Clark_Kent - then apparently all the school districts that are conducting their own searches and listed their jobs here - American Association of School Administrators www.aasa.org - are "blatantly ignorant".

Anyone who believes that the school district will be "saving" money by not paying a professional search firm $26,000 to help us find the next Superintendent for our school district is blatantly ignorant. The next Superintendent of the Janesville School District will inherit 10,000 students, 1,400 employees, 22 schools, and a $110 million budget that is severely strained due to declining enrollment and state imposed levy limits. You don't just hand this off to the best available applicant that responded to a posting in a help wanted ad. That approach will cost the district $26,000 many times over. As a cost-sensitive taxpayer you should be praising the school board for admitting that as volunteers they are not all qualified to locate and select this person and thanking them for being good stewards of our students, our district, and our tax dollars.

If you spend all that money looking for the perfect employee, and they suck, then what? I say put all their names in a hat, and pull out the winner. If they suck, it's the luck of the draw, and nobody's to blame. That's what's going on here, right? Shifting potential blame?

please do not misconstrue my comments regarding board pay as complaining...it is simply clarifying a fact of life here in Jvl. I believe the same is also true for city council. I have followed the board over the years-no, not on the board- & must say the vast majority serve because they truly care about the community. It is also good to have a cross section of left/right/red/blue on the board as no one sector has all the answers and a cross section of members is the only way to get a balanced perspective.

One of the previous board members---I think maybe Bailey??--asked about some compensation for board members, but it was not well received. I think the current board, although they might appreciate a small stipend, would likely vote against due to local economy.

Sorry, I did not know the Janesville School Board members do not receive any pay. Does anyone else know if this is true? Anyway, it is their choice to serve so complaining about what little they get and that they get nothing in return is ridiculous. I do think they should receive something for their service. However, they volunteer to run for office and know there is no pay associated with the position. If they were part of the search team, like in other districts they should receive a stipend for their efforts and it should be voluntary. The districts that I have lived and worked for, their board members were given a small stipend for serving. Yes, I am an educator. No one is saying we do not value school board members. We are saying there are other options to consider. Nor are we saying it is solely up to the board to find a replacement it has to be a district wide effort. Just wondering Janie7 are you or a member of your family a board member? If you are I suggest taking up the no compensation with the district, because you should be compensated for you time and efforts, even if it is not a lot of money.

no no no, sorry, but ...you are misinformed. School board members in this district do not get anything. Not one cent for any time at any meeting: full board, committee, open or closed. Not for any time prepping for any meeting, no office space downtown or anywhere else, answering or returning calls to residents,... nadda, nil. It is 100% volunteer on the part of school board members.

As for other alternatives...I recall Severson suggesting the board consider this without a search firm as a cost-saving measure to the district, & the majority of the board was not in favor of this course of action. So yipe at Stottler & Sodemann on this, they complained the most.

so, can the taxpayers of JVL expect to see all of you taking out nomination papers?

I am not saying people should screen applicants for free. There should be a stipend for their work. School board members do volunteer to run for office and do get a small amount of money for what they do. The human resource department, principals, administrators, retired administrators, teachers, etc could be part of a team that weeds out applicants and then suggests candidates. $26,000 plus travel expenses is a large expense for the district for something it could do itself. The next time the district is in a budget crisis - they can look to things like this that waste the tax payer’s money. I wonder what other things the district spends money on that is not necessary. Having an outside firm is not in the best interest for the district, nor cost productive. Like I commented earlier, the search company has no ties nor real interest in what is best for the district and once they suggest three people their job is done. Other districts do this themselves with out hiring outside firms. Were other alternatives looked at or was this their only option?

Janie7 - So we trust the school board to decide on the person to hire, yet not to screen out the unqualified ? The search firms put on an excellent dog and pony show in justifying their $26 grand fee, don't they ?

to those who think this is 'so easy' and 'just post the opening on-line': Among other duties, the head hunters screen-or for you political junkies, 'vet'- for qualified candidates among applicants. The board positions, remember, are totally volunteer positions. They do NOT get so much as one red cent for all the time they donate to the district. Most board members have a 'day job'. Screening, vetting, initial interviews, that all takes a significant amount time.

Maybe some of you whiners & complainers should put your body where your mouth via your keyboard is, and volunteer for the various community search listening sessions or run for office if you think you can do a more efficient job.

Glad to see the school district is wasting money.

Happy2BAlive- that's the point, the search firm is not interviewing and choosing the final candidate. The school board is. The search firm is being paid $26k to forward resumes which could be obtained from posting our opening at American Association of School Administrators www.aasa.org If you look at the postings there, most are from the actual school, not an outside search firm, saving about $25,500.

I would much rather the district spend this money and recruit the best quality candidates for a long-term tenure. This is an important position and the board members are not necessarily qualified to manage an intensive hiring process. Don't be penny wise and pound foolish.

Before you criticize the Boards decision to spend this money, ask the District to view the contract and then add up the services this company will be providing. A good superintendent can make or break a district; this is the most important decision a board member makes in their service to the community. The guarantee is something the board makes when they hire the next superintendent - they guarantee that this firm did their homework, presented the best candidates, integrated the right community members into the process, facilitated meetings that kept the community in the know, etc. If they don't perform, they don't get paid! This may seem like a lot of money, but $150,000 per year and up is even more and the right person collecting that paycheck is critical. I can justify the expense as a taxpayer because while I believe in the work that our current Board of Education does, they are not experts in this area - and experts are needed for decisions of this magnitute.

This is the first cut that should be made to save money. Put the ads in the requisite publications. Heck, put them online, and then interview the candidates yourself. Why is local government always passing the buck when it comes to such easy tasks?

At a time when money is crucial, especially for schools why spend so much money on a search company or search for that matter? Granted a superintendent does play a vital role in a district, but I can think of more productive ways to spend that money in the school system and still find a qualified candidate. Does this search company provide any guarantees for the candidates they select? Search companies often take the money and are gone; they have no real ties to the district or care about what happens to the district. Often these companies spend unnecessary money for travel of candidates, especially if they are from out of state. I would like to know if the board has any requirements to look within the state before looking elsewhere. I have heard of search committees for districts in which people are offered stipends to do the leg work, but not at such costs as associated with this. We often find districts spending so much time and effort for leaders of our schools and after a couple of years they leave the district; after the district has invested a lot time and money. Why is it that we find superintendents and principals for that matter jumping around schools so much? I am not saying all; I am just saying I have seen many instances of this in the state of Wisconsin. My opinion is that this money not well spent.

raystone...I agree. $26,000?? This cost is absurd. Yes. Place a few good ads in some great newspapers. A search firm is not necessary, especially at that fee rate.

I got news for you. It doesn't cost $26,000 to place a couple of ads on a superintendent association job page, collect the emailed resumes, and forward the best 3 to a school board for review.