Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />Date: 1 �7':� 1/06 <br />Item #: 2 <br />Department Approval: <br />�•� � ��' � <br />'� � � � _'' "�. . , -�-�-- <br />Item Description: <br />Manager Approved: Agenda Section: <br />Organization Business <br />City Manager Search Consideration of Next Steps <br />� <br />Background: <br />During the October 23rd meeting Council directed staff to gather infonr�atioz� for Council action <br />during this meeting on candidate evaluation and testing, Council interviews with finalists, and the <br />public social with the finalists. The following represents this information as requested. <br />Executive 'I'eskKn� Firm Services: <br />Council indicated during the October =:''� meeting that they were comfortable with staff conducting <br />checics and verifications interr�ally on each finalist where feasible. Exhibit A shows those internal <br />capabilities as well as several options of firms to conduct industrial psychological evaluations of the <br />skill sets and characteristics of each candidate chosen for testing. <br />With regard to availability, each is able to conduct the testing in mid November either while the out of <br />state candidates are in town or via another branch of the firm. All four conduct a written and oral <br />evaluation to develop pro's and con's of each candidate based on our profile of the best fit. Fischler <br />was used in the last City Manager process and Roseville Police and Fire use Martin McAliister for <br />their assessments. Council member Pust has utilized Corporate Psychologists and the City Attor�Zey's <br />office uses Jay McNiznara & Associates. <br />Also shown in Exhibit A the cost of each �i�a� ranges between $600 and $2,500. Budget currently <br />would only allow for $1,000 for each assessment if all finalists are going to under go testing. <br />Council �nterviews: <br />During the October'_'��� meeting Council requested that the City Attorney provide feedback on <br />Council's statutory requirements with regard to finalist interviews with the Council. Exhibit B <br />represents case law and the Attorney opinion surrounding thi� issue. <br />After review of the case law the Attorney has provided a recommendation to Council that in summary <br />would be to conduct interviews in public but that the interview can be conducted either by Council as a <br />panel or individually. Staff would also like direction of how much time to allow Council for each <br />interview. <br />Public Social: <br />Exhibit C outlines the details of the public social with the finalists and Council. Staff utilized the <br />2001 social as a template for the design and planning for Exhibit C. <br />