Laserfiche WebLink
meeting so I didn't have to hang around for three hours waiting to be interviewed as I did <br />for the first appointment! I expected more questions, but maybe the council was satisfied <br />with what I said in my applications. Being interviewed in person by the City Council <br />emphasized the importance and value of serving on a commission. <br />I don’t have any ideas regarding this questions. <br />I think the process is sufficient once a recommendation is made by the Commission. <br />Be up front about preferential appointments for existing members (maybe before the <br />interview process so that candidates can decide if they want to apply or not) and also check <br />with folks to see if they are interested in any other commissions should spots become <br />available so that potential volunteers are not turned away. <br />I believe sharing interview questions ahead of time with the candidate would be helpful. <br />I would have appreciated knowing what the room setup was going to be. That surprise <br />threw me off. <br />Get more background information on the person you are interviewing and fact check after <br />the interview. <br />Deeper background checking for compatible education. This is a thinking person’s <br />committee. How well do you interact with others? Philosophy on working <br />together. Facebook, etc. research to match up with how they really operate. Single agenda <br />candidates need not apply! <br />Seems ok to me. <br />Interview candidates one week and make selection the next if possible. Maybe interviews can <br />be done in work session to narrow the list and discuss Commission appointments with <br />Candidates. Energy City received one Commissioner because he didn’t get his first choice. <br />The person will be great on Energy City, but I think he was put on the spot and that was <br />awkward for him to be pressured into making the decision. He wanted to serve the <br />community so it worked out well, but that might not be the case for all applicants. <br />I think if you continue with the automatic re-appointment process, then don’t have an open <br />advertisement for the position. That just seems a waste of people’s time & gives them a bad <br />experience related to the process. If state law requires an ad no matter what- could a <br />statement be added stating that some positions will be filled by existing members. That way <br />people could go in with full knowledge of the situation. Also for the vetting process - ask <br />more than three simple questions on the application. I don’t know how the council can <br />make an informed decision based on those few questions. Also for re-appointment, rather <br />than automatic fill out the form & your in - the person should have to take the time to show <br />up & show their continued interest. Could there maybe be a feedback form on the <br />incumbent seeking re-appointment, from staff and other commissioners asking about the <br />incumbent’s participation? <br /> <br />Additional comment - Jennifer Wagner did also make a good point in the discussion of this <br />topic, saying that some members of a commission might feel intimidated not to take an <br />opposing view to a city council member who sits on their commission for fear of losing their <br />position when they come up for review. (I personally am not, as it would defeat the purpose <br />of me being on the commission). <br />Have the interview process be an actual interview (like it would be for a job) with prepared <br />questions from the panel and all candidates are asked the same questions and have an <br />opportunity for the applicant and panel to ask each other questions and seek clarification if <br />the applicant does not fully answer a question.