The Christina Superintendent Search: What Is A SME And Why You Should Care

Christina School District Board of Education member John Young posted this publicly on Facebook about the Christina Superintendent search.  I am posting it on here to get this to a wider audience.  For clarification purposes, SME stands for “Subject Matter Expert” and James Flynn is running the Superintendent search for Christina through the University of Delaware’s Institute for Public Administration (IPA).  I don’t know how many districts have used IPA in the past.  I do know Capital used them last year for their new Superintendent which led to Dan Shelton getting the post.  And I want to say Colonial did as well which led to Dusty Blakey, but don’t quote me on that.  I’ll let Mr. Young’s Facebook post take it from here.

Some public information on the CSD Super search. Started with a few questions and since I will not be able to attend the 11.9.16 meeting as I will be out of town, and because Mr. Polaski raised the concern below I wanted to get this out there as I would have discussed all of this in person anyway, as those that know me know I would. Also, Note Dr. Flynn’s comments regarding direction given on 10.24 does not comport with the timing of the contract which Mr. Polaski references in points 1 indirectly and 2 directly…meaning I remain confused on the issue.

POLASKI FRED
Today, 8:08 AM

YOUNG JOHN;PAIGE ELIZABETH;EVANS GEORGE;Meg Mason; MINNEHAN HARRIE E; SAFFER SHIRLEY

Subject: Re: Task Force Update
Inbox
Two reactions to Mr. Young’s requests:
1. The process being implemented by Dr. Flynn and IPA at the U of D was approved by the CSD Board at a BOE public meeting. Any changes to the process or contract MUST be approved by the Board after discussion at a public meeting, not by any one or more Board members by email.
2. The Board approved use of IPA to facilitate the process to select a new superintendent and directed the CSD Administration to negotiate the contract with IPA, which Mr. Silber did as the CFO of CSD.

Any further discussion of this topic, or any proposals for changes, must only be done at CSD board meetings in public, the next one being Nov. 9. I would hope to not see any more emails between 7 board members on this subject as that could be determined to constitute a Board meeting, subject to FOIA.
Fred Polaski

---

From: YOUNG JOHN
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 10:28:23 PM
To: PAIGE ELIZABETH; EVANS GEORGE; Meg Mason; MINNEHAN HARRIE E; POLASKI FRED; SAFFER SHIRLEY
Subject: Re: Task Force Update

Obviously I speak only for myself on this: without the names of the SMEs, I am unable to support any recommendation whatsoever.

As for the one candidate: the advantage is CLEARLY the ability to prepare answers with additional time not supplied to other candidates. I am disappointed Dr. Flynn cannot see this plainly. Another reason to be very suspect of the process thus far. Is Mr Silber in charge of the board process? This confuses me.

---

From: PAIGE ELIZABETH
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 10:19:33 PM
To: EVANS GEORGE; Meg Mason; MINNEHAN HARRIE E; POLASKI FRED; SAFFER SHIRLEY; YOUNG JOHN
Subject: Fwd: Task Force Update

ECP
Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: James Flynn <jflynn@udel.edu<mailto:jflynn@udel.edu>>
Date: October 31, 2016 at 4:52:23 PM EDT
To: PAIGE ELIZABETH <elizabeth.paige@christina.k12.de.us<mailto:elizabeth.paige@christina.k12.de.us>>
Cc: ROBERT.SILBER@christina.k12.de.us<mailto:ROBERT.SILBER@christina.k12.de.us>, LAPHAM WENDY WENDY.LAPHAM@christina.k12.de.us<mailto:wendy.lapham@christina.k12.de.us>>
Subject: Re: Fw: Task Force Update

Ms. Paige: Hi. I’ll try to respond to Mr. Young’s questions in the order posed.

SMEs – As I’ve said at our public presentations, selection of the number and designation of SMEs is determined by the IPA as one of the steps to insure impartiality and confidentiality. Our goal is to select highly qualified individuals for the applicant screening process who are familiar with Delaware districts and Delaware education issues. For the Christina search, we identified three SMEs – two retired Delaware superintendents and a senior administrator with more than 30 years experience serving several Wilmington area districts (the contract obligates us to two SMEs). Our usual practice is not to share the names of the SMEs to further fortify confidentiality in future searches with other districts. If the CSD Board feels strongly that knowing the names of the SMEs is a critical point, I’d be willing to contact them (the SMEs) for their approval. Please remember, the SMEs review all of the applications independently first and the applicant names have been redacted. When the SMEs come together to discuss the applicants, their references are to ‘Applicant A’ and ‘Applicant B’, etc.

Impact of Extra Time for one Candidate – This applicant e-mailed me just before the midnight deadline on Friday, Sept 23. I replied to her on the morning of Monday, Sept 26 and had all her materials e-mailed to me by early that afternoon. Remember, she claimed she had everything ready for submission on 9/23, but the site was closed before midnight. I’m not sure how this may have created an ‘advantage’ since we didn’t start processing any of the applications until after 9/26.

Task Force Reporting – The instructions from Mr. Silber on 10/24 said to prepare a report of the Task Force proceedings on 11/1 directly to the Board. Changing those instructions by having the Task Force report back to the full Search Committee in a confidential setting (i.e. Task Force and Board) is your choice.

Sub-Par Candidates – I would do all in my power to dissuade the Task Force from recommending a sub-par candidate(s) to the Board. In my opinion, this Task Force has worked too long and too diligently to submit the names of candidates who wouldn’t meet the needs of the CSD.

Board Members and Applicants – I’m not sure what this statement refers to, and don’t feel competent to respond.

Please let me know if I can provide any further information or if wish to alter the Task Force reporting process going forward.

Jim Flynn

---

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:20 PM, PAIGE ELIZABETH

Elizabeth.Paige@christina.k12.de.us<mailto:Elizabeth.Paige@christina.k12.de.us>> wrote:

Dr. Flynn,

See below for questions that I told Mr. Young I do not have answers to and provide a response that I can share with the Board.

Thanks!
Liz

---

From: YOUNG JOHN
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 12:48 PM
To: PAIGE ELIZABETH; EVANS GEORGE; Meg Mason; MINNEHAN HARRIE E; POLASKI FRED; SAFFER SHIRLEY
Subject: Re: Task Force Update

I am still unsure of process. Jim has not revealed the names of the SMEs used to go through the applications.

What impact did the extra time given one candidate have on creating an advantage?

Aren’t the task force members reporting back to the committee as a whole rather than putting name(s) directly to the board?
Also, if no one stands out, does the task force know to recommend going back out rather than sending us a subpar candidate (if applicable)?

Lastly, I have a deep concern that individual board members are creating an advantage or perception of one by being seen in public with certain applicants, but not others

---

Hmm… sounds like something is going on up there… and in Christina… they are usually so quiet…