Rainier SD 13 hears superintendent search update; consultants report 17 applicants, outline May interviews

Rainier SD 13 received a detailed update on its superintendent search that outlined the candidate pool, stakeholder feedback and the schedule for interviews and contract negotiations.

Doug, a lead search consultant from McPherson & Jacobson, told the board that the position had closed and “as of 15 minutes ago we had 17 applicants,” and he described next steps: the consultants will present their recommended short list at a May 8 meeting, with board interviews tentatively scheduled for May 13 and May 16. The consultants said preview packets and online short interviews will be provided to board members in advance so members can prepare.

The stakeholder report presented by the consultants summarized input from “over a hundred” participants across in-person and online meetings. Doug said the in-person turnout included 53 participants and another 43 online, and that groups represented students, staff and community members. He said responses ranged from praise for the district’s community ties and programs to concerns about staff retention, behavior incidents in middle and high school, and the need for improved college-and-career readiness.

Consultants summarized the qualities stakeholders want in a new superintendent: commitment to the Rainier community, experience in a rural setting, visibility and approachability, inclusivity and the ability to lead facilities planning and, if necessary, pass bond measures. Elaine, another consultant, advised board members to guard against common interview biases — “halo effect” and similarity bias — and to focus questions on the specific attributes the board has identified.

On logistics, consultants said interview days would include school tours, student meetings, stakeholder panels that provide written feedback, an all‑staff session and a sequence of board interview slots (two interviews on Monday, with additional slots on Thursday). Stakeholder and community feedback will be collected on a candidate input form and provided to the board for deliberations. The consultants emphasized that candidate materials are confidential during the process; board members must sign confidentiality forms and follow executive‑session rules when reviewing applicant information.

The consultants recommended that the board conduct short post‑interview check‑ins to note strengths and weaknesses but reserve rank‑ordering of finalists until after all interviews are completed in executive session. They advised the board to authorize the board chair to enter negotiations only after rank‑ordering finalists and clarifying contract language with district counsel. A tentative follow‑up meeting was noted for the week of May 20 if additional time is needed.

The board did not take any hiring action at the meeting; the next substantive public milestone is the May 8 presentation and the subsequent interview dates.