That’s what we advised when Mr. Dance resigned unexpectedly a year ago, and nothing that has happened since then has changed that advice — not the revelation of charges against Mr. Dance, not reports that Ms. White had her own ethical lapse (albeit one on a much smaller scale) and not the guilty plea and its accompanying details of just how badly Mr. Dance had abused the public trust. In fact, the case for that approach has nothing to do with the recent scandals in the district or even with controversies over policies relating to technology in education or the allocation of resources. It’s simply a question of whether any candidate who is highly qualified to run one of the biggest school systems in the nation would do so at a time when the majority of the school board is about to be replaced by people chosen in the county’s first-ever elections for that body. Who would take a job knowing your supervisors would be different within six months and might or might not share your priorities? Add to that the fact that the search would begin about five months later in the academic year than is customary, and the pool is likely to become even smaller still. Under the best of circumstances, in a stable district with unified stakeholders, that would be problematic. In one riven by conflicts, it could be disastrous.