During the meeting, a presentation by Doug Thomas from Strategic Government Resources detailed the recruitment process, outlining the extensive outreach and marketing efforts that attracted a diverse candidate pool, with an increase in female applicants noted. Thomas explained the next steps, including deeper background checks and a 360 evaluation for the finalists. The commission’s discussion centered on the thoroughness of the selection process and the importance of comprehensive information gathering.

The candidate evaluation was extensive, with the commission examining each candidate’s qualifications and experience, such as their roles in previous positions and involvement in professional development. Some candidates were highlighted for their experience in public-private partnerships, strategic planning, and financial management. The commission delved into each candidate’s background, considering factors such as the length of time spent in current positions and the reasons for candidates seeking new opportunities, including personal and professional motivations.

The commission also debated the varying qualifications of candidates, with some concerns expressed about quick turnover potential and the impact of controversies or resignations from previous roles. One candidate, previously an assistant city manager in Surprise, Arizona, was involved in a controversial incident involving disparaging comments that were illegally recorded and leaked, leading to resignation. Another, with experience as a Town Administrator in Redington Shores, encountered challenges with board restructuring financing programs, which also resulted in resignation. Other candidates presented included those with experience in overseeing grants and programs, public works and utilities, economic development, and municipal consulting.

Further discussions touched on the potential for some candidates to drop out, the need for a fair evaluation of all candidates, and the implications of narrowing the candidate pool. The commission used a scoring system to evaluate the candidates, with varying opinions leading to a debate on the selection process. Concerns about candidates’ backgrounds were raised, including issues with police departments and frequent job changes. The commissioners discussed the importance of evaluating management styles, experience with capital projects, resiliency issues, strategic planning, and performance management.

The commission’s plan for the next steps in the selection process was outlined in detail. This includes confirming the continued interest of selected semi-finalists, a pre-interview questionnaire, a stage one media search, and thorough background checks. The finalists will also be asked to complete an exercise outlining their first-year game plan, participate in a personality assessment, and deliver a public presentation.

The logistics of the on-site interview process, including community tours and public meet-and-greet events, were discussed. The commission considered conducting DISC assessments for finalists and discussed the feedback collection process from the public and stakeholders. It was agreed that semifinalist resumes would be posted on the city manager search page to facilitate public review.