Board got parting right, needs to get hiring right

In response to the naming of Debbie Brockett as school superintendent in the spring of 2021, we opened our editorial this way:

“When Maryalice Russell was named superintendent of schools here in 2002, she was chosen over co-finalists Kris Olsen, Karen Richey and Dan Rodriguez, in addition to co-semifinalists Wayne Kostur, Gary Peterson, Mike Call and Gerald Hamilton. The names and backgrounds of the final eight were made public as soon as they emerged from the original field of 32.

“Each semifinalist was invited to McMinnville to interview with the board as a panel of staff, parent and community members looked on. Each finalist was invited back to spend a day in the district, meeting with constituents and undergoing further interviews, and local delegations visited their home districts for a fuller picture.

“The process that led to the selection of Debbie Brockett to replace Russell was conducted almost entirely behind closed doors. That was due partly to Covid considerations and board preferences, but mostly, it would appear, to search firm preferences which we find badly misplaced.”

We went on to laud her “personal and professional credentials” and offer her “our highest hopes” for success. But looking back, now that the community’s relationship with Brockett has irretrievably ruptured, we can’t help but find our misgivings about the hiring process well taken.

To those, we must add our misgivings about an evaluation process serving to paper over shortcomings that should have been documented and addressed much earlier.

Brockett’s evaluations were more guarded than glowing, but that was enough to mask underlying tensions. Those did not boil up into public view until her recent attempt to unilaterally put a board member’s school visits on an invitation-only basis.

The board has been using an evaluation tool featuring a rather crude four-point scale, limiting its ability to adequately differentiate strengths and weaknesses. What’s more, it has not been reaching out sufficiently for staff and community input, which is vital to accurate evaluation of someone entrusted with the helm of a public school system.

Brockett’s terse school visits directive was tone-deaf for a veteran executive, and we said as much editorially. But the only role it actually played was alerting the public to a relationship so frayed it might be approaching Monday’s formal breaking point — a 5-2 decision to part ways with Brockett when her self-imposed leave expires at the end of June.

Nor can blame remotely be placed on the culture war woes that previously bedeviled our neighboring Newberg School District, a smattering of community comments to that effect notwithstanding.

This board is not riven by the fault lines of DEI, wokeness or MAGA. Its divisions stem from deeply held personal convictions about Brockett’s ability to rally the staff, board and community support to lead this district effectively.

To be sure, she has supporters on the board and in the larger community.

But a clear board majority, however guarded in its public comments, has become convinced she lacks the communication, collaboration and interpersonal skills to manage by persuasion and example rather than fiat — something her board visits directive may have helped expose for those not on the front lines. And they can point to performance indicators to support their call for a change at the helm.

Those indicators include rising churn among teachers, counselors, principals and directors; a perception of eroding morale, particularly but not exclusively at the high school; and declining student achievement in comparison to peer schools, where our district set a statewide example under Russell’s stewardship.

The call for change was supported at Monday night’s showdown meeting by testimony from former district employees. It seemed employees who’d moved on tended to feel Brockett’s style was not sufficiently collaborative or supportive, nor their input and contributions sufficiently valued, to make continued service tenable on a long-term basis.

Much has been made of the closeted nature of the process and the seeming abruptness with which it played out. However, that’s the nature of internal personnel procedures, as both legal and ethical considerations demand employees be granted as much shielding as possible when it comes to exposure of perceived shortcomings.

Oregon law allows public bodies to consider personnel matters in executive session, open to press attendance for background, but closed to public attendance and press disclosure. We are satisfied the McMinnville School Board complied in good faith here.

Going forward, the board should take all the time it needs to heal its divisions and overhaul its hiring and evaluation processes. It should strive to make the latter as comprehensive, inclusive and finely tuned as possible.

The district should be in good hands with Human Resources Director Steffanie Frost for the remainder of the current school year, and a veteran educator can no doubt be found to guide us through the following school year on an interim basis. The reward lies in getting it right, and we don’t see a single summer giving us enough time for that.

Yes, there is a cost in buying out a superintendent’s contract. But sometimes that just can’t be helped, and in our assessment, this is one of those times.