But there’s one more step they should consider again.

Less than a week after Dr. Joe McCann announced he would step down Dec. 31, the board has moved quickly. It has hired the N.C. School Boards Association to aid in the search. It has outlined a series of community and staff meetings designed to let people have their say about what type of superintendent they want.

Now, if the board would also announce the names of the finalists after they narrow down their list of candidates, this would be a totally citizen-friendly process.

The board took that step five years ago when it promoted McCann, and the process appeared to go well. Three candidates’ names were released —

Thursday night a majority of the school board ruled out this possibility. They apparently don’t want to scare off any candidates who would not like an open process. But in supporting their decision, Ed Dunlap, head of the School Boards Association, said something that actually shed some hope: “People aren’t going to jeopardize their current positions unless there’s a significant chance you’re going to hire them.”

Put the emphasis on significant. Being one of three to five finalists certainly reflects a significant chance of being hired.

There are several advantages to sharing the finalists’ names with the public:

• An open process would quell rumors and misunderstandings. Stories will swirl for months —already are, in fact —about who’s being considered and who is not. Settling that question as the search enters the final phase could have a calming effect on everyone, the board included.
• It would build public confidence. As was proved during recent redistricting debates, citizens very much want to be involved in school board decisions, and have a keen distrust of discussions that go on behind closed doors. (The recent uproar over McCann’s $9,777-a-month raise, which has never been explained forthrightly, has only heightened that feeling.) While much of the interviewing process must go on in private, opening up the final phase would lift whatever shroud of mystery or distrust may linger and boost the feeling that board members care about what citizens think.
• Revealing the names would enable the board to get more information on the candidates. Instead of relying only on interviews and hushed-up visits, the board would get input from the public. It’s a small world; someone will know these people or have worked with them. Newspaper profiles also might help shed light on their past performance.
• Finally, an open process would relieve board members of the burden of secrecy. Bringing in high-caliber administrators for visits without bumping into someone who knows them or leaking information to the press is a very difficult and stressful process.