In the final 15 minutes of last night’s three hour city council meeting the council took up the most important decision it currently faces: hiring three key positions.
The application deadline for the three positions was Dec. 3, almost exactly two months ago. It wasn’t until Dec. 28 — four weeks after the deadline — that the city’s hiring committee even met to review the applicant pool.
When the applicants were finally assessed, there was reason to be optimistic: More than 100 applications had been submitted for the three positions, a healthy number to be sure. Forty-five people had applied for the CFO job, 40 for COO and 37 for the IT director.
Two weeks later — on Jan. 14 — the hiring committee announced they had narrowed the COO applicants to two. At that time Ward 4 Councilman Pierre Beard and Mayor Keith Gaskin, both members of the hiring committee, said they thought an offer would be made to a candidate before the end of January.
Great!
Despite originally voting on Oct. 5 — October! — to hold public interviews of the finalists, the hiring committee interviewed candidates behind closed doors in mid-January.
Whether or not to hold interviews in public is a debatable matter. I firmly believe the public should know the names of the finalists for a public position. It helps dispel concerns about backroom deals and it gives the public — and media — a chance to participate in the process.
Regardless, a member of the hiring committee told The Dispatch on Jan. 25 that the committee had interviewed the two COO finalists and planned to bring a recommendation to the full council.
Great!
Last night, nearly four months after the initial October vote to push forward with hiring a CFO and COO, there was no agenda item from the hiring committee. The only reason hiring was even brought up last night was because Ward 2 Councilman Joseph Mickens, who isn’t on the hiring committee, specifically asked for an update. Expressing disappointment in the committee, Mickens directly asked for an update on the status of the candidates for each position.
Beard reported the committee had one COO finalist ready to bring before the council, but that the finalists they identified for the CFO position had evaporated. No mention was made of IT director. Mickens directly asked Gaskin for his recommendation on where to go with the CFO position.
Gaskin’s rambling answer revealed an apparent plan underway by the hiring committee to attempt to restructure some of the responsibilities and duties of both the COO and CFO positions.
What?!
The city has advertised the job descriptions and salary. They received more than 100 applicants. They held interviews. They identified finalists. And now we’re looking to re-write job descriptions?
In fact, what became apparent last night is that Gaskin was again trying to restructure the COO and CFO positions, something the council has forcefully rejected multiple times.
Worse, it was clear a new job description was being written to better fit a particular candidate.
Closed-door interviews and changing the job description to fit a particular applicant are the types of decisions that make people question the integrity of a hiring process.
After the meeting I watched Gaskin’s explanation of the proposed job description changes four times on the city’s video archive, and I can’t make sense of where things stand with the CFO position. (You can watch it on the city’s Facebook page.)
Committee member Rusty Greene, trying to clarify the mayor’s proposed new job description asked, “So we have a CFO Chief Financial Manager … what other title, I don’t know…?” Gaskin responded, “It doesn’t matter. We can call it whatever we want.”
We are in the eleventh hour of hiring and don’t have a clue as to what positions we’re hiring.
Reading between the lines, I’m guessing the committee isn’t completely happy with the qualifications of some of the finalists. Considering the three positions had more than 100 applicants initially, it’s hard to imagine there aren’t qualified candidates somewhere in there.
Leaving three unsettled motions on the table, the council voted to enter into executive session to further discuss the committee’s sole COO finalist and that person’s qualifications.
While the hiring committee drags its feet and Gaskin tries again to re-write job descriptions, the city’s applicants are drying up. And can you blame them?
In this labor market, job candidates are discerning. The good ones are interviewing employers just as much as they are being interviewed.
This prolonged hiring cycle without a clear vision of an end goal will drive good candidates away.
Unless a clear path forward can be established, the council should consider disbanding the hiring committee and conduct the hiring process in a more open and deliberate manner.
Peter Imes is editor and publisher of The Dispatch. You can email him at [email protected].
Peter Imes is publisher of The Dispatch. You can email him at [email protected].
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 37 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.