Oxnard Union High trustees interview three superintendent search firms and recommend Leadership Associates for board approval

The Oxnard Union High School District Board of Trustees on April 19 held a special meeting to interview three professional superintendent search firms and reached an informal consensus to recommend Leadership Associates for formal approval at the board's next meeting.

The trustees opened the session with the Pledge of Allegiance and a land acknowledgment for Chumash territory before adopting a revised agenda. The board approved the agenda change by voice vote, 5-0.

Why it matters: The firm the board selects will run outreach, gather staff and community input, vet applicants and help the district recruit a superintendent to lead Oxnard Union High's high-school-only system at a time of budget pressure and program priorities.

During public comment, Francisco Alvarez criticized the board and district leadership, alleging a pattern of "cronyism and nepotism" tied to named local figures and urging the community to scrutinize the firm-selection process. Alvarez named Roger Rice and Penelope de Leon and said the system "is compromised." The Brown Act's limits on board response were read by the president, who said the board cannot reply directly to public comments but may direct staff to follow up.

Leadership Associates (presenters William "Bill" Banning and Blanca Cavazos) described a multi-phase search they said would include an initial board meeting to set candidate priorities, multilingual online surveys and focus groups, targeted statewide recruiting, tiered application screening, in-depth reference checks and closed‑session finalist interviews. The firm emphasized experience in high-school-only districts, active recruitment rather than passive postings and an inclusive fee structure the presenters said would not change based on the number of stakeholder meetings.

McPherson & Jacobson's representatives said their five-phase model centers on early stakeholder engagement, active relationship recruiting through affinity groups (examples cited: CALSA, ACSA), third‑party background checks, social-media reputation mapping and regular written updates to trustees. The firm gave a fee figure later disclosed in the meeting record as $28,550.

Education Support Services (ESS) emphasized deep in‑community engagement under an "EAST" model (engagement, activation, selection, transition), student surveys in English and Spanish, 15‑year background checks on finalists before district interviews, and post‑placement transition workshops plus on‑call coaching for two years. ESS said its searches have produced long tenures for placed superintendents and that the firm's fee covers travel, vetting and outreach.

Trustee questions focused on how firms would: recruit a diverse candidate pool beyond applicants who apply online; vet leadership for culture-building, equity and community relationships; incorporate student voice; and provide board coaching and post‑placement supports. Firms consistently described multilingual surveys, community focus groups, targeted outreach to affinity events and deeper-than-standard reference checks as key tools.

Costs and transparency: Trustees compared the three firms' fee proposals in public discussion: Leadership Associates ($25,500), McPherson & Jacobson ($28,550) and ESS ($28,900). Trustees noted Leadership Associates' lower fee and highlighted that the firm indicated no additional charges for translation or for extending the search if a satisfactory candidate was not found within the current timeline.

Deliberation and next step: After interviews and a scoring exercise, trustees publicly shared rankings and discussed tradeoffs including Spanish-language capacity, experience with high‑school-only districts and cost. The five trustees indicated consensus to place Leadership Associates on the agenda for formal board action at the upcoming Wednesday meeting; staff will notify firms of the recommendation and invite Leadership Associates to attend that meeting if it wishes to be present.

Formal actions taken during the special meeting were procedural: the board voted 5-0 to approve the amended agenda. The recommendation to bring Leadership Associates forward was an informal consensus to place an action item on the next board agenda, not a formal contract award.

The board adjourned after the firms and trustees exchanged closing remarks. Trustee Baker Torres noted she would leave the meeting early and submit her scorecards by email after reviewing recordings of portions she missed.

Authorities and public-record notes cited during the meeting included a reference to OUHSD Board Bylaw 9,323 on public participation and a reminder that the Brown Act limits board replies to public comment. The firms committed to producing recruitment materials, leadership profiles and vetted candidate packages to support trustee decision-making going forward.

What's next: The trustees will consider a formal contract and any required disclosures at the next regular board meeting; staff said the recommended firm will be notified and may attend that meeting.