Thoughts on the Administrator Search
On June 12, the Board met to interview the only remaining candidate from the initial finalist list, Michael Tremblay. It also discussed next steps for the Administrator search in broad terms. It was generally agreed that we should take a break on the process until we reconvene for our next scheduled Board meeting on June 24. Additionally, Chair Teeples urged the Board to spend some time thinking through how they might like to see the next step in the process co. In that spirit, these are some of my thoughts.
Part One: Applicant Pool
Re-engage Previous Applicants - We should reach out to prior applicants to confirm their continued interest in the role. This was generally agreed upon at the meeting by all Board members.
Repost the Opening - To attract the most diverse and qualified group of applicants, I believe reopening the job posting for a short period, such as 2–3 weeks, makes a lot of sense. This would allow new candidates to apply while giving the County a chance to broaden its outreach efforts, ensuring no talent is overlooked.
Part Two - Selecting the Finalists
We are a diverse Board, with divergent opinions. To make the task easier on ourselves, I do believe it needs to be simplified. To do that, I believe the following makes some sense:
Remove External Ranking Systems
Double Haul has done a good job compiling initial resumes, but going further than that seemed to bring unnecessary complications. I believe they should simply provide the board with unranked candidate materials to allow for independent evaluation. This would reduce potential bias from external ranking systems and empowers us to assess candidates based on our own criteria.
Pre-Set the Number of Finalists - Avoid indecision by deciding in advance how many candidates (4-5?) will advance to the final round. A predetermined target would keep the process focused and prevent unnecessary delays.
Adopt a Numerical Voting System - To make the selection process clear and objective, implement a numerical voting system. Commissioners can vote their preferred candidates by number, with results tallied publicly to determine finalists. This approach would minimize ambiguity and ensure accountability.
Limit Discussions on Motion to Advance - If commissioners have already scored their preferred candidates, extended discussions before advancing finalists may be redundant. Limiting these conversations would expedite the process while respecting everyone’s evaluations and reduce the risk of confidential information inadvertently coming out.
Part Three - Interviewing the Finalists
Skip the Workgroup Interviews
The Workgroup interview seemed to add complexity without offering clear value. Having just our own interviews with the candidates to streamline the process. This saves time for both candidates and staff while ensuring the evaluation remains thorough.
Board Interviews - Perform our interviews with the finalists in much the same way we did with Mr. Tremblay, both for consistency and because I thought it very productive in getting to know the candidate.
Public Forum Post-Interviews - Engage the community by organizing a public forum after the board interviews finalists to allow residents to interact with top candidates, fostering transparency and building trust in the selection process.
By implementing these nine steps, or some variation on them, I believe we can create a candidate selection process that is efficient, transparent, and inclusive. Expanding the pool, re-engaging applicants, and adopting clear evaluation methods would ensure the best talent rises to the top. Let’s simplify the process without sacrificing quality—because finding the right candidate shouldn’t be harder than the job itself.
