Commissioners,
We heard a 10 minute presentation from each candidate last week with limited questions from each commissioner. There was no public comment at that meeting. Yesterday we were advised of the short list, Thursday there is a meet and greet for an hour or so on the night of the 2nd county budget hearing and on the following Tuesday the selection will be final. Eight business days after you first met (most of) the candidates face to face. I seriously doubt that any other employer would hire an executive of a comparable level in such a hurried manner.
Further, the public has been left out of the process to select a manager.
Here’s one way it could have proceeded.
1) A selection committee would be setup.
2) The selection committee sets the criteria for the manager candidates and the advertisement goes out.
3) The candidates present to the committee at a public workshop. At that time the commission and the committee could interact with the candidates. Further, the public could submit questions of the candidates to the committee.
4) The committee would then select the three most qualified candidates.
5) The committee would host a public workshop with the three candidates.
6) The public would have the opportunity for their chance to comment.
7) The commission would then make their selection.
If the commission had proceeded as above then the public would be able to have shared in the selection process. Instead we are being handed essentially one candidate to meet on Thursday for an hour or less. Further, it is on the night of a county budget hearing. Some people like my neighbor who works for the county can’t be there because he is required to be at the hearing as he is the Assistant Tax Collector.
Chuck
Manager Process Bungled
5 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Manager Process Bungled
by CAR » Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:48 pm
Last edited by CAR on Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- CAR
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:03 pm
Re: Manager Process Bungled
by CAR » Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:51 pm
Commissioners,
I take exception to the “process” that you have employed to select the manager candidates. I have detailed below the chronology of the “process” that has been rushed into, failed to compile a pool of qualified candidates from which to choose and, contrary to our charter and your own motion to enhance voter participation , essentially excluded resident input.
07/29: Special Commission Meeting that was noticed only for setting budget hearing dates turned into a discussion regarding an RFP that was sent only to Commissioners, and only 3-1/2 hours prior to the meeting. The Commission approves the RFP, 4-1, without Village Attorney recommendation, in front of an audience of 3 residents.
08/04: (Regular Commission meeting) The Commission votes to remove the RFP (which it approved 5 days earlier) from the Village website, due to significant errors, and instructs the Manager to redraft and post a revised RFP, without further review by the Commission. At that meeting, the Commission also agrees that a committee of local and retired municipal managers (Range Riders) would vet the anticipated RFP responses down to 10 potential candidates. Further, the Commission agrees that a selection process would be developed including public participation at the next scheduled Commission Meeting on 09/01.
08/14: The stated deadline for submittals in the only published advertisement is incorrect (August 17th); the date set by the Commission at the 08/04 meeting is 08/24.
08/24: 10 Submittals are accepted.
Some time after 08/24: the local and retired municipal manager committee becomes a Committee of ONE -- Mr. Kissinger (Indian Creek Manager), plus Village Manager Spence and Village Attorney Hearn, who reduce the 10 submittals to 7 candidates.
09/01: (Regular Commission Meeting) The vast majority of public participation requests re-advertising to solicit a larger pool of candidates, and the Commission agrees to re-advertise, even as they proceeded with interviews, beginning on 09/09. (8th “ranked” submittal previously eliminated is added back into pool of candidates.)
09/08: (1st Budget Hearing): One of the candidates appears for his interview before the Commission at a special meeting noticed as a public hearing concerning the budget.
09/09: (Special Meeting scheduled at the same time as the Presidential National Speech on Healthcare Insurance) The balance of the candidates, 7 of them, each present for 10 minutes, followed by approximately 2 questions from each Commissioner, before an audience of 18 residents. No allowance for public participation or comment is made. A majority of the Commission reverses itself on re-advertising, electing to see the process through with the current candidates, and give themselves 4 days for due diligence (research and check references) to submit to the Manager 3 Candidates for a short-list by highest to lowest ranking no later than the morning of Monday 09/14. Then, with most of the candidates present, the Commission discusses allowing 4 days to individually meet with the short-listed candidates, and set a public meet-and-greet of the finalists for the morning of Saturday 09/19. The final selection is slated to be announced at the scheduled 2nd Budget Hearing on 09/22. -- To this date there has been no public interaction, no vetting, no official background checks.
09/14: A short list of the candidates is emailed to Commissioners at around noon, and shared with some residents later that afternoon; and, the Saturday 09/19 meet-and-greet is advanced to the evening of Thursday 09/17 (at the same time as a previously scheduled Miami-Dade County Second Hearing on the Budget). The Manager notified that one of the 3 finalists is on the Dade League of Cities Budget Committee, and was asked to notify the other Commissioners of the 09/17 date conflict.
09/15: Short-listed candidates are officially notified, and Village email blast notifies about 200 residents of the 9/17 meeting
-- only 2 days away from the advanced 09/17 meet-and-greet.
09/17: (Special Meeting to be held on 2-days notice) Public Meet-and-Greet and final Commission interviews of short-listed candidates.
09/22: (Special Meeting for 2nd Hearing on Budget) Date slated for announcement of final selection for Village Manager.
So, we started with a faulty RFP and very limited advertising, which yielded a total of 10 applicants for the position (in today’s economy, where it is commonplace to see hundreds of applicants responding to job postings).
Then, the entire selection process -- from the 08/24 deadline for RFP submittals to final selection on 09/22 -- is less than 1 month. No re-advertising for a larger pool of applicants, no public workshops to discuss candidate qualifications, no vetting prior to reaching a short list, and no public participation (except for ignored requests to re-advertise). Apparently, our pool of applicants was so scarce that it resulted in 2 Commissioners being unable to select 3 candidates for the short-list -- as one Commissioner only selected 2, and another Commissioner selected only a single candidate.
Now, 1 of our 5 Commissioners, and 1 of the 3 finalist candidates cannot participate at the 09/17 public meet-and-greet due to their prior commitment to the League of Cities’ Budget Committee and need to participate at the Miami-Dade County 2nd Hearing on the Budget.
Finally, to set a public meeting for 6 pm on a weekday, the day of the county budget hearing, instead of a Saturday Morning limits public participation, shortens time frames for interviews, allows for little public notice, and sets a tone -- just as when Mr. Spence was hired -- the Manager selection has had no public input.
Chuck Ross
Roxana Ross
Harvey Bilt
Vicki Smith-Bilt
Barbara Kiers
Bryan Cooper
Gary Kuhl
Barbara Kuhl
Stacy Calderone
Brett Shinn
Colleen Shinn
Amy Refeca
Dan Ward
Alba Ward
Maryann Duva
Victor Romano
Audra McCollum
Alex Bowers
Karen Coleman
John Ise
Peter & Dora Cam
Sally Barr
Dan Keys
One last added item, it appears that New Communities should have been included as a tie for 3rd with Gen’l Witt and invited to the meet and greet based on a numerical evaluation of the results.
CAR
I take exception to the “process” that you have employed to select the manager candidates. I have detailed below the chronology of the “process” that has been rushed into, failed to compile a pool of qualified candidates from which to choose and, contrary to our charter and your own motion to enhance voter participation , essentially excluded resident input.
07/29: Special Commission Meeting that was noticed only for setting budget hearing dates turned into a discussion regarding an RFP that was sent only to Commissioners, and only 3-1/2 hours prior to the meeting. The Commission approves the RFP, 4-1, without Village Attorney recommendation, in front of an audience of 3 residents.
08/04: (Regular Commission meeting) The Commission votes to remove the RFP (which it approved 5 days earlier) from the Village website, due to significant errors, and instructs the Manager to redraft and post a revised RFP, without further review by the Commission. At that meeting, the Commission also agrees that a committee of local and retired municipal managers (Range Riders) would vet the anticipated RFP responses down to 10 potential candidates. Further, the Commission agrees that a selection process would be developed including public participation at the next scheduled Commission Meeting on 09/01.
08/14: The stated deadline for submittals in the only published advertisement is incorrect (August 17th); the date set by the Commission at the 08/04 meeting is 08/24.
08/24: 10 Submittals are accepted.
Some time after 08/24: the local and retired municipal manager committee becomes a Committee of ONE -- Mr. Kissinger (Indian Creek Manager), plus Village Manager Spence and Village Attorney Hearn, who reduce the 10 submittals to 7 candidates.
09/01: (Regular Commission Meeting) The vast majority of public participation requests re-advertising to solicit a larger pool of candidates, and the Commission agrees to re-advertise, even as they proceeded with interviews, beginning on 09/09. (8th “ranked” submittal previously eliminated is added back into pool of candidates.)
09/08: (1st Budget Hearing): One of the candidates appears for his interview before the Commission at a special meeting noticed as a public hearing concerning the budget.
09/09: (Special Meeting scheduled at the same time as the Presidential National Speech on Healthcare Insurance) The balance of the candidates, 7 of them, each present for 10 minutes, followed by approximately 2 questions from each Commissioner, before an audience of 18 residents. No allowance for public participation or comment is made. A majority of the Commission reverses itself on re-advertising, electing to see the process through with the current candidates, and give themselves 4 days for due diligence (research and check references) to submit to the Manager 3 Candidates for a short-list by highest to lowest ranking no later than the morning of Monday 09/14. Then, with most of the candidates present, the Commission discusses allowing 4 days to individually meet with the short-listed candidates, and set a public meet-and-greet of the finalists for the morning of Saturday 09/19. The final selection is slated to be announced at the scheduled 2nd Budget Hearing on 09/22. -- To this date there has been no public interaction, no vetting, no official background checks.
09/14: A short list of the candidates is emailed to Commissioners at around noon, and shared with some residents later that afternoon; and, the Saturday 09/19 meet-and-greet is advanced to the evening of Thursday 09/17 (at the same time as a previously scheduled Miami-Dade County Second Hearing on the Budget). The Manager notified that one of the 3 finalists is on the Dade League of Cities Budget Committee, and was asked to notify the other Commissioners of the 09/17 date conflict.
09/15: Short-listed candidates are officially notified, and Village email blast notifies about 200 residents of the 9/17 meeting
-- only 2 days away from the advanced 09/17 meet-and-greet.
09/17: (Special Meeting to be held on 2-days notice) Public Meet-and-Greet and final Commission interviews of short-listed candidates.
09/22: (Special Meeting for 2nd Hearing on Budget) Date slated for announcement of final selection for Village Manager.
So, we started with a faulty RFP and very limited advertising, which yielded a total of 10 applicants for the position (in today’s economy, where it is commonplace to see hundreds of applicants responding to job postings).
Then, the entire selection process -- from the 08/24 deadline for RFP submittals to final selection on 09/22 -- is less than 1 month. No re-advertising for a larger pool of applicants, no public workshops to discuss candidate qualifications, no vetting prior to reaching a short list, and no public participation (except for ignored requests to re-advertise). Apparently, our pool of applicants was so scarce that it resulted in 2 Commissioners being unable to select 3 candidates for the short-list -- as one Commissioner only selected 2, and another Commissioner selected only a single candidate.
Now, 1 of our 5 Commissioners, and 1 of the 3 finalist candidates cannot participate at the 09/17 public meet-and-greet due to their prior commitment to the League of Cities’ Budget Committee and need to participate at the Miami-Dade County 2nd Hearing on the Budget.
Finally, to set a public meeting for 6 pm on a weekday, the day of the county budget hearing, instead of a Saturday Morning limits public participation, shortens time frames for interviews, allows for little public notice, and sets a tone -- just as when Mr. Spence was hired -- the Manager selection has had no public input.
Chuck Ross
Roxana Ross
Harvey Bilt
Vicki Smith-Bilt
Barbara Kiers
Bryan Cooper
Gary Kuhl
Barbara Kuhl
Stacy Calderone
Brett Shinn
Colleen Shinn
Amy Refeca
Dan Ward
Alba Ward
Maryann Duva
Victor Romano
Audra McCollum
Alex Bowers
Karen Coleman
John Ise
Peter & Dora Cam
Sally Barr
Dan Keys
One last added item, it appears that New Communities should have been included as a tie for 3rd with Gen’l Witt and invited to the meet and greet based on a numerical evaluation of the results.
CAR
- CAR
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:03 pm
Re: Manager Process Bungled
by CAR » Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:56 pm
Wow, that's a lot of residents. How did you get so many and how long did it take?
- CAR
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:03 pm
Re: Manager Process Bungled
by CAR » Sun Sep 20, 2009 1:10 pm
It wasn't hard I just sent it out to the 38 or so resident's I know and they agreed. I took about 2-3 hours to get the results.
CAR
CAR
- CAR
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:03 pm
Re: Manager Process Bungled
by SGB » Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:59 pm
Um... you're not talking to yourself, are you CAR?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Steve
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Steve
- SGB
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:41 pm
5 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest