FILLING THE EMPTY COUNCIL SEAT: PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE?

There was some interesting back-and-forth at last Tuesday’s Committee of the Whole meeting regarding one pending task: filling the Council-at-Large seat vacated by Acting Mayor Chuck Brunello.

Last week Council unanimously set a noon Friday March 8th submission deadline for residents wishing to be considered for the position.

Nine applications had already been submitted by Tuesday. Based on rumors, I suspect that Council members are already familiar with many of the names on the list.

So far so good.

What wasn’t so good was the discussion about Step 2: what process Council would use to fill the vacant seat.

That issue was left undecided last week.

New Council President Lisa Marie Stickan, concerned about the 30 day deadline imposed by the City’s Charter, was anxious to move forward as quickly as possible. In doing that, however, she seemed to have pre-determined how Council would proceed.
She called for a March 11th executive session:

“…to go through applications to narrow who we (Council) want to talk to.”

Councilman Ed Hargate immediately objected, reminding Stickan that it was up to Council collectively (and more specifically a consensus of at least 4 members) to make that decision.

“We have to have a consensus of four to see what procedure we follow.”

Hargate suggested, therefore, that the first part of the Monday’s executive session should be used to reach a consensus on the selection process Council would use…..which may or may not be the pre-selection approach Stickan outlined.

Stickan acknowledged, but didn’t fully address, Hargate’s point. She said:

“I don’t want to limit anyone’s discussion or thoughts but we do have to move quickly.”

Hargate pressed the point:

“I’ve had a lot of experience doing this based on all my years on Council. …(Y)ou will find doing this with a consensus of 4 is a lot better for all the applicants and for the city….A consensus of 4 should determine what the process is. This (Sticken’s suggested approach) is putting the cart before the horse.”

So what was going on? Why the disconnect?

Council members talk to each other individually during the week.
That’s quite natural, and there’s nothing improper about it.
I think Hargate’s point, however, was that:

Council decisions are supposed to be made collectively, and in public.

Perhaps Stickan had a sense of what some of her fellow Council members’ thinking was when she spoke about the selection process that Council would use.

But, as Hargate said, it appears she might have been “putting the cart before the horse” in declaring that Council would pre-select which Council candidates to interview. 

I spoke briefly to Stickan after the meeting. Her thinking seemed to be to approach the selection process like she would a professional job interview----weed out weaker candidates and spend time conducting longer, more in-depth interviews with a shorter list of stronger candidates.

I guess I think about it a bit differently.

This isn’t a hiring process. Council isn’t selecting a new worker to fill a city job.

Instead, the list that Council receives will be a list of residents who are essentially volunteering to perform a public service for their community.

Given that I wondered:

Would it be better if each applicant was given the opportunity to be publicly interviewed, rather than, as Sticken suggested, being pre-selected/rejected during a closed-to-the-public meeting?

Wouldn’t that be more respectful of the residents involved? And….

Isn’t that what “transparency” is all about?