Agenda - Council - 02/13/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE # PARK COMMISSION VACANCY By: Ryan R. Schroeder, City Administrator Background: Recently, the Park and Recreation Commission had a vacancy which 'resulted in an interview process conducted by the Commission. The process included interviews of three candidates for the vacancy. The result of the process was that Council followed the Commission recommendation on whom to place on the Commission. The Council, in doing so, expressed concerns about the interview process itself. Council, therefore, directed that staff conduct research into that process. In the meantime, the Commission requested a workshop with the Council to discuss Council concerns regarding the interview process. This workshop was held on February 8, 1996. I believe the primary concern of the Commission regarding process is that they arc not comfortable that they are fully informed as to Council desires. Further, that the Commission may have differing views from Council on qualifications necessary to be seated as a Park Commissioner. Members of Council continued to express at the workshop that the process used to seat Commissioners was not sufficient. I have interviewed two recent candidates for a seat on the Park Commission in order to ascertain their views on the past process and their recommendations for the future. Both of these individuals had some level of~ discomfort with the past process. They also had various recommendations for the future. Somelof their observations are as follows (Not necessarily opinions of both but rather of at least one of these persons): The process seemed too unstructured in that it didn't seem that all candidates were asked the same questions. Having all three candidates in the room at the same time was' uncomfortable. It didn't seem that anyone Was aware that there were three candidates for the seat until the night of the meeting even though three applications had apparently been made prior to the posted deadline. Comments which could be construed as disparaging or biased were made even though perhaps there was no intent to be or appear inappropriate. It was not known then, or now, why certain candidates were not chosen other than statements that these candidates perhaps were too busy to devote the necessary time to this position. It appeared that the Commission did not wish to seat persons who were members of an identified group of recreation enthusiasts. Some of the specific recommendations beyond those implied above were: 1. Prefer to see Council involved in the process in that it would be more fair Think Commission should conduct the interviews as at Council level there is more chance for cronyism, also if Council does it they have little to gain but a lot to lose (note: This item is an opposing view to #1 above.)