The most pressing topic during the meeting was the finalization of the interview questions for the city auditor position. Council members engaged in a discussion to ensure that the questions would effectively assess the qualifications of candidates without overwhelming them. A concern arose regarding the wording of the job description, specifically the phrase “the position works under the policy direction.” A consensus was reached to simplify this to just “direction.” This change aimed to clarify expectations for candidates.

The council paid particular attention to the logistics of interview scheduling. They confirmed that three candidates were set to be interviewed, with two sessions scheduled for February 4th at 4:00 PM and 5:30 PM, and a third on February 5th at 4:00 PM. To accommodate all participants, one of these interviews was arranged to be conducted virtually via Teams. The importance of having printed resumes for council members was highlighted, allowing them to take notes during interviews.

The Human Resources (HR) director’s presence at all interviews was confirmed, with HR tasked with providing both the resumes and the interview questions. The council members agreed on the necessity of recording the interviews for public access. There was a strong emphasis on making sure candidates were informed about the recording policy.

An essential part of the discussion was the debate over the role of the audit committee in making a recommendation to the council regarding the auditor selection. While some members believed it was their responsibility to provide a recommendation, there was uncertainty about making an immediate decision following the interviews. This led to a consideration of scheduling a follow-up meeting early in the week after the interviews to deliberate on recommendations before the next council meeting. Tuesday was proposed as a possible day, though conflicts were noted, leading to discussions about alternative times, including Wednesday morning and the possibility of reaching out to other council members to check their availability.

To streamline the interview process, council members discussed consolidating questions related to professional experience and software knowledge. This adjustment aimed to reduce redundancy and make the interview more efficient for both the candidates and the interviewers. Additionally, the council decided to remove a question specifically about audit activities, reasoning that related topics would be covered in other questions. This decision was part of a broader effort to restructure questions for clarity and conciseness.

Council members also discussed the inclusion of information about retirement programs and employee benefits in the professional experience section. This addition was intended to provide a comprehensive view of the candidates’ understanding of the role’s benefits and responsibilities. The council emphasized the importance of clear phrasing in the questions, considering whether to use terms like “supervisors” or “authorities” to align with the job description.

The changes aimed to ensure candidates were well-informed about the expectations of the auditor role, facilitating a thorough evaluation.

Members expressed concern about needing adequate time to process the information from the interviews before making a decision. In light of this, they considered seeking a waiver of the usual rules to present their recommendation to the council if scheduling issues persisted.