0:00A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the presentation and evaluation of potential candidates for the city administrator position. Mike Breor, a senior consultant engaged by the council for this task, introduced a diverse pool of candidates. Using a tiered system, Breor categorized the candidates based on their qualifications and backgrounds. Tier one candidates were those with either prior experience in similar roles or clear potential for growth, whereas tier two candidates were seen as capable yet accompanied by some reservations.

The council members engaged in discussions regarding candidate qualities. Each member had the opportunity to present their rankings and perspectives, which revealed a growing consensus around candidates two and twelve as top choices. Candidate two, for instance, was praised for having the potential to align well with the city’s needs, while candidate twelve received multiple endorsements for their qualifications and perceived fit.

Breor provided detailed insights into the backgrounds of several candidates. Candidate one was noted for significant experience in community development and public financing but lacked proficiency in audit preparation and certain software skills. This candidate’s varied employment history across different communities piqued the council’s interest. In contrast, candidate three, who boasted extensive experience in city government and a role as a former auditor, was seen as a strong contender with no negative references.

The discussion also covered candidate six, who, despite not meeting minimum qualifications due to the absence of a college degree, was highlighted for a robust military background and diplomatic experience. Candidate ten, with a history of shorter job tenures described as a “change agent,” raised questions about long-term stability.

18:46Following the candidate evaluations, the focus shifted to the interview process for final selections. A recommendation was made to narrow the candidates to three main contenders to simplify communication and decision-making. However, it was emphasized that staff should provide structured evaluations without ranking candidates to avoid potential conflicts.

The council discussed the logistics of the interview schedule. This structured approach aimed to ensure a comprehensive assessment of each candidate’s compatibility with the city’s needs. The council agreed on a tentative interview date of March 12, with March 19 as a backup, and emphasized the importance of confirming availability to ensure full participation.

35:08As for the interview styles, a variety of methods were considered. One proposal involved providing candidates with a set of questions in advance, allowing them to prepare thoroughly. This approach was seen as beneficial for candidates who might find traditional questioning challenging. The council also deliberated using a bank of questions to maintain consistency and allow for follow-up inquiries based on candidates’ responses.

The possibility of incorporating a neutral facilitator to pose questions was also explored, which could help candidates focus on their responses without being distracted by the dynamics of who asked the questions. The council agreed on the importance of staff feedback post-interview.