>>>>> "JE" == John Erwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JE> There has been quite a bit of discussion on this list about
JE> the current search and I just wanted to weigh in on a couple
JE> of issues.
JE> First, There was recent a criticism of the Oldani Group and
JE> the job they have done with the Park Superintendent search. I
JE> would inform the list that we had approx. 23 candidates for
JE> the Superintendent position. Of those 23, 5 were found to be
JE> acceptable by the Oldani group as noted in a recent public
JE> meeting. After reading the background information, I
JE> supported the 5 that Oldani recommended and agreed with their
JE> choices. Unfortunately, 3 of the 5 candidates have withdrawn.
JE> This leaves us with two candidates. I very much look forward
JE> to hearing from these 2.
JE> It is also not unusual that there are withdrawals in such a
JE> search for an upper level management position as existing
JE> employers may make counter offers. We are especially
JE> vulnerable to this as our pay for the Superintendent position
JE> is considerably below most other Park systems of similar size
JE> (often $20,000-40,000 per year less) because of state salary
JE> caps.
JE> Second, I remind the group/list that we have not heard either
JE> candidate interview yet! I very much look forward to hearing
JE> from both candidates. To suggest that any commissioner will
JE> absolutely vote one way or another is premature.
I am very grateful to Mr. Erwin for sharing his thoughts about the
process with this list.
I was left with one question: why have Oldani restrict the pool to
five if that could be whittled down to two (or potentially even one)?
Wouldn't it be better to have the firm find a larger pool of
candidates (23 applications actually seems fairly low in today's job
market)? And then ask the consultants to leave you with a larger
group to choose from, or rank-order the candidates so that you could
replace choices that dropped out?
I'm not sure I understand the process: Did the board ask Oldani to
filter the full set of candidates down to five? Or did Oldani just
remove unsuitable candidates and find that that process left the Board
with only five candidates who met some minimum standards? If the
latter, did Oldani provide a list of criteria and scoring to justify
the choice of this group of five? I would suggest that, in a very
troubled process like this, providing lists of criteria and an "audit
trail" of numerical rankings would be a valuable tool for securing
public trust in the outcome.
Also, did Oldani make any effort to solicit applications, or did they
simply take some set of existing applications (presumably responses to
an advertisement or set of advertisements) as what they had to work
with?
Thanks again for taking the time!
--
Robert P. Goldman
ECCO
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
