The council considered the implications of the veterans’ preference, acknowledging that candidates with service-connected disabilities, even those with 0% disability ratings, should receive additional consideration. This prompted a re-evaluation of the existing scores and the necessity for a clear city policy on how these preferences should be applied during hiring processes. The council discussed the possibility of adjusting scores before proceeding with interviews to ensure compliance with state statutes. One proposal was to review the qualifications of all 13 applicants and amend their scores accordingly, to ensure that veterans’ contributions were adequately recognized.

In addition to the veterans’ preference issue, the council debated the number of candidates to be interviewed. Initial plans suggested interviewing the top four candidates, but discrepancies in the scoring and differing opinions on the most qualified candidates led to a broader discussion. Some council members advocated for expanding the pool to include all candidates who scored ten or above. This would ensure that no potentially deserving candidate was overlooked, particularly those who might benefit from the veterans’ preference.

Logistical aspects of the interview process were also discussed, with a focus on scheduling interviews efficiently. The council explored the idea of holding all interviews in one day to minimize disruptions to council members’ schedules. There was a consensus that conducting interviews during the day would reduce costs for candidates traveling from out of town, who might otherwise require overnight accommodations. However, flexibility in scheduling was recognized as necessary to accommodate candidates’ needs, with some interviews potentially taking place in the evening.

The council also addressed the involvement of department heads in the interview process, proposing that they meet with candidates and provide feedback. This would ensure that staff input was considered in selecting the new city manager. Discussions included whether interviews should be open to the public, with concerns about fairness if candidates viewed recordings of earlier interviews. It was determined that interviews should be public, with candidates barred from the room during others’ interviews to maintain equity.

Further deliberations covered the structure of the interview questions. While some members favored a consistent set of pre-approved questions to ensure fairness, others argued for the flexibility to ask follow-up questions based on candidates’ responses. The council aimed to finalize the list of questions by a specific date, emphasizing the importance of structured yet adaptable questioning to gain comprehensive insights into candidates’ qualifications.

The council reiterated the importance of conducting background checks and extending conditional offers of employment based on findings. They emphasized that candidates must submit a contract for review and approval by the council. The council sought to maintain integrity in the process by verifying references and ensuring all candidates were asked the same core questions during interviews.