Collaborating on Sandusky AD search

SANDUSKY — A leading voice who has been outspoken about Sandusky Schools' process to hire an athletic director and head football coach will work in tandem with the district leader to find a solution that could work with all involved. Marcus Harris, a city employee and Erie County commission candidate whose son is enrolled in the school district, agreed to collaborate with school superintendent Dan Rambler on restarting the hiring process for these high-profile positions. Rambler recommended promoting both Lucas Poggiali and Jamaris Brown to become the new athletics and activities director and new varsity football coach, respectively. The board was scheduled to vote on the recommendations on Tuesday. But after community members raised concerns about the selection process and whether it was fair, both hires declined the positions. On Thursday, the Register spoke with Rambler and Harris about next steps in the process to restart the search and selection process. Harris Q: When did you first become aware that there was a perceived problem with the selection process? MH: There was a post on Facebook. (Looking at) some of the scoring sheets and the list of candidates — and in my professional analysis — seeing some of those inconsistencies within that raised serious alarm bells. Q: Because of your profession — Sandusky government's diversity and economic opportunity manager — how do you view this? Is this a case of systemic bias? MH: It would be an instance of how bias can affect a process if you don't have certain safeguards in place. So I would not say it would be systemic. I would say that — and I've been really focused on process — that when you have a process with some of these types of gaps, bias can infiltrate the selection and the outcomes. Q: Do you think Poggiali and Brown had to withdraw their names, or did this process have to be restarted? MH: I felt that they did not have to withdraw and that it shows a high level of integrity that they did. If there are any doubts in the process of how the outcome was determined. I think that shows a high level of integrity from both of those individuals. Q: Is the school district going to review the process to determine if it was flawed? Do you think that's what they should do? MH: A thorough review and analysis of the process would be very beneficial and in my professional capacity, I am definitely willing to do so. For full transparency, I spoke with Mr. Rambler (Thursday) morning, and we had a very wonderful conversation about some different options that can enhance our process to ensure it is fair and equitable to both internal and external candidates." Rambler Q: Has the search for a new athletic director and head coach been restarted? DR: It has not been started. I have met with a few community members to look at areas that we can revise in our process to be sure we are responsive to the input that I've received. I'm hopeful we will complete that revision process most likely next week and then we'll be able to repost the athletic director position. Q: Do current staff members have advantages or a higher score going in than outside candidates have? DR: I would say this is universal across all positions anywhere. Internal candidates always have some sort of knowledge of the system. I wouldn't call it an advantage, but I would say that having that background knowledge has value. Q: Will the evaluation sheets used be the same as the first time around, or will they be changed? How will they be changed, if that's the case? DR: I don't have the answer as to how it will be, but it will be. We're definitely listening to the people. There has been a lot of conversation, so I'm anticipating that we're going to shift it. I talked to some people and really like the idea of making it an electronic system. That helps create a more objective process and it helps with the scoring mechanism as well. Q: Who will serve on the selection committee, how were those individuals selected the first time, and who selected them? DR: Our (human resources) department and our leadership team identify the positions and qualities that we are looking for within the interview team. One of the things we identified was athletics and activities, (which) works with a lot of internal departments and externally we invited parents, coaches and community members who have connections to what we do in athletics and activities. There's a lot of those types of individuals we'll reach out to again. We're looking at potentially a student-athlete or student-performer. Q: Will the prior selection process be further reviewed to determine if mistakes were made? If so, who will conduct that review? DR: Internally, our administrative team reviewed. That includes myself and human resources to identify concerns that were shared. In the first screening round, there were clerical and scoring errors. The initial screening round, I believe it was 20 qualified candidates. Our cut score for advancing to the next round was intentionally lowered to ensure inclusivity to the next round because we wanted to hear people answering questions. The concerns that were identified for scoring, nobody was impacted that kept them from advancing. Additionally, those scores don't carry on. The scores at the end of each round are separate. While I am openly admitting there are issues we need to correct, I also think it's really important that it didn't preclude anyone from advancing. The finalist still became the finalist. Q: Do you know how many candidates were interviewed in person? DR: There were 10 that advanced to that in-person round. Q: Do you know if JaMarcus Hampton was one of the 10? DR: Yes, he was. JaMarcus advanced to the first interview round the in-person interview and then he was in the second round as well. There is the screening round, the Level 1 (and) Level 2 interviews and then the recommendation to me, and then I complete the final interview with the supervisor.