What’s the rush on superintendent?

With the field reduced to two by the withdrawal of candidate James Browder, superintendent of the Lee County School District in southwest Florida, members of the Clark County School Board have announced they could vote as early as today to choose a successor for retiring School Superintendent Walt Rulffes.

Why? What’s the rush? Mr. Rulffes appears to be in good health, and has indicated a willingness to serve into next year, if necessary, while a suitable replacement is sought.

For that matter, the choice of a new CEO for the academically troubled district — one who can be expected to serve five years or more — seems an awfully important choice to rush through before this fall’s election, when at least two new members will join the board.

Mr. Browder was obviously a strong contender, as evidenced by the speed with which he was snapped up by Edison State College, also in Lee County. It’s no affront to either remaining contender to point out his departure substantially limits the board’s current options.

The executive search firm that produced the initial three nominees — at considerable expense — presumably had a fourth candidate who barely “missed the cut.” Why not ask for that name, and interview a third candidate, as originally planned?

For that matter, Chancellor Michelle Rhee, who reportedly made considerable strides with the legendary miserable school system in Washington, D.C., may be looking for a new post after the recent electoral defeat of her patron, Mayor Adrian Fenty — fired by voters precisely for refusing to run his administration as a race-based spoils system, according to many. Has anyone solicited an application from that lady?

The main point, though, is that the Clark County School Board will have a new look in five weeks, after the Nov. 2 elections. There will be two new faces, possibly more. The new board will have to work with the person hired to superintend the district for years to come. Why not allow all the new members to participate in what could be a once-a-decade decision?

Especially when some questions — predictably — have arisen about each of the remaining nominees, such important decisions should not be made in a hurry, when there’s no evident urgency.

Put off this vote till after Nov. 2.