10.5. SR 06-07-2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#6 - How can we improve the interview and appointment process? Commissioners whose terms are up should be evaluated for effectiveness. If it is determined that they are not effective, or if they have resigned for other reasons, then there should be an opening in that commission for that seat(s). Following that determination, the vacancies should be advertised as usual, but just for the vacant seats. Applicants for the vacancies should be give a set of questions to help them prepare for the interview process. The interview should be extensive, not cursory. Ineffective commissioners may reapply and re- interview if they choose, but without the guarantee of automatic reappointment. If the intent is to reappoint all commissioners whose terms are up, no applicants should be sought. That leads to an embarrassing situation. I don't believe it needs to be changed. Have interested candidates be required to attend X commission meetings prior to applying and interviewing so that they have some awareness of what the commission does. It is a long process to have all commission reappointments on the same night. Based on my experience and knowledge, the process I went through needs to be updated. I recommend benchmarking with other city and country government entities to determine their processes and from these select best practices to incorporate into a new process for this city. This can be done directly with sister communities, or while I do not know the name of such I have to believe the City of Elk River is a member of a national organization that can provide best examples. I know there are more ideas, but from my perspective these suggestions rely on established and proven practices that can be and should be explored as part of improving your process. Given the constraints of the open meeting requirements I am not sure how it would be possible. Being interviewed by a panel of people in front of an audience was very awkward. In my first interview one of the council members made it quite obvious he thought the commission I was being interviewed for was a complete waste of time, that was a poor first impression. Survey incumbents to see if they intend to reapply. If they are willing to continue serving don't put out a call for that commission. I understand the transparency and efficiency in making the appointment right after interviews but I think it could be a source of hard feelings/frustration for people who are not appointed, potentially even demotivating otherwise engaged citizens. It’s sort of a rare circumstance to have your offers to help "rejected" immediately and it might be less of a slight if they could leave the room and some time was allowed to pass. The current system also binds the council to a tight window of learning about all the applicants and instantly recommending someone. If it were possible, I would hold the discussion and make the appointments at the following meeting and provide a thank you note with an explanation of the decision to those who weren’t appointed that also encourages them to seek future opportunities. It was weird getting interviewed in front of every citizen in attendance at the council meeting. Did the interview matter, or did you make your decision based mostly by the submitted questionnaire? Most personal interviews have a question and answer period and not just a "tell me about yourself" moment. Most interviewees don't get to hear what their competition says. I just think it should have been behind closed doors. I appreciated having the reappointment interviews at the beginning of the City Council