Shoreline City Council to interview City Manager finalists on Sunday, Jan 23
Friday, January 21, 2011
The Shoreline City Council will hold a Special Meeting on Sunday, January 23, 2011, which will begin at 12:00 p.m. and is scheduled to conclude at approximately 6:00 p.m. The Meeting will be held in Conference Room C-104 of Shoreline City Hall, located at 17500 Midvale Avenue N, Shoreline, Washington.
The Council will meet in Executive Session to conduct the interviews and discuss their findings. Personnel matters are normally conducted in private.
From Scott Passey, Shoreline City Clerk
The Council may hold Executive Sessions from which the public may be excluded for those purposes set forth in RCW 42.30.110 and RCW 42.30.140. Before convening an Executive Session the presiding officer shall announce the purpose of the Session and the anticipated time when the Session will be concluded. Should the Session require more time a public announcement shall be made that the Session is being extended.
The decision will be announced in early February.
Posts
11 comments:
This is just more City of Shoreline double-speak, if you go and look at the Monday agenda for the regular meeting, the entire meeting is an executive session.
That is two meetings entirely devoted to executive sessions in secret.
People should be aware that no records of any discussions, votes, agenda items, notes etc. are kept from executive sessions.
No transparency and open government on the part of the new council majority and city staff team leadership, is there? But they get along famously now, don't they?
The city clerk states "Personnel matters are normally conducted in private."
It is not true that every matter concerning personnel can lawfully be dealt with in executive session, although that seems to be the implication of the city clerk's assertion.
The RCW puts clear limits on just which aspects of personnel matters this applies to. It is not blanket permission to withhold from the public information they are entitled to have.
Even the RCW section cited in their announcement (see original story) states that the purpose must be "to evaluate" in an executive session.
What is being kept from the public? We are entitled to know what criteria the council is using and how each applicant fulfills them.
This is the highest-paying position in city government - a six-figure salary plus perks - because it demands the highest skills for the successful implementation of council policies.
Yet apparently the voters and taxpayers are being improperly shut out from all information and told that they are not to be consulted about or have any opportunity to have any input as to the choices for this most important position.
Let us remember that several members of this council as well as their supporters bitterly complained just a few years ago about the process that was used to hire a new city manager. Have they forgotten so soon? We have not.
I urge the city council to reconsider. Keep private your discussions to evaluate the applicants, but not the interviews.
All who are concerned about this undertaking and how it is being carried out should make it a point to attend the special meeting of the city council:
Sunday, January 23, 2011, 12:00 p.m.,
Conference Room C-104 of Shoreline City Hall,
17500 Midvale Avenue N, Shoreline.
The meeting must be open to the public until the council goes into executive session, and it can’t do that until after the meeting is called to order.
If they do not permit public comment before they go into executive session, our presence, perhaps with signs for OPEN GOVERNMENT might persuade them that Shoreline voters crave open, democratic process.
To hide from the public eye all these many aspects and details of this hugely important process (see more below) is not in the public interest nor in the interest of smooth relations between the council and the public.
According to the Open Meetings Act, there is a difference between the conditions REQUIRED for public meetings depending upon whether the person is being hired for a public position or being appointed to an elective position.
The Act REQUIRES OPEN MEETINGS FOR INTERVIEWS FOR ELECTIVE POSITIONS, but is silent on the other.
The city council is CHOOSING to hold these interviews for city manager in SECRET executive session.
Again we must ask, why?
Was this decided by a council vote? If so, how did each member vote?
Under our “strong city manager“ form of city government, the city manager has enormous responsibility and authority, arguably at least as great as a council member.
While the council sets policy, the city manager is responsible for its implementation and has wide latitude in how this is accomplished.
Surely this appointment should have as much public scrutiny as for a council member.
We have not even been told what criteria are being used or why the search was so limited, or who is on the "City’s Leadership Team", the non-council members who will interview the applicants in the secret session, or by what authority they are allowed to be included in an executive session of the council.
Once more, why?
Open government is what we were promised. Let’s have it now.
The office of the city attorney responded to my request for clarification, and sums up the answer this way:
"The express requirement for public interviews of elected appointees and the absence of this requirement for employees supports the conclusion that closed interviews are permitted for employee applicants as part of the evaluation of qualifications."
To which my answer is this:
"This means that the Shoreline City Council is choosing to do this in secret because, in this case, the law does not prevent them from doing so."
Perhaps we need to change the law. Or . . .
This decision to work behind closed because they can is offensive. Our Council is always the saying they want more open government, yet they have stifled public attendance and comment at Council meetings to the point that attending usually means that as a citizen you'll find find yourself in the minority - being out numbered by staff and elected people.
We deserve to see and hear what the candidates for City Manager have to say for themselves. Unfortunately we must demand to know how each was vetted and what criteria are being used to evaluate them since our Council has opted, once again, to hide behind closed doors. Only after the citizens of Shoreline have been allowed the opportunity see the candidates and review their credentials along with the criteria used AND to publicly comment both orally and in writing should the Council deliberate. I'm ashamed to live in a city where the council treats the residents in this way. If you are too and want to know how your tax dollars are being used, then I encourage you to write to the Council this very minute. It's not too late to stop this travesty.
I say throw the bums out! I never have liked secrets and there is something really suspicious going on here. This Council is an outrageous embarrassment! I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one to thinks so. Thanks to the previous poster.
Hmmm..... I wonder just what the Council is so afraid we might see? If they have nothing to hide then let them do all they legally can to include the public in hiring the person who will be running OUR city. I have to agree with Ms Phelps that we should know the criteria being used for evaluation and we should be able to witness the interviews so that we can judge the candidates ourselves.
I also agree with anonymous, that we should know if/how they were vetted and be allowed to provide comments to help the Council (since they are supposed to representing us) to consider things they may not have discussed or considered as important previously. We deserve to have the very best City Manager our taxpayer dollars can buy and that can only happen if we, the citizens, have the opportunity to be a part of the selection process.
I truly hope the council demonstrates some wisdom and re-schedules the planned back to back Executive Sessions to allow for a Public Process.
With all that is going on in Shoreline, all the planned and soon to be planned and implemented development, I can't see a better time to make darn sure Shoreline gets the very best City Manager from the most public process.
I feel strongly that if there isn't a requirement, but rather a choice to include the public, then in order to make sure that the taxpayers are confident with the process and a prospective City Manager, then including the public as much as is reasonably possible, is necessary.
The reason for all this behavior and the limited choices for such an important post in a medium sized city is that one of the candidates is on the "fast track" and heavily favored by friends on staff. Everyone else is afraid to oppose this person or offend the staff. The "Secret Meetings" are just a product of this process, though an Executive Session is always a part of the hiring and selection process for a City Manager.
But the Public should be included in some way in this process. Look at what happened in Seattle with the Police Chief selection process. There were many public meetings and opportunities for candidates to get to know the public. Why can't Shoreline have a more open process?
Because one candidate is the favorite from the beginning.
From the Editor: I sent Elaine Phelps first comment to the City Attorney. His response follows:
There are separate provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act for filling either a councilmember or an employee vacancy, and they differ on the question of interviews. The executive session authorized for filling a council vacancy is explicit on this point: review of qualifications for appointments to elective office may be held in executive session, “however, any interview of such candidate and final action appointing a candidate to elective office shall be in a meeting open to the public.”[1] The parallel provision for applicants for “public employment” for which the Council is the appointing authority (City Manager) is RCW 42.30.110(1)(g), which allows the Council to evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public employment in an executive session. MRSC’s 2008 bulletin on this topic includes interviews as one of the evaluation tools that may be held in executive session.[2] The express requirement for public interviews of elected appointees and the absence of this requirement for employees supports the conclusion that closed interviews are permitted for employee applicants as part of the evaluation of qualifications.
[1] RCW 42.30.110(1)(h).
2 “The first purpose involves evaluating the qualifications of applicants for public employment. This could include personal interviews with an applicant, discussions concerning an applicant’s qualifications for a position, and discussions concerning salaries, wages and other conditions of employment personal to the applicant.” The Open Public Meetings Act (2008), p.20.
Excuse me, Diane H., but the city hired a head hunter to evaluate the qualifications of the finalists and that has been done.
The public does not know who the senior city team leadership is (other than one of them is a finalist, we may presume).
The public was not consulted by the city staff or city council for what they wanted in a new city manager, but they were perfectly comfortable asking for money to keep the staff happy - see the conclusions of the human resources director in her report to the city council this month.
The city staff and city council has not informed the public (after ignoring them as to their desires) as to what the criteria they will be applying to select a new city manager - that is NOT covered by any executive session law(s) whatsoever.
The majority of the city council were elected by attacking incumbents, for lack of open government and transparency. Now they are hiding too.
All of this happens after they severely curtail public comment at council meetings, let them know what we think this fall when we vote.
Post a Comment