I'd like to call this special January 13th, 2026 City Commission meeting to order.

And first we will have the invocation by the city auditor and clerk.

Please stand.

If you're yes, if you're able, that's a good one.

Heavenly Father, we we seek our strength in the heavenly father.

We affirm our strength indeed.

We seek your divine strength, wisdom and guidance, and deliberations that affect the lives of the citizens of this community.

In the name we pray, Amen.

And commit Vice Mayor, leave us in the pledge, please.

I will, thank you.

I'd like to go into the flag of the United States of America.

Underground individual with liberty and justice for all the thank you.

Are there any changes to the order of the day?

No, Mayor.

No mayor.

Okay, so may I have a motion to approve the agenda?

So move.

Second.

Move by the Vice Mayor, seconded by Commissioner Ahern Kotch to approve the minutes.

And you need to schedule the you said minutes to schedule.

This show the agenda.

Is there a consensus?

Yeah, we're good.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh Ms.

Griggs, would you read the pledge of con public conduct?

Thank you, Mayor.

We may disagree, but we will be respectful to one another.

We will direct all comments to issues.

We will not engage in personal attacks.

And do we have any public comment this morning?

No, we do not.

Okay.

So that means we will move on to the uh agenda for the day, a J Main agenda item, which is uh discussion of the city manager search candidates.

And I'll call upon City Auditor and Clerk Griggs, City Attorney Polzak, and Warren Hutcher from Sumter Local Government to make the presentation.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, myself and the city attorney will thank you all for this um being here today.

Our purpose is to provide, you know, a structured and transparent um process.

And so we're going to just go ahead and turn it over to Mr.

Um Warren to uh of Sumter to go ahead and go over the process and get it started.

All right, thank you very much.

And uh thank you all for having me here today.

Excited to be with y'all again and uh excited about the process that we've got uh into the middle of now.

And so what I want to do is kind of go over uh a little bit of the review of our process, kind of where we're at now and then where we're heading from here, and then get to the meat of what we need to do.

Um so from a review of process standpoint.

Uh we developed with y'all the ideal candidate profile and recruitment brochure.

We've gone through the advertising initial recruitment phases.

Uh we've provided uh to you the initial candidate review, and that is kind of where we are today.

And the goal for today is to selection of semifinalists.

Um and then from here forward, and you'll see in the um we've got a detailed uh report now with the process sort of laid out for y'all's consideration as to sort of where you know the details of where we go from here, but generally it's uh gonna be we we'll conduct the recorded interviews, which will be live interviews with the semifinalists, and then we'll provide you with a report that will have um three basically three things in it.

One is you'll have a link uh to the actual interview so you can watch the interview that we conducted with each of the candidates.

We'll have our notes, which is generally pretty uh free form as to you know here's things we liked about the candidate, here's the things that concern us about the candidate.

Uh and then we'll provide an initial um sort of media review of the candidates.

So we'll be doing our um next level Google search and um and sort of deeper dive so that we'll be identifying articles and other things that it'll be of interest.

And again, the um you know the the thought process with that is that there's those three sides to every story, and the news article usually has one side to that story.

Uh we'll be identifying in the interview, trying to um get the other side of the story uh for anything that comes up in our initial searches, uh, and then the background check when we do that um with the uh final candidate.

Uh we'll get the third side to the story, which is hopefully the truth.

The idea is that we do not want any surprises.

Um, we select the candidate, everything should be on the table and and known and understood.

Um, so that's kind of the the gets us to the end of the process.

Um we've listed in the report, and I won't read it here as the you know, sort of a repetition of what the ideal candidate profile looked like with the qualifications and preferred experience.

Um, I do want to go over in a little more detail is uh the initial candidate review score sheet.

Uh and so we did as we had promised a rubric or a score sheet that identified from from the resumes in cover letters uh a scoring system.

And so let me put kind of put that into context in the scoring system is attempts to be objective from the information and materials that we can gather from the candidates.

Um it tries to put the maximum point values on the things that would be most important for the candidates that would be most successful here in the city of Sarasota.

Um it is it does not take into account soft skills, it does not take into account other non-objective measures, and so it is not perfect.

There's 25 ways probably to score these from the standpoint of what point values you assign, what categories, and so we chose something that we think was reflective of both the materials that we had put together and the conversations that we had had with y'all individually, and so I'll kind of go over this uh quickly in that when you look at the sort of the overall scoring methodology.

Um we put for senior management experience, we gave the most points.

Uh if you had more than 10 years of city manager experience, then we had another one for five to nine and one to four years of experience.

We also uh gave some point values if there was an ACM assistant city manager or department head position, um, and then uh senior military, private or nonprofit leadership, and so that's your senior management experience education, 15 for a master's degree, 10 points for a bachelor's degree.

Uh we did add a category of population as city manager over 50,000 to try to reflect a little bit more carefully as to what the challenges would be in a city this size.

I would warn you it's not a perfect metric because I do believe that there are folks from smaller cities that can step up and do an exceptional job for you.

And so again, everything is a measure, but it's not um I wouldn't identify it as per anything perfect or that I would put my life on the line for ICMA involvement.

Came up in our discussions when we talk with y'all individually as to being important.

Um, and so the um ICMA CM, which is the certified uh member is an extensive process that ICMA members go through to become a certified member, and so there's some self-evaluation, some additional continuing education responsibilities and some other uh and then also you need to be in a city manager position for an X number of years to be able to be qualified for that.

So it's a pretty extensive process that people go through, it's a commitment, and so I think it was worth getting some extra points for that, and then we we did go ahead and look and see um you know who has an active ICMA membership and then get points for that because being part of that group means something as well.

Uh we gave additional points for coastal experience and whether or not we felt it was a tourist community.

Uh coastal experience, we try to limit that to being as a city manager because sometimes you know they may they may have had that early in their career in a non-leadership position, and so we limited that to city manager coastal experience.

Um, and we also recognize there's a difference between being on the coast in California being on the coast in Florida as well.

Um, and then tourist community was even a little bit more difficult to judge as to what the heck that means.

And so it's generally speaking kind of what you would think if you said, you know, as a tourist type community that they would have places that people want to visit as opposed to people that places that you go just to for business or to see family.

Um so that's how we came up with a scoring method again, not perfect methodology, but it's a good starting point to sort of broadly identify the groups and tiers for the candidates.

And so as they went through that, um, you know, you can get a total of a hundred points and score.

Um, and so the we then identified into tiers, and we just made an artificial cutoff of 70, um, which limited us to about 23 people in tier one, um, and then tier two uh started at 65 and went down all the way to 35, and those um for those candidates, and then tier three is really the candidates that you know do not meet y'all's qualifications or uh would not be appropriate for this position, and those are score of 30 and below.

And then tier three is really the candidates that you know do not meet y'all's qualifications or would not be appropriate for this position, and those are score of 30 and below.

We did have several candidates as time of the initial this report that we put together.

We had the cutoff date that I think y'all had talked about at your meeting, which was I forget the exact date, but I think it was the 8th, maybe at 5 p.m.

And so anything that came in after that.

We have collected and sent to your staff, but that would not include those in the scoring matrix.

I can tell you that there is nothing that's come in since that deadline that I would be concerned about not bringing forward to y'all for consideration.

So I think the best candidates are already in this report and on this list.

And so we've made a recommendation, which I want to kind of talk, give a little bit of color to, and that there's 37 folks on this list.

And so on the initial take on that is you know, gosh, Warren, what are you doing?

Giving us 37 names, that's crazy.

Um we need to whittle it down further.

Um so the good news is that you have a lot of good, you know, out of the 80 uh five candidates on this list.

It's a nice response to this recruitment, and you got a lot of really good candidates.

Um, and so what we try to think about this is sort of as a funnel.

And so at the top of the funnel, you're gonna have the most candidates, and then at the end, you're only gonna have one city manager.

And so as we get through the list, I'm more concerned at this stage with losing a candidate that might be a great fit for y'all that we don't know as much about, or we don't we can't see from the resume and cover letter that this is our person, and so I'd rather do more interviews on the semifinals than less, even though it's more work for our firm and more work ultimately for y'all is watching the videos when we complete them to make that list.

We we are committed uh at the back end of this to give you a recommendation of up to six finalists.

So we will get to the point where we are very seriously cutting folks.

Um, but the concern is there may be someone on this list that's you know right there toward the top, not really looking like they're our person, but when we get in the interview, they may blow us away.

And so we want to give them an opportunity to be able to do that.

And again, it's really just a matter of time and effort at this point.

There's no real downside to keeping people on the list as opposed to cutting them.

But my fear is if you cut somebody that ultimately would have been a great candidate for y'all, but we just didn't know them well enough.

I think that's the downside for the city of Sarasota and y'all's benefit.

Um, so with that said, and I'll I'll take questions in a moment, but I want to just kind of go through the um what our recommendation is uh for the next steps in a more a little more detailed level.

And so uh I think y'all have a document in front of you that we've put together.

Um so the uh looking at phase one for today's meeting, um, we'll present the overview of the full applicant pool, which we've already done, um, and then we'll uh be able to you know provide you any observations on individual candidates and respond to questions for clarification.

Um what we're what we're asking y'all to do is to select the candidates to advance as semifinalists, and so the uh the way we think that it's best to accomplish that, and again, this is ultimately the commission's final decisions on who these semifinalists are, not some or consulting, um, is to you know have your all's individual opinions, and so to you know, at the appropriate point to make motions to you know eliminate certain candidates or to add others that we don't have in the recommendation until y'all get to a list that everybody's comfortable with by majority vote, and so hopefully you know it'll be somewhat close to the list of the ones we recommended, but if it isn't it isn't, and so um you know we'll go through that process with y'all to be able to either cut down, add or keep there is there's no special number that we think we need to get to at this point.

Um, as I talked about before, we'll provide you the virtual uh Zoom interviews which are live with the candidates, which I think will give you all the flavor and feel that you need to be able to make finalist decisions, and what we're also recommending for after this meeting is that we've got sort of a standard process that we go through.

Um it's not completely standardized from the standpoint of when we do the interviews, we'll ask some various questions based on the individual candidate as well as some general questions.

But we want to also give the commission an opportunity if what our recommendation is is if each of y'all after this meeting would like to submit up to one question that you'd like for us to include into those interviews, we're happy to do so.

And we can do that either here or afterward, um, and if you'll submit us, and so we'll take one question from each commissioner and then add that to the list so that at least there'll be one that that you know if we we're not gonna ask it and y'all want to make sure you hear it, uh that would be great to have from y'all, and then in the final interviews, you guys can ask whatever you want as long as it's not an illegal question.

And then in the final interviews, you guys can ask whatever you want as long as it's not an illegal question.

Um Joe will make sure that uh we know exactly what illegal questions mean.

Um so you'll have a a lot of shots at it, but I think it would be good if you all have a specific question that maybe doesn't seem important to me, but it's important to you.

I would like I'd like to go ahead and ask those of each of the candidates.

So we we'd be happy to do that, and it wouldn't add a ton of time to the interviews.

Um then at the uh we will provide the report to y'all in advance.

We're suggesting a February 10th special meeting.

Um that date can move.

I think y'all had already had that reserved as a workshop date, so that's why we chose that date.

Um, and then we'll come back and meet with y'all again and go over uh the semifinals report and my recommendation of up to six candidates, and we'll get the the goal for that meeting is to uh get to the up to six candidates and then finalize if we want to make any changes to the what what the final process looks like.

And so, what we're suggesting at this point uh is to include within a two-day period for the interviews.

Um, and again, y'all not necessarily have to be involved in the whole two days, but there'll be different elements, and those elements include uh having one-on-one interviews between each of the finalists and each commissioner, um, having the the each of the candidates meet with the leadership team of the city.

Um each of the candidates would be provided a comprehensive city tour, um, a and then have a full commission interview where all of you meet with the candidates again, but as a group this time assembled.

Um, and then I'm also recommending that y'all do a public open house on the probably that first evening on the first day uh that we invite the public in and we can set that up in a couple different formats.

The the one I like uh the two I like the best are either to do sort of uh just a meet and greet so it's a little more social and people can walk around the room and talk to the candidates, you know, however they'd like to, and then the other one, which I thought was pretty neat idea is to do somewhat of a speed dating type approach where we set the candidates in a room at six different tables, and then um every five minutes we'll ring a bell and the public can kind of move from station to station and be able to meet each candidate in that so that it's not a maybe you know, they there's a crowd around one candidate and they can't get to them, um, and so we can do it that way.

So again, that those are detailed choices that we can make at a later point, but that's our general recommendations on how to conduct the final process, and then once the uh you know we finish that process, the city commission will meet to select a preferred finalist, authorize city attorney and city auditor and clerk to negotiate a proposed employment agreement.

Um then any offer would be conditional upon the approval of the final contract terms by a majority of the commission and a successful background investigation that we will lead and be approved by the commission.

So we're not just gonna tell you the background check is done, we'll give you all the background materials information, and then y'all will say when it's done from that point, and then the final appointment action occurs at a duly noticed public meeting.

Um so I've spoken for too long as usual, but wanted to get you all the information and try to um predict any questions that you have.

But at this point, I will be quiet and answer any questions that y'all may have of me.

Commissioners questions.

Uh Vice Mayor, thank you.

Um thank you for the comprehensive summary of what you've done and what you're going to do and what we will do too.

Regarding your scoring grid or your scoring criteria, to me, as long as it's consistent for all candidates, there is validity in it.

A different scoring grid would have different results, probably, but that's fine.

Um regarding the questions that you would accept one per commissioner.

If a commissioner offers a question that is already on your list, we will know that, right?

I'll let you know so you can offer a second one.

Um regarding the meeting with the leadership team.

I think it's important for candidates to have just a little bit of time with our administrative staff in the city hall office.

Uh, that's Christina and Brianna.

Um, just so that they can get a feel for the candidates as well.

Um speed dating, I like the concept in in this situation.

Um it might be good to have a facilitator there so that uh one person doesn't dominate the conversation with the applicant.

And regarding the background check, would you explain that again?

Who's going to get a background check?

Yes.

Excellent point.

So let me kind of clarify a little bit.

And so I think you brought up a good suggestion on the from sort of broadening the access or the um with the staff.

And so what I've seen also done before is another idea is uh we do a little bit of open house during the business day and then you know have the the staff invited anybody from you know all departments that want to come by and just meet the candidates and you have like a two-hour period where they can kind of mix and mingle and talk with the candidates as we've done that before.

I think there's value in that for both the staff to you know be able to meet the the candidates um although they don't have a vote in the process, and then secondly um it gives the I like it because it gives the candidates a view of who they're gonna be working with, and it's not just the leadership team but everybody that is there.

So it's an option that y'all can consider, it's not a necessity.

Um the on the background checks, um, so we do and they're flexible in the whatever sometimes the city's requirements are, and so what we include usually in that um as a minimum would be a a credit check, a national.

No, I mean who.

Oh, the background will be done by us.

And which candidates will have the background check.

So it's a good question.

So what we typically do is once y'all have selected it, let me say it this way.

So so there's some variable variability to that.

So ideally y'all meet on the second day after all the interviews, and you fell in love with one person and you say that's the person we want to make an offer to, and then we do the background check on that person.

Um it could be multiple people at that point if you all have to if if it would help you make a decision as to um, you know, we love these two, and maybe the background check will make a difference.

So it could be more than one that we do the background check on, but if if we could, it would be great to get it down to one person and do the background check on them.

And would you explain why um all semi-finalists would not have a background check?

Um I think part of it is just the invasiveness of the background check.

It would be more limiting to the ones that you're actually going to hire as opposed to going through that process for somebody that ultimately may not be your choice.

And so we still have time to have to do more than one when we get toward the end.

But if you get you know six in and there's two that you absolutely are not gonna hire, there's really no point in going through the background check with that because again it's gonna involve contacting all their previous employers and um doing a deep dive, and if they're not gonna get the job, that's a lot to ask of them to sort of take that on, it'd be my opinion.

Thank you.

Okay, other commissioners questions?

I have some questions.

Okay.

We are using the button though.

Okay.

Commissioner, gosh.

Um thank you.

Uh how do you want us to proceed?

I'm I'm not clear on how you want us to proceed from here.

You have the list of, I think there are 38 sort of semifinalists.

Um I had 34 of my own.

Um by so my process, Commissioners, what I did was I read through all of them.

I had my own sort of grading system and and whittled it down, and I had yes, no, maybe, and I shared this with you last time.

Yes, no, maybe.

Um, and so then I compared my yeses and my maybes with this list here, and um everything is in common with the exception of five.

Okay.

Um, and so I appreciate what you said earlier about not being too heavy-handed in the beginning because we don't want to lose that diamond in the rough, so to speak, right?

Um, there are some here that I think have a lot of experience and are shining, but we haven't done background checks.

We we don't know if that's a real fit, um, because they could be a great city manager, but maybe just not for the city of Sarasota.

And so I I don't want to miss that diamond in the rough either.

Um, and so I'm unclear on how you want to proceed um going forward.

Sure.

I but I do like the idea of yeah, yeah, I think a broader list than a more so the idea is that I think the recommendation is you know a good starting point.

And so there I think there's a couple of ways to do it.

We we've talked internally about five or six different methods, but the the one we sort of came down to is to say, you know, the one option is we accept the recommendation as is, go for it.

Um, or there may be certain people on the list where you absolutely know you don't want them.

And um so there, you know, commissioner can make a motion to eliminate certain members off of the list, or there may be ones that are I didn't include that you think absolutely we should be interviewing, and that you can make a motion to add them.

And so I think it would just be an individual motion by a commissioner to say, you know, I accept the recommendation with the uh with the following changes to eliminate, you know, this person, this person, and this person, and add this person that's not on the list, and then just see if the rest of y'all agree to it.

And again, I I think the way I would think about it is is that the not the more the merrier necessarily because at some point becomes a little too much.

But um I think that uh you know it's not a not a big burden on us to to do the number that we have here or a few more.

Okay, so just for commissioners um uh information.

I have um five from this list that I could remove that I did not select, and I have five that are not on the list that I could add.

Um with the total number still being, I guess, uh 38.

Um and I'm happy to talk about those or or not.

Um I I don't know how we want to go about discussing this.

And I I think after we get through questions, then we can start with some motions whether that is individually say I would like to add this person is their consensus, or I would like to delete this person is their consensus.

But let's go through the questioning and maybe we will also do some other narrowing.

Okay.

And mayor, if I could just to clarify, I think it's a a great way to do it before y'all get to the candidates after we go through the questions.

I'd like to just make sure the process is solid and that y'all are comfortable with that.

And obviously it can be changed again, but at least we'll have a roadmap that everyone sort of knows is coming.

Right.

And um may I have one more thing.

Sure, just to share with the commissioners.

I did have a couple phone conversations uh with Mr.

Hutt how do you say this?

Warren.

Yeah.

Just go with Warren.

I know I was like, Hotmacker is the last name, but I got a lot of things.

I know it's a hat maker, but um Hutmacher.

I've been called a lot of things.

No problem.

Yeah.

Um anyway, Mr.

Hutmacher.

Um again, I you know, I I um thought that the grading criteria could have been, you know, different you did what you did, I would do it differently.

But I think proof is in the pudding that no matter how you mix it up, uh the fact that there are all except for five.

Yeah is i is a pretty I th I do on your scale.

On my scale.

So I think from from my point of view, this is a pretty solid list with the addition of five more I would recommend.

Okay.

It's uh I just wanted to say I I think it's a pretty solid list because my criteria were different than his criteria, and it's very common finalists.

So I feel comfortable with this list um with the addition of five others.

Uh other questions?

Commissioners.

Um Commissioner Batti.

Okay.

I I had a a couple.

Um I I wanna get an understanding the difference.

Well, when will you be or have you interviewed references or people who are familiar with the work of the candidates?

So we typically do that on the back end of the process in the background check.

So that would be part of the background check?

Yeah.

And so we do a few things that are a little unique in the um we will do, you know, reference checks.

A way I look at them is that you know, if I ask you to provide me references, you're gonna provide me people that really love you, and that will say nothing bad about you.

So we will do a a little bit more objective reference check where we start to just contact folks that have worked with them in the past and get their opinion, even we're not asking them to provide us those references for this search.

Um and then the second one, and we may get to if we need to, is uh w we at just at the expense of the travel, we may think it's valuable to go and see where the candidate is and go meet with people in person and go look around and see what their accomplishments are at the cities that they're that they've managed previously and the one they're at now.

So it could be as comprehensive as that.

But I think the details matter, and I I have an example I used from previous search where two candidates that we had difficult time choosing between, and it was redevelopment was really the big issue, and both of them had sort of bragged about what accomplishments they had in redevelopment.

So I went and saw both communities and you know what they thought was a great redevelopment.

I I did not.

And so we chose the other candidate because when we looked at things in person, it made a big difference.

So we we can go to that level of detail if necessary at the end of the process.

See that actually concerns me.

Um I would have thought that's somewhere earlier in the process, and maybe it would be when we have a half dozen finalists at that point.

You might be speaking to the people who were familiar with those individuals' works rather than get down to the person we think we're in love with, and then you find out from their co-workers that really they were scam artists.

I mean, you know, that's yeah, and I'm not opposed to that as a from the standpoint of I think you know that we can do some back basic background sniffing at that point when we get to the sixth semifinal up to six semifinalists.

I have no objection to that.

Okay, it's a good idea.

Thank you.

Um I was curious how you arrived at the list of moving forward, because at first I said, oh, this must be the tier one people, but then I noticed there were people on that list who were not on tier one.

So how did you come up with the moving forward list?

That's a great question.

So what we tried to do is we kept the core folks that scored the highest because they they really met the qualifications, and then we added a few folks into the list that um we felt like were maybe those diamond and the roughs from from our knowledge of them or from the materials that they provided, and so um trying to think of uh example.

So we we've had some extensive conversations for example with uh uh Michael Jensik, who's a uh military, um, just a little different than our profile.

Um, but the um amount of interest he's shown in the job and the conversations we've had with them and his local thought would be worth the a shot to have the conversation and see if it's a fit from a leadership standpoint.

We also had a couple of assistants that um you know didn't score as high on the list, but we think would be um you know good candidates.

So for example, on that those tier two lists, um, you know, Kamar Brown is a Florida uh person without city manager experience, but she's had um you know a significant ACM experience, somebody that we're knowledgeable about that we think might be a good fit here, and so we we pick and choose a couple of them in that regard that we just think that the scoring matrix may have overlooked a little bit and they were worth a shot to talk to them because they just might be our person.

Okay.

Um and I'm surprised that Commissioner Ahern Koch didn't ask which of these individuals did your firm source.

I did ask that question.

She did.

Well, see, and that's the problem with one-on-ones that we weren't privy to.

Sure, and I'd be happy to share that with so it's a it's a hard question for me to answer because we don't typically get the um we don't measure in that way from a standpoint of of sourcing as to you know uh as a KPI for us.

We have a lot of different methodologies that we use in our recruitment, and so some of that is direct contact, some of that is um our targeted email, some of it is blanket email, and then we also have LinkedIn posts that we make, and we have candidates that are sort of on our um frequent flyer list that you know follow our recruitments, call us when we get new ones and talk to us about them, as opposed to us necessarily calling them, um, and then they may decide to apply based on those conversations.

So I think there was a it's hard to tell in some cases why somebody applied.

Uh might be because we we we got them to apply, and then there's other ones where one of the other methodologies that we use brought them in as an applicant, and so we tried to identify and so provided a list uh to commissioner uh late yesterday, and it's it's a mix of kind of methodologies, so it's not perfect.

Answer is to if I had tracked it from the beginning is to say, okay, if y'all want to know exactly who we talk to directly, convince them to apply, and then they apply.

Here's that list.

So we came up with about three, six, nine.

So we we should all be able to do that.

I'd be happy to share them with you.

Because then the the other question is you were describing what you considered sourcing, I guess.

My interest is which of these individuals do you know better than the others?

That that's a different question, and I can provide a different answer to that.

And so I would say about a you know, I would say about a third of them I'm uh have good familiarity with the list of the folks that we recommended, and so they've either applied for jobs with us before we've interviewed them or we know them.

Okay.

Because I think at least that's meaningful to me that you have knowledge of this individual and you have put them on the recommended list.

You know, yeah.

I think that's a really good question to it that that helps me understand them what what's important.

And so yeah, I think there's a large large list of these folks that we know and know well enough to be able to say, you know, yeah, they'd be they'd be great here or they're worth a shot taking a look at as we talk to them, but it may not be a Sarasota fit for y'all.

Okay.

And and I I just had one, I guess, question comment before uh I know with the there's some other questions coming out.

Um I had some concerns also on the score sheet, and uh I understand uh Commissioner Ahern Koch's comment that you know it is what it is and seemed pretty good.

Uh I didn't have time to add my numbers to the score sheet late last night.

Uh but one of my concerns was um I understood giving points for population over 50,000, but then that meant that somebody who's the city manager of a city of 35,000 is counted the same as the city manager of a city with 1,000.

So I added, you know, I would have added some a middle thing, say 25 to 49 for smaller amount.

And I also in addition to uh well differentiate what type of department head.

So uh I considered uh ACM or the director of public works or engineering, director of finance, director of development and planning maybe being equivalent to ACM for points, but director of parking maybe not.

Yeah.

So you know what?

I apologize.

I think the when they transferred it to the report, it didn't come out right, but when the matrix it is correct, and so it's actually 20 points for ACM and 15 points for department head.

So there is a distinction in the matrix between the city.

But I I differentiated what kind of department I think that's a valid point.

Yeah, and and then I also if if it was multiple department head the head of different departments over time, meaning that you had more varied experience, I sort of upgraded that to you know the the ACM type as opposed to I was parking for my 30-year career.

Right.

But um so that points.

And and I was curious with coastal experience, was that just ocean gulf coasts, or does that Mississippi River flooding coast?

Uh we did um oceans and bays that lead into oceans.

So those are that we limited it to that.

Yeah.

Because I think they're more relevant than a river.

Well, see, I was thinking the annual flooding of the Mississippi River would probably be relevant, you know, experience.

I would agree.

But yeah, that and and then with tourist, was that purely tourist or was that seasonal?

It was a very broad brush that we took on that because it's I I struggle with that as it's like, you know, first of all, how do you define tourism?

And then secondly, you know, how do I kind of get to the details of you know how many do I how many festivals or what do they, you know, do they have square footage of art museum?

You know, so it was just kind of a broader brush to say, you know, if you if you in a community that we know is certainly, you know, like a um you know similar to Sarasota, then we gave them some points for it, but it's not perfect, and that if I had to, you know, argue with all these candidates over whether I gave them the 10 points or not, I'd probably get in a couple fights over it for sure.

So and and I'm gonna turn it over to commit Vice Mayor in a second for her questions, but I just wanted to make the suggestion is when we take a break, if you you could get copies made of the list of uh candidates that you recommended that you know well so that we can look at that before we narrow down the the list.

So I can do that.

Thank you.

Uh Vice Mayor?

Wonder if you want to go to Commissioner Alpert first.

She hasn't had a chance to.

Okay, yeah.

She hasn't had a chance to um I I guess you know, I don't know that this is a question, I guess it's it's a comment.

Um, and I don't think there's anything wrong with uh looking at the list of people he happened to know, but I don't think that really makes, you know, just because he happened to know somebody doesn't make them better or worse than somebody he doesn't happen to know.

So I just think we should keep that in mind.

Well but the fact that, yeah, I I don't yeah, I don't I I don't see it as relevant.

But mayor, I did forward the commission the email that Warren sent to Commissioner uh Koch on here the com in his response to what did you source?

So I just forwarded that to all of the just forwarded it.

So during the break we can print it out, or maybe somebody can print it out for us.

I'll print it out.

We can't find it.

And there are others certainly that you know I would put in the category of I didn't source them, but they applied and I know them.

And so I think but then you added them to the moving forward list.

That that's the crucial thing.

You knew them.

Well, that that's the crucial.

If you knew them and you added them to the movie, some and I you know, since can certainly give y'all the best scoop I can, but I also want to be careful because some of it is maybe my opinion that may not be as relevant to this conversation.

In other words, y'all may have a different opinion of them than I do.

Um so I'm trying to keep it more as factual as I can as opposed to gossipy.

Okay.

Um so I want to be careful with I don't want to hurt a candidate that maybe I wouldn't be my cup of tea, but maybe y'all's in some ways.

But um that makes sense.

But I'd be happy to share any.

I think part of the advantage of hiring a recruiter is you know, if I know something that would help y'all be good to get it out there.

And some of that is reflected in the uh recommendations as well.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Vice Mayor.

Thank you.

Um so I'm thinking about uh Commissioner A.

Heron Koch having had several conversations with you.

I think it's important for all of us to have relevant questions she asked and answers you gave.

Not how do you pronounce your last name, but uh anything that might also impact our decision making in the process.

So to me that's very important.

Okay.

Um and I originally pushed my button because I was gonna share my procedure, how I came up with I stopped at 15.

And then um after I rank ordered, but frankly, after I heard your explanation of let's pick more rather than fewer.

Um I'm okay with that.

So my 15 don't matter, they're in the list here, and I'm good with that.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Heron Cosh.

So I'll just share uh the conversations that we had.

Um I questioned the um ranking system that he he did because for me um in this system that he did.

Um having tourist community experiences at 10 points, and making that the same as earning a bachelor's degree, I thought was really not a weighted, a good weighted system.

So we had so you know, so we talked through his grading system here and and things that I thought were much more important than tourist community, because um emergency experience is important, uh a budget, government budgeting, Florida experience.

So things that we've already talked about in the meetings, we went through one-on-one, and so I pushed back on his system here, and um, like I said already, um I did my own system and it very much matched up to his.

So, you know, in the end of the day, the the the cards fell where they did.

So that was one point that I got out of our conversation.

The other one I was also um asking for the sourced uh candidates.

I think I made that very clear in all of our conversations that was very, very important to me that um our firm reach out to somebody who has a job is working is and they they say this is what the city wants, this is what that person offers.

I'm gonna go get them and find them.

And he made that uh talk to me about um that's not actually you know what happened.

Um it did happen, I just didn't track it in the way that it's easy to kind of spill back to y'all.

There's also you know, as I look back on the some of the work we did, there's at least you know 20 folks we talked to that did not apply that we we targeted, went after and didn't get for various reasons, either they were happy where they were or they didn't want to move or whatnot.

So yeah, the from a success standpoint there are a few that we would on our list that was none of it's just not listed like you know, here's the ones I called specifically that I really wanted to apply, and they applied versus the ones that I called and said they said no to me.

So you know, we'll you know, maybe do it differently next time, but the um but it was our approach and that we did identify several folks that um we went after.

Right, right.

And so then the third conversation we had was also was in the beginning about um some of the resumes, some of the stuff that we had, you had a resume, some of them you had a cover letter, and some of them you had a resume and a cover letter, and I thought that it was important that we evaluate everybody on the same playing field, and that's why we got that addendum, I believe, of the act of those people, because you know, I felt that sometimes you submit stuff online and you submit your resume and your cover letter, maybe they're separate documents, there are problems with PDFs, there's problems with internet connection, and that an extra effort to reach out to some of those folks to say, hey, do you know that you're you didn't submit a resume, you just submitted a cover letter was um an important step, and I believe that that's some of the follow-up information that we received so that we have a level playing field for everybody.

And those were the three conversations.

That's a summary of the three conversations that we had.

So that's a good summary.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks.

Uh Commissioner Alpert.

Okay.

I I do have a question though for you in terms of the grid.

When I first saw it, I was like, well, you know, you can't really rate people, you know, by numbers like that.

Just um, okay, they've got a degree, they've got this, they've got that.

But when I read through them, you know, it it made sense to me that the ones that you recommended um did have the kind of qualifications for the most part.

I I did say no to some that we would be looking for.

But my other question to you is the people who didn't make tier one or tier two.

Um did you look at them for other qualities perhaps that didn't, you know, weren't quantifiable in your measurements.

Yeah, and I think that's the we we did kind of look at each individual and not discount just because they you know didn't hit a a number.

Um and so there are some folks in tier two that we pulled up into the recommendations for that reason.

It's because we felt like they would they had something that if they didn't have it all, they had something that interested me.

And the ones under tier two just really didn't have to do that.

Yeah, and again, I I hate that because when we go through this with all our recruitments, is that just you know, they they may be wonderful people that are great in their field and that they're just not gonna hit our lists because we've got a you know we've got to limit it to something.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

So yeah, there's there may be some wonderful people down there in the tier three that just they're not gonna hit any of our criteria, but they they still could be wonderful leaders.

We don't know.

Yeah.

So and I was going to be asking specifically about the two individuals that they came in late, and I see from your sheet that after review of their credentials, they are not recommended to move forward for interviews.

Um one of those candidates I I looked at and thought might have been worthwhile, but you know, again, not knowing where they would have fallen on your grid, and to some extent uh elaborating on Commissioner Albert's point, there's you know how much of a difference between somebody with 65 points and somebody with 70 points, and depending on where those extra five points fell, you know, it might be more relevant or less relevant.

Yeah, and that's that's why we add a human touch to it in the and then also I think the this is the phase I'm not excited about, but the when we do I love the interviews because I think we the guys that we um are doing the interviews like on my team and myself have a really good feel for um when we get into it, you know, we're not just asking questions and answering it, we're engaging them in a conversation and we're we're taking that conversation where it needs to go to get what to get to know what we need to get to know.

And um you can either somebody that that may have scored a 70 or an 80.

Um we might be 10 minutes into the interview and realize they're not our person, and that's okay.

And so I think when you kind of look at that from the funnel standpoint is as we get from 30 something people down to six, it's gonna go fast because it's it's gonna be pretty obvious which folks are are gonna rise faster than others because of those more subjective criteria of you know they may have been in a city of 50,000, but they may have had four assistance and managers and they they were totally hands-off and don't know what's going on versus a community where maybe same population but they're much more engaged.

And so when you look at one of the topics that um Commissioner Ahern Koch brought up was you know, budgeting being an important, and I I think that's a really good point because as Dave knows from going through the process in various communities, there's different approaches that city managers take in the budgeting that would matter.

And so some, you know, when we ask them, you know, talk to maybe about your role in the budgeting process.

Um the the answer might be I don't know, the budget analysts and the CFO put it together and then I you know I check it at the end and we're good.

Bring it to the commission and let the finance director deal with it.

That may not be the right approach here.

And so I think the right answer to that question is gonna end up being, you know, I I set the parameters at the beginning as to what to expect um you know to be able to receive an information.

I meet with the department heads when they submit it, I ask them a lot of questions, I'm hands-on in that process, and then at the end of the day I'm making the final recommendations on these because it's not an accounting issue, it's a planning document and uh and it tells you what your strategies and and priorities are.

So I think when we get into that in the interview, we're gonna learn more than if we just you have a 400 million dollar budget.

Okay.

Well, I don't know, I think I don't know what that means.

But the the interview to me is we're gonna really get down to um figuring out who these people are and and make a much more better judgment than I could off a matrix.

Okay.

Yeah, that that was my uh concern I asked about soft skills because the scoring matrix does not take soft skills into consideration, and I really relied on the cover letters just to get a sense of the personality of the candidates.

So there's some people that I gave a D on personality and and sort of cross them off the list, but then also their reason for wanting the job or other things that they expressed in the cover letter.

So you're gonna get to that in the interview.

In the interviews.

Oh no, we'll be doing, you know, I would expect that um for this level of a position, you know, if we said came down to 30 today or whatever, we'll do about an hour or more with each candidate.

And so um you'll have a lot of movies to watch at the end of the day, but I think it's what the clients typically do is they'll go watch the video and after about five, ten minutes or thirty minutes, you know, some of they watch for the whole thing, some they watch for 20 minutes and go, you know, I'm out.

And um, and I I think it's it's awesome because when you do the one ways where you know you ask them three questions, they answer them.

I don't have a chance to say, hold on a second.

Um you know, we've had you know folks that'll answer a question and be like, you know, well, I got fired for this, but I don't really want to talk about that, and so I want to talk about this, and it's like, well, wait a second.

And so we have that opportunity in the interviews to really have that guided conversation as opposed to it being so rigid.

And so I think y'all will learn a ton from the interviews that you're not gonna get from this part of the process.

So I wouldn't be too worried about do we capture you know the whole person in this, because we're gonna get to it.

Okay.

It'll be next.

The next level is deeper.

And then the last level is as deep as you can get.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Alfred.

Um I was gonna make a suggestion, maybe that since you know the interviews are going to show us a lot more about the person.

I mean, that's that really is key.

You you know, you can sometimes tell within a minute, you know, whether that maybe we look at the list that he gave us going forward, but if you have anybody else that you want to add, like uh Commissioner Aaron Kotch, you said you've got five others.

Um why don't we see how many that comes to and see if that's a workable amount?

And if not, then maybe we can go through the ones that we we personally kind of eliminated, but you know, might have eliminated them and they would be a great candidate.

So now I don't have anybody I'm adding.

I you know I'm fine with the list as it is.

Um have five.

I do.

If I may, uh I'd like to just make sure we got consensus on the process first for how we go forward from here and then get to the finish out the candidates is the last step if you're gonna do that.

And and okay the vice mayor still has a couple of questions for the question.

I one question at this point in time.

Um I'm looking at phase two and see that in advance of the special meeting, you will submit a report of the interviews, which will include the interviews.

Right?

Yes.

Will you be rank ordering or tiering the candidates after the interviews and as a part of your report?

Um we what we typically will say typically.

What I intend to do is we will um you know provide you notes on each of them that will just give a little bit of flavor from us because we may pick up on something that we want you to know about.

Um so if if overall you know we feel like their their experience is shallow, we may put that in the notes to say you know that they have a lot of jobs, but the experience seems shallow to uh, you know, some sort of flavor to it.

Um and then we uh we'll make a recommendation on you know, here this up to six that we think would are your finalists.

And so um we don't necessarily score a rank because I think it's so hard to do at that point, but um we'll challenge ourselves to get down to to six that we think are the are the best, and it'll be painful, but we'll get there, and then y'all can again is what I expect is you'll go through the videos and you may have different opinions on the six.

But I think it's important once you you gotta get down at some point too.

And so you know you could always add an extra step if we're still not sure.

Like we got ten that we really like, but we're not gonna bring all ten to Sarasota.

So we may do something in the in between, maybe a follow-up interview or a written you know, assignment or something to help us get to six, but I'm hoping we get to six pretty easily.

Right.

So um with the addition of us finalizing the list, yeah.

I'm okay with phase two.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, uh just to confirm your firm will come with a recommendation of up to six finalists.

So we will be relying on your professional expertise at least there.

Yes.

Um so I was gonna suggest that we go through the wording of each phase at one at a time and get either consensus from the commissioners that we agree with that phase or any amendments to that phase that that you suggest.

So if we want to just read through phase one, which is what we're doing today.

Yes.

Okay, how band number two?

I'm good with phase two.

Well, I'm still reading it.

I I didn't see it before I have a question about phase two.

Um would it be valuable that if the commission after we watch those interviews or you know see what you're you know what you produce, if we have a meeting to give our input on our inner on the the the list as opposed to you presenting a list and then us coming back and saying, No, I like this one, I didn't like that one, or you know, this one's a good fit, that one's not a good fit.

Um because I think it says here, you know, you prove you'll do the interviews and then you'll present us with the semifinalist list.

Um if we are watching all of those interviews, where does that before you present with the semifinalist list come in?

That in that um that feedback from us in in we'll make the recommendation and then y'all can change the recommendation at the meeting that we we have.

We'll make the recommendation and then y'all can change the recommendation at the meeting that we we have.

So it'll be similar to this where we present our list and then y'all accept modify or delete.

And so it'll be the same thing with the semifinalists, so that you know I'll come to y'all with here's a six.

I think y'all should bring in for in-person interviews, and you may disagree with me, and then y'all by majority can decide how who you want to invite.

And it can be less than six, could be more than I mean, you can do whatever you want.

It's y'all's decision.

So just recommendations.

You'll have access to the full work product, and that keeps us timely moving along because we do have time constraints to keep this process going.

Okay.

How would you feel?

That we schedule a workshop for the first hour, and then at the end of the hour, turn it into a special meeting so that we could have more of a discussion and discuss the candidates in the first hour, and then the second hour we actually can vote and finalize that list.

I think having a workshop uh is sort of a waste of time.

Let's just get into the meeting.

Okay.

I was just concerned about the Robert's rules constraints.

You know, so Commissioner A.

Hern Coach was wanted to really uh do some changes of who's on that finalist list, or maybe discussion.

But I don't see why you couldn't do that at special meeting.

Okay, like it's the same thing.

It's just you know I think a special meeting would be better.

Just leave it at that, and you guys can actually make some real decisions.

So the first part of the meeting, it would be the opportunity to add delete, discuss the candidates.

And you can do that in a special meeting.

I'll say you can start your special meeting doing that first, and then you go from there.

Yeah, I think we can do it at the special meeting.

And I I would just suggest adding to the uh phase two to indicate the professional recommendations uh regarding advancement of six candidates or whatever number you want to specify.

But so it's clear that it's a certain number of candidates that you're going to be recommending advancement.

Do we have to stick with the six finalists?

I mean um, no, just their recommendations.

It says here um yeah, but that is that's the list we're gonna get in advance of this meeting, which is up to six finalists.

Uh, we would talk yeah, but we were talking about phase two for right now.

Right, but doesn't phase two reduce your recommendation to six finalists.

Yeah, I mean we'll have a recommendation in the report that will lead into phase three that we're suggesting up to six finalists.

Which is why I thought maybe there should be a interim, because if we're gonna go from this list of 40 people we have now about to six.

Well, he is gonna give us six.

Right.

But I mean, we're we're gonna see interviews with 38 or 40 people, 38 people, something like that.

And that's gonna be reduced to six.

That's a pretty big drop without any discussion.

Well yeah.

Well, the six that ultimately get into that final group, y'all choose that, not me.

I'm just getting trying to narrow it down for you.

Right, but you're gonna have you're gonna make a recommendation to us, which without any of our input is my concern is that maybe there should be a step where we watch them on our own and give you our feedback or have a conversation with you, or we have another commission meeting.

I mean, we all got to be careful of the transparency in the process, and everybody has access to our discussions.

But um, you know, we're five people watching 40 interviews.

Um I feel like there just should be a middle step there somewhere between Mayor.

Um in the final analysis, the people who go forward to the finalist phase might be a totally different list of six than Mr.

Warren came in with.

And our part is our input is done during the meeting, so we continue with what we've done so far, and that is to be fully transparent in the entire process.

So you know, I keep remembering Mr.

Bullock is going fishing March 9th or something.

And I don't think it's necessary to add one more step.

Maybe not another step, but uh some sort of uh convers.

I don't know.

Okay.

I mean it just it feels like a lot to go from 40 to 6.

And with five people.

But with five people, and so Commissioner Bettie may have a different six, you may have a different.

I mean, we that could be, you know, Commissioner Bats.

I don't know.

Yeah.

But it may not, I don't know.

No, I I I uh hear what uh Commissioner Haran Kotch is saying because you know it's kind of like how we got here, you know, I mean like us not having you know more say in the process, you know, throughout the process or whatever.

So is that is is that what you're basically trying to get to in terms of like trying to willow this down to those six from that, say 38, because I mean that is a significant jump from 38 to 6, you know, with without um some degree of uh of uh input or we'll have the or conversation about it.

So I I so I I understand it or whatever, but you know, I go with what with uh what the commission would want, and plus, you know, I think uh you added three more days to uh Mr.

Bullock's you know I'm trying April or something, I think she'd say that Commissioner Alpert.

Um, I I I don't think we need an interim phase because I think what you're gonna find is when you look at the interviews, you you're gonna quickly eliminate probably a lot of them.

Um we could handle it similar to how we handle appointments to the board.

Um I might have six, Commissioner I shall have six, but we go with all right, you know, is this person on at least three people's list?

And if it's not, then they probably shouldn't be uh a semifinalist.

I I agree with that.

There's a I mean there's some methods that we can use.

I I understand where you're coming from from the standpoint of the you know, sort of imagining how the heck do we get down to six uh without another step.

So there's a couple of things to think about.

One is that the I'd like for our recommendations just to be based on what we see off of the interviews as opposed to any input from the commissioners just because should be independent and it can be ignored, which I'm okay with if we don't get it right or agree with y'all.

The what we can do is when we come in, we'll have our recommendations, but doesn't mean that's just my recommendation.

It doesn't mean that you have to do anything with it.

And so we there is some methodology we can use to to do some rank choice activity with y'all to say, okay, well independent of what I suggested as the six, you know, maybe you come in and say, you know, here's my top ten, and every one of you does a top ten, and then we kind of look at it and say, okay, everyone's got this person on their list, and then that's how we get down, how y'all get down to your six.

And so there's there's different ways to do that that may be more comfortable because you could be dealing with a little bigger number to start with, and then eventually figure out where your consensus lies with those folks.

The other thing I think is different in this search than some of our others is that um you know the the bar set really high here.

And so when we go through this, there may be some great people that are great city managers.

And what we have to do at the end of this process is we have to pick out the best of the best.

And then you may end up with 10 or 12 really good strong candidates that could be successful here, but that we're gonna have to just identify which ones are really the all-stars that you want to meet with because we gotta at some point you gotta make decisions and and cuts.

And so those are my thoughts as we get into it.

And again, I think some of it, you know, we can lay out the best plan right now, and that may change based on when we get through the interviews, we may feel differently.

Commissioner Batti.

Uh no, I and in I I hear what it is you're saying, and and uh uh concur with that because the last thing that we want is um I mean want you to be as independent, you know, and without influence from from us in terms of what it is you're gonna be bringing back to us in terms of um who you recommend and uh um and who you see fit.

So I I I can agree with that.

Ms.

Griggs?

Um just so we can kind of I just wanna make sure we're also progressing moving along here, and just to summarize phase two.

Would you all be more comfortable with you have you're good with the language and then adding in phase two the commission also come back with their own 10 finalists.

Or you mean or however many.

Or not however many.

I I don't want to say that, but you know that number.

Whatever.

I just want to because you guys are really uh harping on, and I get what you're saying, like you go from 30 something to six.

Maybe you all might have a list date.

You know, he may not have.

We do have that for phase three though at the same meeting.

Okay, yes.

But just to clarify, before the February 10th meeting, and I think we would like to have a specific deadline date, because I believe we were really rushed between when we got the last piece of information and today.

So if there's a date you can commit to having the interviews access to us and your uh six recommended to go forward, then at the beginning of that meeting, we will have been able to come with our own six, and maybe we will all agree with what Sumter says, or maybe we will all pretty much agree.

No, we do not like that one individual on the Sumter list, but we all like this other individual who's not on the Sumter list.

So we through discussion we'll be able to come up with the six, but we will have gotten the in access to the interviews from Sumter significantly advanced.

Can you give us a date we might expect to know later than?

So we had talked about the agenda deadline was I think February 5th.

See the agenda deadline for us is different than what they I think they're asking for because just because our agenda deadline says one thing they might get it.

Yeah, they they may want to be pretty sure they want it before that.

Sure.

Um I just don't know how quickly you can do that many interviews.

Yeah, and let's just talk through it as from the standpoint of the interviews.

So what we'll do after today, just from our internal mechanism is that as soon as we have this list, I will send that immediately to our recruiting coordinator and say, contact all these people and get this thing scheduled with, you know, we've got at least three of us on our team that are gonna do the interviews.

And so we'll split them between the three of us, we'll get this all scheduled out.

Um and then start those as immediately as possible.

And most people don't need much time to prep from the standpoint of because they don't know what questions are coming, so they're either ready or they're not.

So we'll hopefully be able to start doing the interviews, you know, by the end of this week.

And then um it just depends on scheduling as to getting all the people on the list you know, scheduled out.

And so I I kind of left ourselves um, you know, about ten business days to get it done with all the interviews, and then as soon as that's done, we send that off to the um to get the report written.

It's very quick on that because all they're doing is um putting the links in to all the interviews with the passwords, our notes.

We'll include the resumes again so you all have that and the but you all have the resumes and cover letters separately anyway.

Um so that's a few days for the turnaround on that, and then we'll send it to you.

So I think you know, the if y'all want it far enough in advance of February 10th, and we may need to move the February 10th back a week.

Well, uh I'm even wondering and asking the commissioners and also you uh whether it's worthwhile and feasible to get access to the interviews in batches, so that you know, here's a batch of ten interviews that have been completed.

Here's the link to it, so that we can read in batches or watch in batches rather than wait until some date late in the timeline when we get 40 of them, which is 40 hours.

I don't have any problem with that.

Yeah.

I think that's a great suggestion.

So we can we'll get them to you as we finish them and with our notes, and then the only thing missing may be some of the research that we do outside of the interviews, but at least we'll you'll have the interviews to watch as we get them.

And so I don't know, I think it's a great idea.

So this might be sorry, I don't need an interrupt.

Um this so this might be the same situation where like you got the applications way in advance before his recommendation because these they're still conducting interviews.

So yeah, I just want to make sure everybody's okay with that, you know.

Yeah, the recommendations won't come until after we finish all of them.

And you'll get that on the um we'll get it to you on the fifth on the recommendations.

But I think part of this process is I'm sure y'all are dying to know what my thoughts are on the recommendation, but you're gonna have your own opinion, which you should.

When you see the interview, you know, you're seeing it just like I am.

So I that's what I love about this is I don't have any information y'all don't have at that point.

We're all in this together.

And so I think if we can send them to you in batches, you can make your own opinions and be more prepared so that when we meet on the 10th that you'll be ready to roll.

Yeah.

And I think just to add to what Shayla was saying, we're asking that those opinions wait to you form them until they're informed by the recruiter's uh guidance.

Because that may become after all that substantive work product.

Right.

Yeah, uh I because where I had a problem was when we got either the uh resume or the cover letter, and I figured okay, this person's application is complete, and I read it, and then two weeks later I got the other piece, so now I'm going back through.

So, you know, I have be happy interview and notes, and then after we've gotten them all, your recommendations I'm okay with that.

Um yeah, I just uh for for you know you were saying earlier.

Um I just the the the conversation that the commission has is really important.

Um you know, the sort of the ranking who's in the top five and all of that.

I want to discourage that in advance of our discussion because I want to remind you and all of us that your firm was not our top firm to choose.

It was one commissioner's top firm to choose.

None of us had you ranked first.

It was one commissioner over here who talked us into why she felt your firm was best for our city.

And the four of us changed our mind.

So the conversation that we as commissioners have at this table is really invaluable to us assessing those candidates, like we did with your firm and saying, you know what?

You're right.

This firm does fit our our city best.

So I don't want to diminish our discussion and our input and our thoughts into the process.

And that's my concern of going from 40 to 6 so quickly without our discussion and and our input.

I I I really appreciate what everyone has to say at this table, and I don't want to diminish that.

Just to be clear for the record, you're gonna make the decision to win 0 to 6 at the February 10th special meeting on the record at the diocese.

Correct.

And that's that's what concerns me is that we go from 40 to 6 without us having appropriate discussion.

But you all are comfortable that we can do that.

I'm okay with that.

Well that ultimately that's what you're doing is going from 40 to 6 at the table.

Right.

And that's what I want to make sure that we remind ourselves.

We have time to talk about it.

I mean, really, is it and I think that's the day when you can all you know put it all out there.

Yeah.

And we may want to schedule that meeting for three hours instead of two.

We've already talked about meeting will probably be all day.

Okay.

So we've discussed phase two a lot.

So we can move forward and phase.

So are we happy with phases two and three at this point?

I'm fine with phases two and three.

Okay.

Uh just uh one point about the date.

Um February 5th.

Uh I thought you were add adding uh moving it forward a week, you said.

No, when he's going to send us the the if I send it to y'all as they come, you'll have plenty of time to watch the videos as they go.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's really helpful.

What a great suggestion.

I think it's really good.

The mayor's got great suggestions.

Yep.

So we're happy with two and three.

Now we're looking at four.

And I'm I'm actually going to throw in the other uh thought in terms of meeting the community meeting the candidates.

I would actually like to see each one of them giving a five-minute presentation from the stage or three-minute presentation from the stage that everybody in the audience can hear, and then having either the meet and greet or the or the uh speed dating, but just so that everybody can hear three to five minutes from each one of the finalists.

Um with the QA.

Well, I if they've got a planned a canned speech, but then subsequently after they finish on the on the stage, then they can have the QA.

You know, or the meet and greet or whatever.

But I just wanted each candidate to be able to make a statement to everybody because we know there are members of the public who just want to listen in, they're not gonna assert the case.

Here's what I would suggest as a hybrid of that.

I think that's a good idea.

So I have no problem with them making an opening statement as to you know, introducing themselves.

I think that would be nice to have that flavor on that.

I would do the opening statements, and then I would strongly recommend y'all do the speed dating because I think it's the it'll give the most input for the it would be the most effective for the citizens because they can ask their own questions of the candidates and they can answer them in a more so the idea is that you would set up if you can kind of vision it is to you get a big room, you set up say six tables that'll be in an arc somewhere in the room.

Um the facilitator, which will be me.

Um basically will set a bell or a whistle or something, and that'll start a five-minute period, and so each person can will go, you know, the first six people go to the six tables, um, meet with them for five minutes, you hit the bell, they rotate to the next one, and then the next person comes in, depending on you know, if you have 700 people see that's what I'm thinking.

We will have at least a hundred.

Yeah, and we can do not necessarily one person at the table, you can do 20 at each table at the time, and then they can have a discussion with the candidates in some way.

Um the the other strategy is uh you know, having it be more of a mix and mingle, and I think that just depends on how introvert or extroverted you are as to how much you get to meet these candidates.

Um it becomes kind of a mess from that standpoint.

If you do a big public interview with QA on a stage, I think you you're asking for potentially a disaster from that standpoint that somebody may come with, you know.

I heard you beat your wife and you know, explain what this article I read on Reddit on a you know, or next door and stuff like that as to and then everybody's sort of on the spot there, and you don't want to put the candidates sort of on the spot with a huge group of of people in that regard.

I don't know that it accomplishes which all we're looking for.

So I I think having the public have an opportunity to meet these folks is great, but we don't won't make it a spectacle.

We want to make it something that's good for the candidates and then also effective for the citizens that are really interested in getting to know these folks.

What if what if some we submit questions um or or we ask the question so that it they're appropriate questions and they're not some sort of a gotcha thing.

And I say this because um our city manager has to be in front of a lot of people sometimes, and a lot of people that you know are curious about how they're going to interact and handle diplomatically or not themselves in front of a large crowd.

And um I I myself would like to see how these candidates um respond on a stage in front of a large crowd.

Um maybe they don't know the answer to the question, how do they handle that?

Um and how, you know, they because they represent our city, they represent all the employees, all of this commission, when they go and speak before a crowd.

I that's a that's a really important skill that I would like to see exhibited.

So I'm I'm apologizing for zoning out for a while, and the vice mayor was next on the list.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um regarding phase four.

Um I want to make sure we add where it says leadership team meeting.

Right.

Um I suggested meeting with our administrative staff, but I like your idea of having a one to two hour open house where staff can come in.

Um I think that's important.

Um regarding the public open house.

So I like the idea of each candidate having two minutes or so to introduce themselves to the audience.

Um I was originally thinking moving right away into the speed dating.

For me, uh, that gives the opportunity to see how they interact with the public.

But Commissioner Ahern Koch does have a good point.

We all have to speak to the public and the city manager more than any of us.

And so it might not be a bad idea to ask simply one question of each candidate.

So I get what you're saying, but taking a half an hour or an hour out of that evening to do that is too much time for me.

So sorry.

Commissioner Alper?

Yeah, my suggestion actually, even before uh Warren gave his suggestion, I was going to suggest the same thing is that you know they do an opening statement, kind of introducing themselves, maybe they're a little bit about their background or whatever they want to talk about, which I think will give us an idea of how comfortable they are speaking to the public.

And then we go into the speed dating thing, and there are a couple of reasons why I think that at the open house is a better method, is because each person, you know, one person can't dominate the conversation and uh dominate the questioning.

And if you have the public QA, there are a lot of people who don't feel comfortable speaking out, and you know, and you've got a you've got a few that you know, they're they're gonna take the reins, and everybody else can't ask the questions.

And this way each person can go up, talk to them, ask their question and feel comfortable, but they're not taking the whole time.

And then, you know, if there's just after the speed dating, maybe a little period of time for mingling and um, you know, and then if they want to ask the gotcha question, they can do it privately with them.

So I like the uh I like adding that at the end where they got a little mix and mingle where they can if they didn't get enough chance chance to talk to someone or they felt like they were rushed, they have the chance to do that afterwards.

Right.

Yeah, I I I just don't want you.

I I think it would be a disaster too to do the QA because they're gonna be six candidates, so what does each of them have to answer the question from this person, and it that's just gonna take forever, and I think it eliminates other people getting the chance to interact with that candidate.

And we'll be able to we'll have enough time to be able to see how they handle the public during the interview process, I think.

Okay, Commissioner Herck.

Yeah, to that point.

How how will we see how they handle the public?

That's what my qu might like.

So I have had the opportunity to see Mr.

Bullock speak and Mr.

Robinson as well in front of groups that we have that meet regularly here.

And that's a really important skill.

And I would say not that the public would ask a question that maybe the five of us could each pick one question that we and so each one would answer just one question.

Um that you would ask the candidate one one question, I would ask candidate two one question, and that's it.

Just answer one question and see how they how they deal with that question on the stage, a question they don't know the answer to ahead of time.

It may be something that they are familiar with or they're not familiar with, but how do they handle themselves on a stage in front of a large crowd with the limited knowledge that they have or not?

And I think it's a really important skill to be able to handle that.

And so how are we going to see that skill outside of this situation?

Well, with their opening statement, I I think that'll show you a lot.

I don't know why I have this on.

I mean, uh I I think we'll be able to see that, you know, how they handle if you have uh a two or three minute opening statement, you know, that shows you how comfortable they are in public, and I think watching the video interviews also will indicate how comfortable they are speaking because you would either do well on a video interview or you don't.

So I I I just I don't think it's a necessary step, and I think it's gonna take too much time out of getting the public the chance to interact with them.

I'm gonna suggest that between now and February 10th, the logistics of this sort of be worked out with one or two proposals from the three of you, and we choose.

I'm gonna suggest that between now and February 10th the logistics of this sort of be worked out with one or two proposals from the three of you and we choose and one of the thoughts I had because I suspect we are going to have a large crowd of the public interested I was even thinking if we took the speed dating approach, you know, starting in here with a public statement by each one of the candidates and then we have probably six uh large public areas, you know uh room one twenty two, SRQ studio, the ante room to SRQ studio, two places in the lobby, and get groups of the public to go to those locations and then the speed dating would be moving the candidates between those locations and we as individuals can stick say in one of those locations and ask our question and we will see how each one of those candidates answers it in front of the public because the six candidates will all be moving around.

But just throwing that out there but you know between now and February 10th if you just come up with the Yeah I think y'all have come up with some really good ideas and I I think you got a flavor for what you know what we're trying to accomplish is to get to know these folks as best we can and so that we've got an idea and some of that's gonna be you know how do they act in certain circumstances and so I think you got a flavor for that.

So let us go back maybe the three of us with with Joan and Shane will come up with some ideas on how to do that.

And you guys can decide we can come up with suggestions based off of this conversation and you guys can make a decision on how you want to do that.

We don't have to decide that now it can be the 10th and as phase four as it's listed it does contemplate a full commission interview in a public open house.

If you agree with that in concept we can refine those along some of your suggestions.

So based on our conversation you all will come back with a refinement of phase four is that acceptable phase four will have more detail be more detailed okay and then phase five um the the thing that I would say I believe we need a supermajority not just a majority of the commission to uh make an offer I would think so yeah yeah or higher three to five remember that that's in y'all's charter and that drives with this you'll select according to what the charter requires and just along the line right but but right now it says majority so we want to change that to soup.

I'm looking at phase five approval of final contract terms by a supermajority or you can say approval of final contract terms and in uh in accordance with your city charter yeah we can just put it like that in accordance with the city charter.

But but I think we need to know and we need to a supermajority to select a preferred finalist.

We'll clarify that yeah yeah yeah any other change concerns about phase five no when do we do the background checks when it's not until that final stage so after we select a preferred finalist is when you say you will then do the background well it could be so I think it's the way I would suggest it is that once you get through those two days um you might be ready to make an offer to one person and conditional upon the background or you might say we like these three a ton you do background on all three before we make a decision on which one we want to make an offer to couldn't could we have the background check when we get the final six that's the one I addressed before is that I'd be concerned about just the invasiveness of that process onto the candidates before y'all have gotten a chance to meet them in person and decide whether you like them or not.

Yeah that's typically how it's done I would like and this differentiation between background checks I really want you to have spoken to people who are familiar with their work before we choose the you know preferred finalists.

Yeah I think there can be an in in between yeah we'll we'll we might be able to do some preliminary stuff with the finalists that y'all have selected on you know making a few calls and kind of getting to know but I wouldn't necessarily go and do criminal and credit and full reference and all that stuff until you got your person.

Um and so again, I think it's possible that y'all get down to one person that day, or it might be you may get down to three and you're not ready to make a decision yet, and then we do the backgrounds.

And I don't know, I I before we bring anyone in to Sarasota and put them before the public, I would prefer to have a background check on those six people.

I'm just saying from the last time we went through this, and there were background checks.

Um there were people on that list that I would have brought in and interviewed and talked to, and then you saw the background and you said, no, wait a minute, no.

No.

Yeah.

And there were of the list, we had a couple that I would have chosen from their resume, but with a background check, would not have chosen.

So I would prefer before we bring anyone in here to interview and ha have the public talk to that we have a background check.

That's my personal level of confidence.

And that's again, what's whatever y'all decide we'll do, but it's it would be highly atypical based on being a candidate in a lot of these searches over the course of my career.

I've never had that.

I've never had to go through the background check until after they've made an offer to me.

Um, the background checks it'd be unusual.

At the first stage for the last firm.

After they made the offer.

Yeah.

I want to know ahead of time if they have a criminal record.

It's up to y'all.

It would be very atypical from the candidates, but then you know, obviously it's a public process, and they um encouraging all the candidates when they come to the finals to let their governing body know that they're participating in this, but they may choose not to as well, take their chances to see if they can you know sneak by without anybody knowing they're here, which is almost impossible.

Um I'm just I'm not saying that we're gonna be able to keep their confidentiality at all, but the um you know, doing a full background check on somebody that they may not even want the job at that point.

It's and then you're calling their mayor, calling their council member, getting, you know, into a full background, and then they haven't even necessarily expressed an interest that they would take the job until they get down here and meet y'all.

Is there's I'm confused.

Yeah, I was gonna ask because you all discussion on the choice.

No, no, I mean you're too much.

Exactly.

Yeah.

We'd like to hear from it.

I guess I'm a little bit confused too because what level of background are we talking about?

Are we talking about full-on credit check?

Yeah, you know, criminal search, like are or are we just talking about we want to Google and we want to call some references?

I I think maybe we might need to make sure we're clear too on what we're asking, but you guys are are every right to ask for that.

If you want some sort of background check with six people, I get it, but I get where he's stated too.

But what level of background are we talking about?

Are we talking about full credit check, social security number?

You know, what do you want to do?

I mean, I'm just looking at it as you know, any you go to a uh you know and apply for a job somewhere, depending on what it is, they're gonna do a background check on you or or what have you, you know.

So it's it's a matter of when.

I don't think it's an if.

I mean we are gonna do the full background on folks, it's just a matter of when do you do it?

So let's say we we you know give you an offer, right?

You accept it.

I mean, w when when do you do the background check?

That's if it would be a con if you're gonna make a conditional offer, certainly doing the background check.

Well, I think what the commissioners are talking about is that if we get down to say on February 10th, y'all would say, okay, here's the six people we want to invite to Sarasota to go through this two-day process.

I think what commissioner is saying is that she would like the background check before they get here.

Before you get it.

Or even before you invite them to come here.

And I'm saying that would be highly unusual in the typically it's done after there's mutual interest in the position, which is based off of the two-day process that y'all are using as well.

Commissioner Alpert was next.

Is there a um uh a non-invasive background check, just kind of uh um generic background check the back, you know, generic.

Because I'm gonna do that.

We're gonna provide when we do the interviews in the report.

You're gonna have a full media check at that point that will um identify any you know things that we're seeing, y'all be aware of those going into picking the finalists.

Yeah.

So you'll have all that information.

You'll have a little bit of a dossier on the candidates that we're recommending to to bring in for the final interview.

And you know, in some cases we can call around, but what I get concerned about again is that I think y'all have the assumption that these people have already told all of their council members and the public that they're looking at desperately interested in this job and that they're taking it if it's offered.

And the you know their open book.

Yeah.

And I think from a candidate standpoint, they're saying I'm really interested in this job.

I want to come down and meet all these folks, but I might decide after I get there that I don't really want this job.

And therefore I don't want y'all digging into my background, gearing up all my references, getting everyone talking about how I'm leaving until it's decided I am.

So maybe that helped explain kind of I'm concerned for the candidates.

I get it.

Obviously, from y'all standpoint, you'd like the full background check now, if you could, because there's no harm in it.

But it it does harm them.

Yeah.

So we're going to do that.

I think that makes sense just to do, you know, make sure we just have as much information as possible.

We don't have any problem with that.

With a Google search, you can learn an awful lot.

We'll do a little more of this information.

We'll use our judgment so that we're not screwing them up in their current job but getting y'all everything we can for the for the search.

So I understand where we're so listening to my commissioner's talk.

I think what they're referring to is something that we do here as an open source search on the primary end and not getting into sort of the the criminal background, uh the tier one background search.

So my recommendation in listening to all of you speak would be an open source search, which is non-evasive, but it's what would be available to the general public.

So it's not calling, you know, we're already planning on doing that.

So I think that that's really what the commission would be comfortable with.

That we're already planning on doing that.

So you're gonna have that for all 37 candidates.

We're gonna our recruiting coordinator goes through and does all the open sourcing we can.

And we'll get to everything.

And we actually do that ahead of the interview sometimes because we make questions for the interview that we find in the articles.

Yeah.

So we're we're I think we're all on the same page.

Okay.

With that.

We're we're not gonna leave y'all blind to the fact the person was fired for you know stalking or something like that, and then we just bring them down and we're like, oh, we didn't know anything about that.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's that's what I think we were not on the same.

Yeah, terminology and background check.

Yeah.

And I wasn't asking you a call for their references, just wanting to know if they have that's what scares the hell out of me.

So yeah, so we're gonna go.

Okay, yeah.

So if on February 10th we aren't happy with the level of information we've got.

We will discuss it again at that point.

And we're gonna do everything we can to get you everything that you know the neighborhood Googlers are gonna find anyway.

And so we'll get that ahead of it so someone doesn't call you and say, did you know that person was arrested?

Yeah, and and you will follow up during your interviews to say, were you really interested for that purpose?

Yes, I think it's important.

We'll ask the annoying question during the interview to make sure that we because again, I think there's the article gives you one side of the story, their response gives you the second, and then when we do the final background check to the person you really want to hire, we'll get to the truth.

So um if we you know, just to kind of keep us moving along here.

Um because we still need to talk about the candidates.

Right, all right.

Can we just get a mo if if everybody's good what's going on here with the process, can we maybe get a motion to approve?

So how about a motion to approve the process with the changes?

Comments and and the suggestions that we had made during discussion.

So the move by commissioner.

Yeah, because that was a commissioner that commissioner Petty and seconded by the vice mayor.

Sure, that's fine with us.

Okay.

Okay.

Do we need a vote vote or best vote vote on this one?

Okay, yes, please.

Thank you.

Is that your vote?

Yes.

Passed unanimously.

Okay.

So do do well, okay.

I'm trying to figure out if we need a quick break, although we're only here until for another 15 minutes.

No, no, you hit the one.

Okay.

And if you've got any longer, we'll take longer.

Well, I mean, so the question is, do we want to take a quick break now, or do we want to start some discussion and then time the break to when we want to get out and think about it for a while before we come up and I was kind of ready to move into the phase of let's figure out what's give our list of candidates that we want interviews with and then you all then we're done, right?

Is there anything else we're gonna do?

Does anybody need time to do that?

We might be able to get it done in 15 minutes.

Okay does anybody need time to check their list against something that we've learned?

Okay.

Well uh I know I know Mike.

I'm gonna clear the board, let me clear the board and then you all start to see.

So we we do not need a break.

No.

Okay.

Um right now we have these uh I would think the starting point is the uh list from Sumter of uh initial candidate uh recommended candidates moving forward uh which is the last page.

Um so I was thinking if we wanted to just go through and make suggestions to add and delete from that.

I can make suggestions to add.

Okay, to to this yeah, I have five to add.

Okay.

Um so do we well let me back it up before the ad.

Okay.

Um general, would there be agreement to move forward with the ones that are in the Sumter list, or are there any individuals that anybody wants to delete from the Sumter list?

Okay, Commission Vice Mayor.

Um so I already said this, but I'll say it again now that we're talking about this.

My top 15 are all on this list, and so I'm okay to add people that are on the list, and I'm good to go with the list as is.

I won't object if anybody else wants to add a few more people.

Okay, Commissioner Ahern Koch, do you want to do the commission commissioner Alpert?

Did you have anybody you wanted to delete?

No, I I think I'm fine with moving ahead with the list as is.

Okay, Commissioner Ahern Koch, do you want to give us your names?

Yes.

Um the five that I um propose to add are Tony Palermo, Demetra McBride.

Hold on.

We have a right.

And a little bit of coffee today.

Okay, Palermo.

Uh Demetra McBride.

Tanja McCoy.

What was the first name?

Tanja T-A-N-J-A, I think.

Okay.

Um Jarvis Sims.

Tandra Holon Tandra, of course.

Yeah.

Sims?

Yep.

Okay.

And Steven Minard.

Say it, go through it one more time.

Um Tony Palermo, Demetra McBride, Tanja McCoy, Jarvis Sims, Steven Minard.

Okay.

Let me look at last vote.

Um was the Sims first name?

Jarvis.

Jarvis.

Okay.

All of what?

All of my two people who were down on tier three.

Um, so I'm going to make the assumption that there was a reason that they were on tier three and hadn't been moved on to uh the list.

So I I'm okay with the um the list from Sumter.

Would the addition of five, these five people cause any problems for you all?

No, ma'am.

Oh, for me or for them?

For your firm.

No.

Um is that satisfactory?

Uh Commissioner Batti, were there any people you wanted to add?

Uh I mean, I just have my list in it pretty much from the first tier.

So everyone.

So is there a motion to uh move forward with Sumter's recommended candidates moving forward with the addition of the five that were presented by Commissioner Ahern Koch?

So moved.

Second.

Second.

Third.

So motion by uh Commissioner Albert, uh seconded by Commissioner Aher and Kotch and your votes.

And it's unanimous.

Thank you very much.

Oh wow.

So that was relatively painless.

Was it though?

Sumter consulting relatively painful.

Tag line, new tagline.

So just to make sure that we're clear, um Warren, are you clear on everything that you need from us moving forward here?

I just want to make sure you have everything you need.

I got a lot of work to do.

Okay.

Um if there's anything else that you need, let us know because we can bring it up at a city commission meeting in between there.

So I'll expect to see y'all again on the 10th.

Yeah, and we'll expect to get lots of information from you in the end.

Sorry, I had to do that.

Commissioner Aircott had a question.

I just had to include the board.

Okay.

I had something that is not on this topic that I wanted to bring up that the city manager asked me to bring up.

If that's okay.

So is it legal?

Yeah, no.

Is it a different item agenda?

Uh no, it is not.

Okay, let's go to other matters first.

Okay.

So we have we have concluded.

Thank you very much, Warren, for coming and your information.

And we will be looking forward to hearing more from you soon.

Instead of speeding, can we just do swipe less than a little bit?

Thank you all very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Exactly.

Great job.

So okay.

Other matters.

Uh Commissioner Aher and Gotch.

I'm going to try to remember one of them was at the convocation of governments that's going to be happening with the school board that is up and coming.

Um if we could bring up the topic of meeting with the school board separately, the city meeting, having a joint meeting with the school board.

Is that right, Mr.

Bullock?

I would just suggest as a commission want to have a joint meeting with the school board and we'll make that inquiry.

The convocation of governments was ancillary to this discussion.

Is there something specific?

Yeah, for what purpose?

Um I sort of thrown out the idea that the city commission meet with we have a once every eight years meeting with the county commissioners.

Um that we meet with other boards once a year to um just have a face-to-face meeting with these other boards so that we can discuss you know what's going on in our city that concerns that board.

And those boards are, you know, we meet once every eight years with the county, that it be regular every once a year with the county commission.

Um equally with the school board.

As the city grows, um our our boundaries stay the same.

The schools are growing inside of our city, and we could have these sort of face-to-face discussions with the school board and make them aware of how that growth impacts what they do, and they can make us aware of what their growth does to impact us, and we are better able to have a conversation and respond to our constituents.

Uh we'll have a better understanding of parameters of of you know what their challenges are, and they will have a better understanding of what our challenges are.

And so the that was I I was not sure if this commission supported the idea of meeting having a once-a-year meeting with the school board or not, and thought Mr.

Bullock thought that the convocation of governments would be a good time to ask that question.

Put it on their uh radar.

So any any thoughts, Commissioners?

Oh, sorry, I have one.

I have one thought.

Um I wouldn't mind one meeting with them, but to commit to at this point in time, having a meeting every year.

Not so much.

I don't know if it would be necessary, but I think one meeting with them would be a good idea.

At least one.

Any other why don't we get started?

Um, I was just going to say.

Um I, you know, um I have mixed emotions.

I mean, on one side you would say, yeah, okay.

Um I agree with uh the vice mayor that you know maybe to commit to one meeting, but I don't know that we need to meet with them every year.

There's very little um overlap that also can't be uh resolved and and discussed at the convocation of governments, so we have one meeting essentially with them every year.

Um but the other concern is I think this is about one topic.

Um I'm not sure that I'm not sure I feel okay about that.

Well one topic.

I I I wasn't gonna limit it to one topic.

It's it's not one topic.

I I um I think there are topics are you interested in uh pursuing.

I mean there must be an agenda to see what we're meeting with them about.

No, I mean I I don't have an agenda in my the back of my head at all.

Um but um I know that when we meet with Longboat Key, or when we which was I think our last meeting was I don't know, like s five years ago or something, um, and when we met with the county, um we they had some topics to discuss with us, we had some topics and we shared information about what's going on and how what they do impacts us and how what we do impacts them, um, and to have this sort of board meeting where we're each sharing um what's going on within our our purview, how it's going to impact each other, so that we are better informed so we can better inform our citizens when they ask us questions.

Uh and I I think there are a number of topics of what are going on in in the city with the schools.

We have Booker High School, we have Sarasota High School, we have um uh Bay Haven, we have I mean they're say it again.

Well it's private it's private.

Um in their purview, you know, they can tell us what's going on, what what's happening?

And when citizens ask us, we can say, oh yes, we know that this is happening at Bay Haven, we know that this is happening at Booker, we know this is happening, you know, it's there sort of high, and it just make helps us do our job better and helps them do their job better.

When we communicate um what's going on?

I know I always learn when we go to the convocation of governments with the school board.

I learn a lot about what they're doing, South County, North County, things that we would never learn about.

Um but very specifically within our city and our borders to share what's going on, what our challenges are, I think would be really valid.

I'm going to make a suggestion what we have done with other entities, boards that we have planned joint meetings with.

Uh approach them about scheduling a meeting, but then each of us come up with a proposed agenda so that we can agree on what the agenda will be, and maybe we'll realize oh, we don't have that much to talk about.

Or they may feel that they don't have that much to talk about.

So once we have a proposed agenda, then we could either move forward with the meeting or say, no, I guess not.

How did how do you feel about that?

Um here's an alternative to that.

Um the city manager talks to all five of us, and so based on conversation with us, uh the city manager could make up an agenda and share it with us.

Right, but we also want to get if the school board is willing to meet with us, what's their agenda?

And we have to start somewhere.

Yeah.

So we're going to throw it back on the well, I think.

I would come up with an agenda first before we approach them about meeting.

Yeah, and we don't have to do that at the convocation of governments.

I mean, there's such a thing as telephone, email.

So I think first things first, I think you all need to come to a consensus on even if you want to even move forward with approaching the school board with having it.

And I is that correct Mr.

Bullock, I don't know.

Would you I think it's important we have a reason to meet.

So I uh actually kind of like the mayor's idea.

Let me meet uh unless you have something you can send me or whatever.

Let me meet with each of you, suggest sort through that, not that I would eliminate anyone's idea, but sort through that and bring back a proposed agenda, because I think the school board would want to know what it is.

And then I could contact the superintendent's office and and see.

And just to update you, uh based on your direction, we're working with the county to schedule uh a joint meeting sometime this calendar year, and we're working with Longboat Key for the same thing.

So we have those two underway uh right now.

The Longboat Key actually asked us if we could do a joint meeting.

Uh we I brought it up with you and everyone nodded.

Um and so we're working on those two.

Uh and we'll we'll have plenty on the agenda for the county, and we'll have a uh significant amount on on the agenda for long boat key.

So I'll talk to each of you individually, we'll bring it back with a proposed agenda and then decision whether to move forward or not.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Okay.

Any other I think there was one other topic, wasn't there, Mr.

Bullock?

You said there was.

I can't remember.

Uh I asked Pat to remind us.

Oh, yeah.

Pat?

Yeah.

It was in an email.

Well, we are having another meeting next week.

So between now and a week from hold on, we got one minute, maybe, right, Pat.

I only got about eight emails after that meeting, so I'm trying to go through all of these.

Uh here we go.

No, it was joint meeting.

That was what it was.

Yep.

Yep.

Okay.

I think there was something else, but it's just gonna have to wait.

I can read all the emails if you want.

I might take it 30 minutes, but no, it's okay.

I'll just have to remember what it was.

So our next uh regular city commission meeting is one week from today.

Tuesday.

No.

Tuesday is a good thing.

That's right.

Uh uh Vice Mayor.

Did anybody want to announce that Christina had a baby boy, Maverick?

Yeah.

Well, congratulations.

Okay, great.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Awesome.

So I guess it's a question for uh Dave and Pat.

Um administrative support and the city manager's suite.

So we're we're in the process.

Pat may know more than I do.

Uh we we have a group of applicants, and I think we're down to interviews.

Is that or did we already have them?

So we uh exceeded Dave's timeline.

There's actually one candidate, and we're going back and forth reference a salary at the moment, so more to follow, but very shortly.

I think we anticipate if the gentleman accepts the offer within the next two weeks.

Do we have anybody filling in today?

We do not.

No.

So if somebody rings the buzzer, there's no one to let them in.

Pat has to run out of his office and let them in.

Pat has to run out of his office and let them in.

Except Pat's not in his office right now.

Um so uh any other items for the agenda?

No information.

I can remember.

Okay.

Well, thank you very much.

Thank you, Gloria.