Regarding the selection of a superintendent for the Minneapolis school system, I believe that despite serious concerns, you've done a good job.  The initial announcement of the new superintendent was abrupt, which exacerbates the potential for public outcry, regardless of the choice.  Additionally, it was done without any information being given the public since the departure of the prior superintendent was announced.  Nor did the board display any interest in public input until Jennings declined the appointment.  The final problem with the initial effort was the failure to apparent disinterest in responding to criticisms, and thus public opinion in general.  

As can be seen in the level of participation in the second search effort, the level of public interest was likely blown out of proportion.  The second search was excessive in is solicitation of public opinion, but an effective display of interest in public opinion.  

The media amplified the voices of a miniscule, vocally discontented minority.  With no reassurance of a greater public support or at least indifference, which solicited public opinion would provide, it was easy for them to move into a position of prominence in the public fora.  
 
The initial process required more openness to public review.  If it had been initially announced that the board was considering Jennings, and taking input on his suitability.  Alternatively, presenting his candidacy as a nomination, and soliciting additional nominations would also have been an appropriate way to forestall public outcry.  Such alternatives could have been pursued, even after the announcement was made.  The two key changes in these proposals are taking substantive public input and presenting the decision as tentative.  

The second solicitation of public input did provide opportunities, but may have lacked in structure for feedback.  It could have been improved by providing proposed criteria for partipants to provide feedback on.  It could also have been solicited at multiple stages in the process, not just the development of selection criteria.  Given the uncertainty of the degree of interest, it may be appropriate to focus the feedback mechanisms primarily on more volume flexible channels, such as phone, mail, and website.  If serious disagreement appears via this channel, then public meetings can be convened to resolve these conflicts.  Nonetheless, the solicitation of public input seems to have defused public complaint.