share their feedback.

  Vice Chair Partida sought clarification on the timeline for the second option. He asked whether the initial review process would take about 5–6 weeks, ending around March, and whether an additional three months might be required depending on the feedback received. He also asked if this would result in a new superintendent starting toward the end of July.

  Chair Vollmer explained that Option 2 would take about 5–6 weeks to gather additional information and then reconvene the board to decide whether they feel confident enough to appoint the current superintendent or, instead, begin a full search. However, he noted that waiting that long could put the board behind the typical hiring timeline similar to the previous year, when an interim search started in late March or early April and the appointment wasn’t made until late May. He emphasized that while Option 2 is low-cost and provides extra information, the downside is that delaying could limit or hinder the ability to conduct a full search if the board ultimately decides it wants one.

  Director Anderson noted that the board already has a rubric for evaluating the current superintendent, and Chair Vollmer will be meeting with her to review the board’s feedback. She emphasized that the board has effectively had a six-month interview with the superintendent and now has a solid understanding of her performance and capabilities. Based on this, Director Anderson believes the board is in a good position at this time.

  Director Warmbier emphasized that appointing a superintendent is the board’s most important responsibility and that securing the best leader requires a rigorous, equitable, and professional full search. She noted that the board had already planned such a process last spring and hired a firm with the understanding that they would conduct both the interim and permanent searches. She states that the board should not limit its options, especially since a complete evaluation of the current superintendent has not yet been done.

  She added that a full search aligns with what the community and staff expressed in last spring’s McPherson survey, which also revealed a lack of trust in the board following the prior decision to terminate Superintendent Brockett. She said a transparent process is essential for rebuilding that trust. She also referenced past superintendent searches that were extensive and deliberate, reflecting the seriousness of hiring for such a large district. Given this history and the board’s previously agreed plan, she questioned why other options were even being considered.

  Director Bizon stated that Option 1 is invalid and Option 2 is only partially valid, not because of the candidate, but because both options lack comprehensive staff and stakeholder input. He states that bypassing full feedback reinforces a perception that the board hires and fires without regard for employees or constituents. He cited past editorials urging the board to repair trust through an inclusive, well-designed hiring process.

  He recalled that previous full searches, such as in 2020 and for the interim superintendent drew large, diverse applicant pools and involved stakeholder interviews. He emphasized that the board had previously agreed to conduct a transparent permanent search and noted that no 360-degree feedback or formal evaluation has yet been completed for the current superintendent.

  He also referenced the survey conducted in September, which has not been reviewed to identify desired leadership attributes. He discussed the cost details from McPherson & Jacobson, noting that a full search would not exceed about $18,000, a modest amount compared to the $360,000 cost of the previous superintendent’s separation.

  He states that five months of observation is not enough to make a permanent appointment in a district as large as theirs and that the board owes it to the community to follow a thorough process with a consistent process. 

  Director Juarez states that by conducting a full search we could risk losing the strong candidate we already have and questioned how the board can be sure they aren’t overlooking the best option currently in place.

  Director Bader emphasized the importance of stakeholder input and noted that the board had already agreed publicly in September to conduct a mid-year review in November/December and a full evaluation with stakeholder feedback in April. She pointed out that the board adopted this timeline knowing that the April evaluation would come too late to complete a full superintendent search, meaning the evaluation and the hiring process were intentionally separated.

  She highlighted that, despite being an interim, the superintendent has already produced far more substantive work than typically expected, particularly the school improvement plans presented recently. She states that these plans, showing alignment, momentum, and strong leadership, would not exist if a different interim had been hired, since other finalists likely would have spent the year conducting listening sessions while awaiting a full search. Switching to a new superintendent now, she said, could waste years of progress.

  She questioned what better candidate people believe is out there and why the board should interrupt strong current progress for a slim chance of finding someone superior. She stressed that the interim search was already robust and transparent, that the chosen candidate stood out, and that the last six months have effectively served as a public probationary period.

  She also noted that launching a full search when a strong internal candidate exists would likely weaken the applicant pool and could risk losing the current superintendent, just as many professionals would decline to reapply after performing well but still being told a full search is needed. She reminded the board that the superintendent role is not a lifetime appointment but a three-year contract, adjustable yearly.

  Director Bader said the district is headed in the right direction, has strong leadership, and should not change course. She expressed appreciation for differing viewpoints and committed to continued reflection on what best serves students.

  The board continued discussions on the superintendent selection process.
  
  They discussed adding the topic to the December 8 Business Board meeting for a motion.

  Directors Comments
  Director Anderson echoed Director Bader’s last comments: that Director Bader hears a lot of unity in our support for Dr. Ferrua and that to do a full search risks us being on the right path as a district and what best serves our kids.  She understands that they said they would do a full search but feels it is no longer needed to do the process for process’s sake.  She feels that pursuing a full search may actually risk losing Dr. Ferrua, which would be a disaster.

    Upcoming dates:

  • Board Business meeting December 8, 2025 and January 12, 2026
  • Work Session meeting January 26, 2026 and February 23, 2026

  Meeting Video