Question of the Week: Should details of employment contracts for public school superintendents be made public while they are in negotiations?

No. That is what you elect your public officials to do. Micro-managing beyond that becomes untenable, and many contract proposals never make it beyond the initial proposal. Can you imagine if US trade negotiations were done that way?

I don't think the contract is the main issue. What I would like to see, and after the fact is fine, is who was considered, how many applicants there were, and why the person who was ultimately chosen picked over the others. I think that's reasonable for any high profile position. If this had been an election, we'd know what the choices were and why the winner won.

Even though I’m a transparency advocate when spending public money, I voted no, but need to clarify what sections I believe should be withheld until after the hiring vote.

The no was for details of negotiations. That should be disclosed after the hiring process is complete.

But I believe candidate names should be released even if legally the governmental body is not required to do so. If applying for a public job, you should have already informed your bosses that you are looking.

The community should at least hear who the final applicants are for important positions.

Voted NO but agree almost to the letter with Charlotte and Bailey. The names of the final three candidates for consideration should be public and applicants should be made aware of that going in. I do understand that most candidates at this administrative level would not like their home institution to know of their application until further along in the process. In this case and for transparency's sake, the finalist should have been made available to the public in the form of a 'meet and greet' or a forum with each of the finalist discussing their plans for the district with time for questions.