Loading...
10.5. SR 06-07-2021 Request for Action To Item Number Mayor and City Council 10.5 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Work Session June 7, 2021 Tina Allard, City Clerk Item Description Reviewed by Advisory Board Selection Process Cal Portner, City Administrator Reviewed by Action Requested Provide staff with direction for writing the policy regarding the interview and selection process for advisory boards. Background/Discussion The February 16 staff report and minutes provides background for this item. Financial Impact N/A Mission/Policy/Goal N/A Attachments  February 16, 2021, Staff Report  February 16, 2021, Minutes  Survey Results The Elk River Vision A welcoming community with revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity. Updated: August 2020 Request for Action To Item Number Mayor and City Council 9.5 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Work Session February 16, 2021 Tina Allard, City Clerk Item Description Reviewed by Advisory Board Selection Process Cal Portner, City Administrator Reviewed by Action Requested Discuss interview and selection process for advisory boards. Background/Discussion Council requested certain changes to the interview and selection process for boards/commissions. The attached shows the current policy and another version with Council’scomments incorporated. Financial Impact N/A Mission/Policy/Goal N/A Attachments Current and proposed language The Elk River Vision A welcoming community with revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity. Updated: August 2020 Commission Organization and Procedures-Current Version 1. Applications All applicants, including board and commission members who are seeking reappointment, must complete an “Application for Appointment to City Board or Commission” and submit the application to the City Clerk by the deadline date. 2. Notification ofOpenings Except for openings filled by Mayoral appointment, board and commission expirations and vacancies will be advertised in the Elk River Star News, The Current newsletter, ERtV 12, and the city website. 3. Appointments The Council will review all applications. Applicants will be interviewed by the City Council to make board and commission appointments and reappointments. 4. Vacancy Board and commission applications will be kept on file for one year. If a vacancy occurs during the year, the Council may make an appointment from the applications on file. Vacancies in commissions are filled for the remainder ofthe unexpired term. Commission Organization and Procedures-Proposed Version 1. Applications All new applicants must complete and submit an application to the Office of the City Clerk by the deadline date. Incumbent members seeking reappointment shall notify the Office of the City Clerk in writing. 2. Procedures I. If a vacancy occurs because of resignation, death, relocation, removal from office, ineligibility for reappointment, etc., on any board or commission, the following procedure will be used. a. Other than mayoral appointments, vacancies shall be advertised across the various city communications tools. b. Applicants will be interviewed by the City Council. c. The City Council will make the appointments at the next Council meeting following the interview meeting. d. Applications will be kept on file for one year. If during that year avacancy occurs on any board/commission, all applicants will be advised of the vacancy. II. If acurrent board/commission member’s term is expiring and is eligible for reappointment, the following procedure will be used. a. No later than sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of a term, each member shall be contacted by email to affirm, inwriting, their desire for reappointment. b. The Council will receive a list of members seeking appointment and the attendance record for said members. i. Councilmembers shall annotate individuals they wish to interview. ii. Any member identified by two or more councilmembers to interview shall be added to the interview schedule. iii. The commission/board seat for any member identified by two or more councilmembers for interview shall be advertised asa potential vacancy. c. Should fewer than two councilmembers determine the individual merits reappointment, that person will be forwarded for reappointment in accordance with 2(I)c above. d. Should the incumbent not wish to be reappointed, the Council will follow the procedure for filling vacancies as described in I. above. City Council Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 8 Council consensus was to move forward with an ordinance amendment for further discussion. 9.5 Advisory Commission Selection Process Ms. Allard presented the staff report. Councilmember Wagner noted there were a lot of community members who came forth and are willing to be engaged with the city. She stated with this new procedure Council would never know their names and who they are. She questioned how Council could make this process a step better and ensure capturing these individuals who step forward to keep them engaged. She stated she would like to ensure the Council is aware of the interest out there so they could serve later if there is a vacancy or could be added to the Elk River Resident Advisory survey group. She expressed concern with only capturing reappointments. Mayor Dietz and Councilmember Westgaard asked how to do this if these applicants will not be appointed, which makes it worse when they come in and don't get appointed. Councilmember Beyer asked what if the new candidate is better than the current member. Councilmember Wagner stated she doesn't want the uncomfortable situation as we've had in the past, but she also doesn't want to miss the opportunity to meet new applicants and suggested a different avenue to bring them in. She also noted it can be awkward with appointments when a new applicant gets nominated over an existing member who is also very good. Councilmember Christianson stated he liked Councilmember Beyer's idea to still advertise and interview for vacancies and then appoint at the next meeting. He didn't feel there should be an automatic appointment of existing members. He stated the new applicants have a willingness to want to serve and he doesn't want to turn them away. Mayor Dietz stated he doesn't want to get the expectations up for the new applicants and then have them walk away upset and questioning why they bothered to apply. Councilmember Beyer stated he felt the process was rushed. He stated being new he didn't have the connections other Councilmember may have. Mr. Portner suggested having a language where it's known that after a set number of terms, such as three, then the position would be advertised. He stated it would give someone else a chance to serve and let the current board member know Council is happy with their work but want to give others opportunity. NATUREI City Council Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 9 I Councilmember Westgaard noted it's nice to have some continuity because it takes time to learn everything. Councilmember Christianson stated term limit are a good idea. It's clear and concise and you still have continuity, and are getting new people in. Mayor Dietz stated he is not in favor of term limits and the process should stay as it is if Council is not happy with the proposed changes. Councilmember Westgaard stated he is not opposed to the current process but would like to do the interviews at a separate meeting from the appointments. Council concurred on the separate meetings for interviews and appointments. Councilmember Wagner suggested turning this back to the commissions and asking their opinions about how they feel the appointment process has been, as a volunteer, do you think they should have unending time as a member and would it be helpful to have turnover on the commissions. Council directed staff to get feedback from the advisory boards and report back to Council. 9.6 Street Impact Fee Legislation Mayor Dietz presented the staff report. He asked Councilmember Christianson to discuss his recent testimony at the legislature. Councilmember Christensen stated he contacted staff to ask about process for tracking legislation. He stated his Council packets only show League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) point of view and no other viewpoints. He stated he was going to have someone present another viewpoint at tonight's meeting, but they were not able to make it. He stated the language for this legislation is vague and as he dug into it, he was not in support. He expressed concern with future unknown impacts of this fee. He had an opportunity to express his views to the legislature and utilized it. Mayor Dietz stated Council prides itself on being open and transparent. He stated the Council voted 5-0 to support LMC's position by adopting a resolution to support infrastructure accountability and he felt Councilmember Christianson should have informed Council he would be testifying in opposition. Councilmember Christianson stated he disclosed he was a Councilmember for Elk River but was speaking on his own behalf and not as a representative of Council. He stated there is a short dineframe to review packet material and they are only provided one viewpoint. He questioned how Council can make an informed decision when they don't see other viewpoints of an argument. He stated he took it upon himself to do extra research as more information became available. P 0 N E A E 0 B Y NATURE #1 - Why did you volunteer to serve on a city commission? I was very interested in the history of the city of Elk River and wanted to help preserve it. I was interested in utilizing my experience in local government as a police chief, with the City of Elk River, where I live. I wanted to find a way to participate in local government and have another way to engage with my neighbors and community. I have been a long-time resident of Elk River and had seen the Energy City commission evolve in it’s early years. Being in the energy field and working in town, I thought it would be a great opportunity to share my experience with the City. I come from a family of community volunteers. I have always been part of a non-profit organization. Jennifer Wagner made me do it. To help give back to the community. Plus, it is interesting! To serve and improve our community. I was interested in trying to make my community a better place. I wanted to be involved and give back to my community and also wanted to serve in a capacity that is valuable and improves our community. I enjoy the Commission that I am on because it interests me a lot. I think it’s a good way to give back to the community and set Elk River apart from other communities because we are more environmentally responsible than others. To contribute to Elk River community and to have an input in future development. To become a part of making decisions for the betterment of our community. I heard that the downtown was undergoing new plans, and that motivated me to become involved in the community. I wanted to be of service to the Elk River community. I wanted to be more involved in the community and thought it would be a good opportunity to give back. I volunteered because I am retired & wanted an opportunity to give back to my city, now that I have more free time in my life. The utility commission was being expanded by two additional positions at the time I applied. I used to work for a utility in accounting & I thought this was a great fit for me. I had heard that it was hard to get on a commission, but was excited that with the new positions, there wasn’t someone already in the slot. I volunteer to be in service to my community. I also volunteer because my experience can be used to build a better city for all of us. It’s a citizen’s duty to make their village a better place. I volunteered to join as someone connected to our local school district as ISD 728 is a system preparing students to be future citizens and am passionate about the mission and vision of the commission. I wanted the opportunity to be involved and share my experiences and learn from others. I have always played a very active roll in community parks and recreation starting participating in sports leagues, the coaching of youth sports and moving on to run many different leagues in the community, as well as form leagues that did not previously exist. Because of the acute desire to be a part of high quality recreational activity, it only seemed natural to want to be involved in the planning process for them as well as for parks and being actively engaged in park improvement. That was 30+ years ago and it is still a blast. Looking to assist with community needs and learn more about projects and improvements going on in the city. Very interested in Elk River History and preserving it. Serving on a city commission seemed like a great way to be engaged with and volunteer in my community, and those two things are very important to me. I had followed the developments that led to the creation of the Furniture and Things Community Event Center (known at that time as the Multipurpose Facility) and I wanted to help it reach its potential and serve the widest range of people. I was primarily interested in the new Senior Activity Center, but I saw it as one component that did not stand alone, but fit into the overall purpose and program of the community center. I thought I could use my background and experience to make a contribution to the community. I wanted to know more about how commissions worked and to have a voice for our community. I am a long-time volunteer from my careers in the Air Force and E-12 education. I am now fully retired and among my goals is giving back in some way, form or manner, to the community. As it relates to the question, the City of Elk River advertised a commission opening (Star News article) which I had a specific interest in, but I was not selected [for that commission]. I was asked by ERYHA, but also felt I could be of value on matters that didn’t directly concern youth hockey. I felt the need to help our community through the Parks and Recreation, to continue to aid the youth and to help correct a system that I thought was very one sided. #2 - Did you go through the interview process previously and not get appointed? How was that experience for you? 15 responded no to this question. I have not been interviewed previously, nor have I been denied a post. Yes, it was one of the most awkward interviews I have ever done. I spoke with Tom and expressed a desire to serve but I can’t remember if I did an interview process with other persons from Elk River. All experiences have been great thus far. I didn’t have the experience of not being appointed. There was an opening and I believe I was the only applicant. I got appointed on my first time through. It was a very easy process that did not take long… I do not think they took much time to get to know me, I feel like I could have talked my way onto any commission, sense they do nothing to verify what I told them. I did go through the interview experience. My suggestion would be to do interviews one week and provide the selections the next if possible. I don’t know if that’s possible with open meeting laws, but there seems to be some very awkward conversations that happen on camera that could make applicants very uncomfortable. I think if they want to be part of a Commission they should have to interview because it does validate that they are interested and will contribute if they show up for the interview. The only interview (three maybe four questions) I had was by the City Council in a public meeting for the commission I applied for. The City Council reappointed an incumbent. A Council member then asked me to serve on a different commission based on my skill set. As this was a public meeting I felt awkward and somewhat put on the spot when asked to serve on the second commission, which I had no background or initial interest in. I did agree (in fairness I was offered the opportunity to think about it) because I came to volunteer. In reflecting on the second part of this question, it seems to me that the Council’s first decision was pre-established by reappointing the incumbent so quickly and unanimously. Perhaps my perception, it then seemed like a strategic pre-planned move on the part of the Council to ask me to sit on the other commission. I will offer if this is correct it was a good decision- making move on the part of the Council. All-in-all, the initial application process seemed logical and smooth, but the interview seemed pre-established, rushed and uncomfortable for me. I was appointed the first time, but not to the commissions I had applied for. It worked out fine though as I was appointed to the Planning Commission where I have remained. I have gone through the interview process in person for all appointments. Yes I previously applied and was not appointed. I was very disappointed but not discouraged. My dedication paid off and was appointed in 2007. #3 - Do you think incumbent commissioners should receive automatic reappointment? Not sure how I feel about this. I do as the learning curve is so high and it rewards the time and energy that person has put into serving. I do think it may be useful to have a term limit of maybe three full terms. Yes and no; Depends if they are deep in a project or just stagnant and out of ideas. No, incumbents should have to apply and be evaluated by the Council. Times and people change so it’s good to have the opportunity to make changes. While it is probably helpful to have experience on the commission, I believe that it should not be automatic. Yes, as long as they think they can serve or No, if their attitude changes and doesn’t align with the goals of the commission. Not necessarily. They should compete for appointments Yes Maybe, if there are no others interested in the position. Yes, as long as they have met the attendance requirements. I don't believe that any commissioner that met that requirement would request reappointment without having the community's best interest in mind. Just the first term alone is a learning experience to get an understanding of the processes involved. No. Maybe a two-term consecutive limit. Yes but maybe term limits? No, I think they should at least be asked if they want to continue serving. It could be helpful to gather some feedback from commissioners about how it is going and ask city staff or commission chairperson about a commissioner's participation and effectiveness and contributions to the Commission. I think the current method of interviewing candidates and allowing existing commissioners to retain their seats as long as they are interested in remaining is fine. It isn't 'automatic' but still provides preference to existing candidates. As long as the council is open with all applicants about it up front, there should not be any problem with the current process. I think decisions need to be made on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes it is a very good idea and perhaps other times a fresh perspective would be helpful as well. I do not. I believe anyone willing to offer their time and service should have an opportunity to apply. No—I think fresh ideas and energy are vital to growth. No, candidates should be judged based on who is the best candidate for the position. Previous experience may be helpful but it should not be the lone consideration. If they are still willing, then yes. Yes. I think if a sitting member of a commission has shown up for duty consistently, and they wish to continue, it's important to use the experience they've gained. I'm not sure, because an incumbent brings a wealth of knowledge to the table when joined with new appointees. If everyone had to reapply, what would happen if everyone was brand new? If nothing else, I think the appointments should be staggered then if everyone had to go through the appointment process each term, at least they have some people with long term knowledge and experience. No. There may be situations where they don't attend meetings, have been disruptive, or do not participate. Maybe there is someone who would like to run that can do it better. Instead of automatic reappointments, why not just extend the length of the term? (this person’s response was for questions 3 & 4) I think each commission could potentially be different. The utility board is served well by experience & understanding how a utility works, and getting a handle on how things work takes some time. (Experience does not always = time on the commission). Active participation in the discussion going on & preparation by actually reading the documents prepared by staff is key. I know there are some boards it is actually hard to find interested people, so to limit them by a set number of years wouldn’t really work. But other commissions, like the parks commission, seems to have a huge & constant interest. It also probably doesn’t require a specific skill set either. So that is one that could possibly stand for a time limit. I don’t see any reason why these should be lifetime appointments. Council should be empowered to make personnel decisions based on the best interests of the community. These decisions would depend largely on the circumstances of individual cases and what each applicant could offer the commission. Yes, if they are doing a good job, meaning actively participating in most discussions, educating themselves in areas they are not familiar with so they can participate. Attendance is an important part of the process, but just showing up is not of much help unless you participate. Not necessarily, I think the incumbent should have the biggest advantage as long as they are doing what is asked of them, not being one sided i.e.: only interested in their own agenda, but if there is another candidate that is head and shoulders more qualified and fits the need of the board, then by all rights they should be selected. Three people responded no to this question with no further explanation. #4 - Would it be helpful to have turnover on your commission? Explain your answer. I tend to think not because our commission relies on a knowledge of long term, historical matters, but I have also seen new members bring exciting initiatives to the group. To my previous point about individual cases, maybe it’s best to aim for a balance of experience and fresh thinking. Not necessarily. Again, if the commission participates actively and contributes regularly, there is a great benefit to the experience that comes with years of service. Commissioners that do not participate and grow, should be replaced. Yes, only if there is someone better to fill there spot. I would generally say yes to this, so as to more consistently represent the ever-changing demographics. However, I do believe until a certain threshold of initial setup/operation/guidelines and the like have been put in place, that a consistent group be to our advantage in order to keep progressing as efficiently as possible toward a mostly resolved initial platform. Once that somewhat subjective barrier is reached, then I feel we turn a proverbial corner in operation where we seem to be ‘amending’ more than ‘setting’ policy. Energy City has had plenty of turnover. I am hopeful we don’t have any for a while. I think we have a really good group and the last few meetings we are getting traction with Commissioners doing projects outside of the meeting or just delegating staff to work on things. Commission participation is much better with this group. Being the newest member of the commission it takes a bit to come up to speed. I am a bit envious of the historical knowledge that other members on the commission possess, so frequent turnover, I don't believe frequent turnover is beneficial. Yes. Any leadership council/committee, etc., should always have a mechanism in place to bring in new people with new ideas and perspectives. No for both commissions that I serve on. The Parks & Rec Commission has a blend of some long serving multiple term commissioners as well as newer commissioners & I think it's a great blend. The Furniture and Things Community Event Center Advisory is quite new but we have a fabulous blend of the community all focused on making this facility top of the line from top to bottom. We have had quite a bit of turnover over the years. Just Lance Lindberg and myself are original commissioners since 2007. I think it takes a couple of terms to really get to know everything that is going on. Yes. But have terms staggered so don’t lose all the experience at one time. No, current process works well. Yes, absolutely some turnover is beneficial. Fresh eyes, so to speak, allowing the seasoned appointee receive feedback to established plans, measure ideas and sharing new enthusiasm. There is automated turnover—continuity is important for history and movement. Continuity for a 2 year term would be helpful from the Council especially for a commission that only meets quarterly. Yes it would be helpful to have turnover. Term limits of say three terms would also be helpful. Members who are on for a long time may become complacent and entitled which may not be the best for the commission for the city. New ideas and new ways to address issues is good for everyone. I do not think high turnover is good. I think it is particularly challenging in our current atmosphere that is tied to Covid-related adjustments. It took me 2-3 meetings to get into the swing of things. High turnover, would erode forward momentum; however, the addition of new voices and perspectives is essential as well. Turnover needs to be monitored and managed as best possible. Hard to say. We have had quite a bit of turnover in my opinion. Whoever gets appointed needs to become a student real quick about the process being used and rationales. Took me a couple years to get familiar and I have a background in planning. Hard to tell, I am in my second two-year term. For the first two years there were always vacancies and no applicants. We finally have a full complement of commissioners. (this person’s response was for questions 3 & 4) I think each commission could potentially be different. The utility board is served well by experience & understanding how a utility works, and getting a handle on how things work takes some time. (Experience does not always = time on the commission). Active participation in the discussion going on & preparation by actually reading the documents prepared by staff is key. I know there are some boards it is actually hard to find interested people, so to limit them by a set number of years wouldn’t really work. But other commissions, like the parks commission, seems to have a huge & constant interest. It also probably doesn’t require a specific skill set either. So that is one that could possibly stand for a time limit. Yes... any info shared would enhance the incoming persons experience. Yes, fresh ideas and energy are important. Yes and no. Again, if someone is appointed and is not participating, perhaps they should be replaced. I had to reinterview after a six month stint. I think we met five times in that six months. This short time didn't really give us enough time to finish what we started. It takes some time to learn and understand the role and responsibilities of a commission so there can be value in keeping experienced commissioners on. But new members can offer fresh perspectives and insights so I think it can also be helpful to have some turnover. This could be accomplished by setting limits of two or three full terms for appointees. Then no one would have the task of informing commissioners that their services are no longer needed and commissioners would not have to feel that they have signed on for life. Yes as long as the new members are aligned with the goals of moving Elk River forward towards a sustainable future. Explain your answer. A. There seems to be a few people that don’t think science and technology are helpful to our society. Climate change is real and we must do all we can to preserve our world for future generations. If an individual holds these types of anti science attitudes then I think they should not be on the commission. If there is a will for more turnover the best way would be through term limits. Two terms? Three terms? I know that I really enjoy being on my commission and have years of experience on which to draw. I'd hate to be term limited out personally. I think we have had decent turnover on the planning commission without imposing term limits or any other methodology. The natural churn of the commission provides fresh perspectives while still allowing for consistency and longevity in the decisions being made. I think there should be a balance between turnover and improvement. With the amount of time it takes to establish relationships and see progress with respect to various efforts and projects, the commission representatives likely need at least the length of a single term to see any material gains. Reappointments should be reviewed on a term by term basis. No, the more experience people have on it, the better able they are to serve. YES, turnover is usually a good thing especially if there is a board member that is a pain. I think there should be term limits to every board. #5 - How would you rate your overall experience with the interview/appointment process? (5= positive, 1= negative) 1 it was very embarrassing to be a part of it. Three, the process was fine and simple questions. My interview was before a Council meeting and I was in a room full of people and sitting about six feet in front of all of the Council members. I have been in lots of stressful interviews in my professional career, but I was caught off guard by the setup. I think it was more due to the fact that I was expecting to be interviewed in a room with only the Council members present. 5 - I think the current process works very well. The council is open and transparent about appointments and tries to find spots for anyone who is interested in volunteering even if it was not the first choice of the person applying. 4. I was nervous 5. Council was positive and professional in my interview. Good, council got to know me and I found out what expected. I would have to provide a non-answer of 3 because don’t have anything to compare it to. It was okay, but I don’t know what can be changed. 5-I got appointed! (I’m sure the ones not being appointed would have a different view.) Up until the most recent one, I would rate it a 5. The last one was so insulting and embarrassing for me personally I almost resigned after being reappointed. Garrett is so unprofessional and he is what is wrong and what is ugly about politics. He never asked me a question about my experience on the commission. It felt like he wanted to appoint his friend and took the opportunity to embarrass me and tarnish my reputation. 5 – I would give that as my answer although my process for interview and appointment was rather annotated compared to others being that I was solicited directly by an organization that has a seat of representation secured for them. Ratings without explanations: 5 x 10 4 x 4 3.5 x 1 3 x 1 2 x 0 1 x 2 #6 - How can we improve the interview and appointment process? Commissioners whose terms are up should be evaluated for effectiveness. If it is determined that they are not effective, or if they have resigned for other reasons, then there should be an opening in that commission for that seat(s). Following that determination, the vacancies should be advertised as usual, but just for the vacant seats. Applicants for the vacancies should be give a set of questions to help them prepare for the interview process. The interview should be extensive, not cursory. Ineffective commissioners may reapply and re- interview if they choose, but without the guarantee of automatic reappointment. If the intent is to reappoint all commissioners whose terms are up, no applicants should be sought. That leads to an embarrassing situation. I don't believe it needs to be changed. Have interested candidates be required to attend X commission meetings prior to applying and interviewing so that they have some awareness of what the commission does. It is a long process to have all commission reappointments on the same night. Based on my experience and knowledge, the process I went through needs to be updated. I recommend benchmarking with other city and country government entities to determine their processes and from these select best practices to incorporate into a new process for this city. This can be done directly with sister communities, or while I do not know the name of such I have to believe the City of Elk River is a member of a national organization that can provide best examples. I know there are more ideas, but from my perspective these suggestions rely on established and proven practices that can be and should be explored as part of improving your process. Given the constraints of the open meeting requirements I am not sure how it would be possible. Being interviewed by a panel of people in front of an audience was very awkward. In my first interview one of the council members made it quite obvious he thought the commission I was being interviewed for was a complete waste of time, that was a poor first impression. Survey incumbents to see if they intend to reapply. If they are willing to continue serving don't put out a call for that commission. I understand the transparency and efficiency in making the appointment right after interviews but I think it could be a source of hard feelings/frustration for people who are not appointed, potentially even demotivating otherwise engaged citizens. It’s sort of a rare circumstance to have your offers to help "rejected" immediately and it might be less of a slight if they could leave the room and some time was allowed to pass. The current system also binds the council to a tight window of learning about all the applicants and instantly recommending someone. If it were possible, I would hold the discussion and make the appointments at the following meeting and provide a thank you note with an explanation of the decision to those who weren’t appointed that also encourages them to seek future opportunities. It was weird getting interviewed in front of every citizen in attendance at the council meeting. Did the interview matter, or did you make your decision based mostly by the submitted questionnaire? Most personal interviews have a question and answer period and not just a "tell me about yourself" moment. Most interviewees don't get to hear what their competition says. I just think it should have been behind closed doors. I appreciated having the reappointment interviews at the beginning of the City Council meeting so I didn't have to hang around for three hours waiting to be interviewed as I did for the first appointment! I expected more questions, but maybe the council was satisfied with what I said in my applications. Being interviewed in person by the City Council emphasized the importance and value of serving on a commission. I don’t have any ideas regarding this questions. I think the process is sufficient once a recommendation is made by the Commission. Be up front about preferential appointments for existing members (maybe before the interview process so that candidates can decide if they want to apply or not) and also check with folks to see if they are interested in any other commissions should spots become available so that potential volunteers are not turned away. I believe sharing interview questions ahead of time with the candidate would be helpful. I would have appreciated knowing what the room setup was going to be. That surprise threw me off. Get more background information on the person you are interviewing and fact check after the interview. Deeper background checking for compatible education. This is a thinking person’s committee. How well do you interact with others? Philosophy on working together. Facebook, etc. research to match up with how they really operate. Single agenda candidates need not apply! Seems ok to me. Interview candidates one week and make selection the next if possible. Maybe interviews can be done in work session to narrow the list and discuss Commission appointments with Candidates. Energy City received one Commissioner because he didn’t get his first choice. The person will be great on Energy City, but I think he was put on the spot and that was awkward for him to be pressured into making the decision. He wanted to serve the community so it worked out well, but that might not be the case for all applicants. I think if you continue with the automatic re-appointment process, then don’t have an open advertisement for the position. That just seems a waste of people’s time & gives them a bad experience related to the process. If state law requires an ad no matter what- could a statement be added stating that some positions will be filled by existing members. That way people could go in with full knowledge of the situation. Also for the vetting process - ask more than three simple questions on the application. I don’t know how the council can make an informed decision based on those few questions. Also for re-appointment, rather than automatic fill out the form & your in - the person should have to take the time to show up & show their continued interest. Could there maybe be a feedback form on the incumbent seeking re-appointment, from staff and other commissioners asking about the incumbent’s participation? Additional comment - Jennifer Wagner did also make a good point in the discussion of this topic, saying that some members of a commission might feel intimidated not to take an opposing view to a city council member who sits on their commission for fear of losing their position when they come up for review. (I personally am not, as it would defeat the purpose of me being on the commission). Have the interview process be an actual interview (like it would be for a job) with prepared questions from the panel and all candidates are asked the same questions and have an opportunity for the applicant and panel to ask each other questions and seek clarification if the applicant does not fully answer a question. I've been through the same interview/appointment process once for the Arena Design Team, 2 times for Parks & Rec Commission & once for the Furniture and Things Community Event Center Advisory Commission & I've always thought the process worked fine up until this year. Due to the issues that arose this year, I think automatic reappointments for those that meet the attendance requirements would alleviate said issues. The question that was asked to me was very vague and open ended, A little more direction with the question would be helpful. I’m not sure I have any good insight on this matter. I think a fair and timely posting of such an upcoming open position for anyone to discover and inquire about, is about as fair as it can be made. Should one, or two, persons find themselves wanting an appointment, I do agree that it should be the duty of the City Council to decide who meets the need based upon testimony from the candidates if they choose to give.