Jordahl: We reconvene. All right, we were already in the process of discuss... Excuse, there's a hammer involved in this. OK. Back in business, back in session for informal meeting on Tuesday, February 9th. We were already discussing the issues relating to hiring of the Mental Health Development Disabilities Director. Since we have the next item under the agenda under business from the Board of Supervisors involves that very thing, let's continue that. Lora Shramek, Human Resources Director. Good morning.

Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek: Morning. I've put before the Board a photocopy of the updated job description. We update the job description from the MH/DD Director at the end of December. And I have also included a copy of our advertisement. We advertised at the end of December through January for the position and Joe counted 46 resumes and applications that were received by the deadline of February 1st. So we're here this morning to talk about the hiring process for the MH/DD Director. And I think I'd like to suggest that we start off by identifying characteristics of a successful applicant. In addition to the job description, which we have the minimum qualifications of a bachelor's degree in human services or a related field, a masters degree is preferred, 5 years working with consumers with disabilities and direct supervisory staff experience. And experience with development and administration with a complex budget. And then I'd like to reference the ad language where we had excellent skills in management, administration, and employee relations, budgeting, verbal, written communication and computer proficiency. So I'm not sure if the Board would like to discuss like solid management and personnel skills versus budgetary, financial skills in addition to the MH/DD background.

Jordahl: You've had a chance to review all of these resumes haven't you Lora? And Sally I believe you've looked through them?

Stutsman: Yes, yes I have.

Jordahl: I have not yet and I don't know if others on the Board have or not.

Thompson: I haven't yet.

Jordahl: I guess the first question that springs to my mind is are we going to get all of these qualifications in one person?

Stutsman: I think maybe we have to maybe zero in on those qualifications that we feel are most important for this particular issue. No. To answer your question, my experience in hiring, it's ideal, but it's very difficult to get someone that is really proficient in all those areas.

Shramek: And it's usually preferred to identify those needs prior to taking a look at all the applications. Like sometimes you go through, and especially 46 resumes, applications, it's quite a few. So if you can identify in that way, or benchmarking as you look for it...

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Stutsman: I guess I'm going to, to get the discussion going, add my thought on what I think we need for a CPC. And I base this on what we have learned through this process. I remember when we first looked at the CPC position after Senate file 69 came in place, we had some ideas about what we needed in this job. And I think we've all learned a great deal now that we're 3 years into the legislation and what the Director of a MH/DD unit means. And I guess my feelings are that we need somebody with a good overall understanding of the mental health services and services for persons with disabilities. But I'm seeing this position as almost more of a management position. I think that they need to be, have really good management skills as far as just managing a department, administrative skills. I think that we have very good people who are very proficient in service delivery, but you need somebody that can provide the leadership in directing those people. So I guess at the top of my list would be management skills, somebody who is very good in personnel issues and management, and just somebody that can provide leadership and direction to a department. That just sees the management needs.

Thompson: So do you want us to help develop a set of screening criteria this morning? Is that one of the tasks?

Shramek: Well, we already identified the minimum qualifications as far as education, training, and experience. And in the ad we identified certain characteristics that we would be looking for and I just wanted to see if the Board wanted to discuss that any further.

Thompson: I suppose I'd like to discuss a little bit about how will we know... I mean let's assume that 40 of the applications meet the minimum qualifications, that's still a lot. So how will we judge skills in administration, management, employee relations, how will we look for... Having already managed a big budget or having coursework in that area or what?

Shramek: All of the above. It could be direct experience, it could be educational experience. Obviously from a resume you're going to be able to tell if somebody had direct supervisory responsibility for a group of individuals or were they a planner, not responsible for supervision of others.

Jordahl: Let's label these skills that we're looking for. Are there 2, 3 basic things? We talked here about management, but within management you've got sort of people skills and you've got money skills. So it seems to me those are 2 things we can divide that aren't necessarily the same person. You can have a real good people person and a real poor money person in one. And you might want that people person to do the personnel things. Do we prioritize the people skills over budget management?

Shramek: And I think we also have to keep in mind that we have another open position in that department, the management analyst.

Stutsman: Maybe that is why I am putting such emphasis on looking at the big picture and the management skills, is because I think there is an opportunity to do some restructuring in this department especially in view of the fact that there is the management analyst position open. And so somebody that is able to come in and do some restructuring in this department. I think these are some opportunities that we could see some different organizational structure if that person had those kinds of skills, to see that.

Jordahl: Now where would you put that? If you're looking for, if you give that a name. A lot of them suggest themselves to me, we're looking for some kind of a person with vision, a person who can restructure things. We want a reformer, we want someone whose flexible, I heard said a couple of times from 3 people that are representing the CMI problem. We wanted flexibility, able to see a range of points of view, so there's sort of an openness that we're looking for. But at the same time we want structure. This is a tall order we're making. That's why they're paying $50,000. We want somebody whose got vision and structure.

Stutsman: We've always known that these would be complicated, high skilled jobs with this position.

Jordahl: But so is the... If we could put down 5 say words that resonate for us as things that we're looking for in these people as a way of culling this. How do we differentiate between management structure or not. If someone's giving evidence of an ability to restructure systems, that might be something for example.

Stutsman: Well do we just want to say strong administrative skills? Does that pretty well cover...

Thompson: I would like to give priority to a person who has done both supervised a staff and managed a budget. I think that combination, like you were saying is...

Jordahl: We want both then in this one person.

Lehman: If possible, but I would definitely lean towards the management side of it. The budget person could always be hired...

Stutsman: Right. (Inaudible) give it to somebody else.

Lehman: And I mean anybody with good management skills is going to understand a budget but that shouldn't be their priority. Get tangled up with numbers when their basic job is to administer to their staff and to the clients.

Jordahl: So if we can't have both satisfactorily in one person, then the second level would be we want management.

Lehman: Right.

Shramek: And by management we mean...

Jordahl: Very good. I was about to ask that question.

Shramek: Personnel skills, managing in department, leadership. Is that correct?

Thompson: Uh-huh.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Lehman: Uh-huh.

Thompson: Can you really assess leadership from looking at the resumes.

Jordahl: Well that's what I was referring to in terms of restructuring things. I think leadership would mean change. It implies going from point a to point b. If there is some evidence of having gone from point a to point b and that person was at the helm then there must have been leadership. I doubt that a systems going to change itself. I mean you've been a leader in systems, am I close to the point here?

Thompson: Well I don't necessarily think that change in itself is always good. Sometimes it's just change.

Jordahl: All right, so define leadership for me. If we're looking for leadership what is it we're looking for.

Thompson: The ability to form a vision and translate that vision into action on the part of staff, into a budget that works, into management that carries out those goals and doesn't do other things.

Jordahl: All right, so leadership is, under management includes vision all right. So management, is this part of the management term we're looking for here? Management includes leadership which is ability to translate a vision into action.

Thompson: Uh-huh. Sell it to the staff. Create a budget that carries out that goals that are stated in the vision. Develop programs that meet the goals. And in this case I think what we've been hearing this morning is that it needs to be the ability to set a vision and goals that address the needs of the community.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Thompson: So we don't want someone whose worked for the IRS for example.

Stutsman: And I think that's why this person has to have a strong background in services with persons with disabilities but I don't think we necessarily want a social worker in this position, somebody that comes from a background with a lot of hands-on experience. I think sometimes we think if you're a social worker you can be a manager, and a lot of people can, but I think there's a shift too that needs to be made to have that background but yet to bring in those leadership, management abilities.

Shramek: Exactly.

Jordahl: So it says here bachelor's degree in human services related field, so perhaps social work is not, direct social work experience is not as high a criterion for us as this kind of management experience that might be in some other area.

Shramek: Right, OK.

Jordahl: I think I'm satisfied for example, at least in the short-term with the kind of work that Deborah Conger is doing as an interim director there because she has some management experience that she's translating from other fields. Not to say that she will be the permanent person in this position but rather that kind of skills seems to be useful, independent of social work knowledge. So prioritizing things... Where does this social work, human services related degree, and experience working with consumers fall in our list of priorities? Is it somewhere down below 3?

Stutsman: I think it just compliments all these others. I don't know if I would put it as priority, in a priority sense. Because I think somebody does have to be pretty familiar with the system and people's needs and things. And you get that...

Jordahl: But I'm not suggesting necessarily hard and fast criteria but I'm trying to translate what I'm hearing in the discussion. You're saying that the social work experience, I'm translating what you said I guess and maybe I, I guess I'm asking for fine tuning.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Jordahl: What are we saying about social work skills?

Thompson: Well the largest number of staff are social workers so I would say that we want at least want someone who understands the social work code of ethics and can manage so that's followed and know how to hire a good social worker and keep a good social worker and weed out the bad ones.

Jordahl: And you talked earlier, I liked the comment that you made at the end of your discussion about translating the vision into action. You've made some coda there about meeting the needs of the community and I think that same kind of thing may apply, the social work focus.

Stutsman: And I think that is a good point. I think it has to be made, well during the interview process, very clear that we have a very active, involved community in human service planning and for somebody to be very comfortable in working with the community in responding to the needs that they outline. Jonathan, you have a couple...

Jordahl: Just a second, I've got to digest these thoughts. Yes Linda?

League of Women Voters Representative Linda Whittaker: I'd like to make a pitch for the communication thing. What I'm hearing, which I'm zeroing in on, is a real need for a very effective communicator. This position should not be invisible. This is a County position that should be right out there, well known, out there, talking to everyone. And so I would suggest that while communication is sort of down here on the job descriptions, ranks down there, that that effective communication is going to be key. Key to translating whatever vision, key to keeping and retaining staff. Key in making a real difference here. And so I would get someone that can really articulate that well, not only internally but externally. A person that's seen and be seen. Let me also make a pitch, if this is not currently being done, for on-sight visits by that individual. On-sight visits to where the care is being delivered. I think that person needs to be seen out there as well. As close as to the patient care level as one can get.

Reverend Bob Welsh: Jonathan while you're running down other things, may I add a couple of my own words?

Jordahl: Certainly.

Welsh: Compassion is an important word

Jordahl: Yes it is.

Welsh: And I think another, going from my perspective, is that the person needs to be able to relate to the persons being served and their families. I think that a primary focus often has been on the institutional relationships with agencies and the providers of services. And so it ends up that the providers of services, who quite frankly have a vested interest, become the driving force in the development of a plan as contrasted to the persons being served and their families and how that relates.

Jordahl: So how does that relate to the job description?

Thompson: Going back to your comment before, I would give priority to somebody who has done the combination that we're looking for, the management, the supervision, and the budgeting. It doesn't mean that they have to be good in all those things. If they're less good in area we could compensate by the other person that we hire, but that ability to carry out a vision through the staff, through the budget, through the community relations, that's what we have to get. It would be good if we could get someone whose done that successfully in another job.

Jordahl: So you would elevate vision above supervision et cetera et cetera?

Thompson: Well a vision is not effective unless you can carry it out.

Stutsman: I think we're getting to hung up on prioritizing things. I think we're just talking about a lot of things that I think are important, and I think we're doing a good job of articulating those things, but I guess I don't want to say we'll throw out everybody that doesn't...

Thompson: Not necessarily, oh no but we have to have some benchmarks too. How many people are we going to interview? Is there a goal here?

Shramek: Yes. Before we talk about that, and I also wanted to mention the possibility of somebody with union experience background.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Shramek: At least working in a union environment would be a plus. Do we want to move onto the resume screening process?

Jordahl: Wait, just one second. Let's scan through this position description again here, advertisement. I think Bob's point of communicator is obliquely mentioned when it says 5 years working with consumers with disabilities but it isn't State there. And I think the idea of working with, rather than on, is an important piece of what goes on here. I think there's a different attitude in Johnson County towards working with people. It sees them as more of participants in the process. As Sally said, the person needs to be comfortable working with a very involved disability community in Johnson County and so I think it's important that we emphasize that. We've outlined a few things here that we need and I just want to make sure that we have been over the main points in this, that there's not something that we're leaving out that may bear discussion.

Stutsman: I think we've got a pretty good list.

Thompson: Yes.

Jordahl: The budget I guess is that thing. We've said supervision and budget if we can get it and we sort of glossed over this budget piece of it I guess. From budget, what do we want?

Shramek: I think Mike spoke to that as far as, it wouldn't necessarily be the number cruncher but have the ability to understand.

Lehman: The ability to interpret.

Jordahl: So we're looking to have another numbers cruncher and this is just a person who can understand it.

Shramek: Well we have the other position open.

Stutsman: Yes, I don't think this is the person that adds up the columns. I think this is the person like Carol said, has a vision, how do you put that vision in place through the budget process.

Lehman: And like Linda said, just communication with the public, consumers, families, and not hiding behind a desk running a pencil. We want them out there where they can address the public, they can address the individual's, the families' concerns. And not that they're going to be the person only doing that, but in certain cases they need to be out there and be publicly visible but direct other people to do that and do that qualifying.

Whittaker: That's exactly right Mike. I think the other thing is this position has the potential of being one of the best ambassadors for County government. One of the best ambassadors for people with disabilities and could be a real galvanizing force all the way around so I would look for that.

Lehman: I think we've got a good start and some good reminders.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Lehman: I don't know if Carol's IRS comment narrowed the field down any or not.

Shramek: A few.

Jordahl: My concern here is that we, one of the things we do expect and I think one of the things the legislation expect out of this position is that there would be an ongoing effort, not to just monitor the eligibility of people for services but to look for ways of delivering the services more economically that still meets the needs of the community. And that is something that involves I think a degree of number crunching, of saying is this service that we're referring people to operating efficiently enough or is this other doing better. Is there a way of using the money more efficiently? Ideally, there would be sufficient communication between this CPC and the budget person on the level of that kind of thing. To enable this sort of creativity, the vision to be implemented through a budget. But that is the missing piece. We don't want to throw out the budget baby with this bath water here. This is very important. If we can get a person that really comprehends how to crunch numbers in this position that would be a priority I would say. Not over the rest of it, I say a priority, I don't mean, priority doesn't mean number one.

Stutsman: When I talk about management that's what I'm referring to. Somebody that has oversight of a budget. I don't expect, or would never want this person just to delegate all that responsibility to another individual. That they would work with the management team in developing this budget and the services and the vision and what not.

Lehman: Similar to what we do here as Supervisors for our County budget. We're not experts in that field, but we sit here, we review it for months, we question people, we have to find out exactly where it goes to. But we're not the ones out there implementing it but we are the watchdog of it. But if we can get somebody with that background, that would be all to the better but we don't want them sitting there and that's their priority. I think we've heard what the priority should be but if we can get that person with the budget experience that would be all for the better. I still even, we need to make it clear to them, if they are the ones hired, that's not your priority. You priority is administration, leadership, somebody else will be on the end of the pencil.

Jordahl: Good, and let's get a good pencil. All right, so we're going to talk then Lora about?

Shramek: The initial resume screening process.

Stutsman: I guess I would suggest that Lora do the initial screening. We all have access to these resumes and I would encourage everybody to look through them. But whenever you get a pool, there's always people that are just not what you're interested in. People that just send out resumes just to send out resumes. So if Lora kind of...

Shramek: I could do some sorting based on the minimum qualifications. Five or 6 characteristics that were mentioned here. Keep in mind that the Board would have full access to the whole notebook of 46.

Lehman: I was saying we trust you for the first cut. We can look through them, if there's someone we have a question on, go back to you, maybe why did you eliminate them if we thought maybe we'd like to see them included. Some of these are going to make the first cut and the first cut is definitely going to be the most obvious.

Stutsman: And then maybe if we could rank our top choices, maybe 6 from...

Shramek: That seemed to work real well with the SEATS Director I think. The Board indicated their top 6 then we went back and selected I believe 6 individuals to interview in the first round.

Stutsman: Now I have been approached by a couple of individuals in the community. One is a service provider who is very knowledgeable in the field and then Linda Severson said she is available to help with screening of applicants. On a State level, they're pretty knowledgeable on a number of people. That's another resource that we could use, or you could use or whatever in screening some of these applicants.

Jordahl: Yes Mr. Howe?

Howe: I wonder if you would want to consider, like Lowell Lumen, he kind of represents or is a part of this whole inner group. And he's on your... This...

Jordahl: Planning Council.

Howe: ... group. Yes. If he could be a possibility to be involved in this somehow.

Jordahl: We've discussed the possibility of having citizen/consumer involvement in the process somewhere. And I think, if I don't speak too (inaudible) the Board may assent to that in some form. I'm not sure whether that form is at the initial screening, going through a stack of resumes but that's I think what we discussed in that in 2 or 3 minutes of what role we want consumers and other providers and interested parties to take.

Shramek: And there would definitely be a balance that would have to be met between tapping into some of the expertise as far as... But also weighing it that these might be other providers which would have... If you're selecting a person in this person. I'm not sure.

Jordahl: You're not sure that it would be a good idea to have providers involved in this screening process.

Shramek: Well if you would have one, shouldn't you have all? I don't know. It just seems like we could get really mired into...

Thompson: Linda might be seen as a neutral person.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Jordahl: Well the Planning Council itself as a group presumably has been selected to represent a cross section. We've struggled long and hard with the form of the Planning Council with balances of consumer and provider and representation from the Board and so forth. That is a possibility you could through out there. Should we involve them? I'm not saying we should, I'm asking, should we?

Stutsman: My question is where do you draw the line. And sometimes I think that we forget what we're elected to do and what our responsibilities are and I think maybe at this initial screening, we have a very qualified HR person, I think the Board has individual areas of expertise that we can draw on. I think maybe it would be better, at the initial screening, just to maybe do it in-house and then open up the other screening process to other resources.

Shramek: The other thing we have to keep in mind is whatever process that we set up, we'll be setting a precedence for future directors. If we were to hire the Ambulance Director or SEATS Director or whatever position.

Jordahl: Well given that we have this established body, the Planning Council that granted is not as some of the boards that we have. They're not the Board of Health. They're not the Conservation Board that's established to govern those respective departments. They are very much advisory, their main purpose is to help with developing the services management plan as I understand it. So they're in a different position relative to the CPC than the Conservation Board is say to the Conservation Director, they do not control the CPC. On the other hand, as I suggested I think there is a broad range of representation there so that if we wanted to involve the Planning Council in the interview process, let's say, to have... As we've talked about the importance of communication, the ability to work with these people which the CPC is going to have to do, it would not seem unreasonable to me for there to be an opportunity in the interview process for the CPC candidate to interact with the Planning Council in some way. On the other hand, there's a scheduling problem that if we chose to interview 7 people then you're talking about having the whole Planning Council together long enough to interview 7 people.

Stutsman: Well maybe we could... I'm assuming we'll have second interviews. If we narrow it down to maybe 3 top candidates then we could have a time where the Planning Council or advocates could meet with the individual much like we did with the SEATS Director. I think the SEATS Director had an opportunity to meet with staff and, I don't know if consumers were involved then, but at least had an opportunity to meet with staff...

Shramek: Carry on a reception with the MH/DD staff and advocates.

Stutsman: Maybe we could...

Thompson: With the time to ask questions.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Jordahl: I would want it to go beyond reception...

Thompson: And have a set thing of questions.

Jordahl: ...Kool-Aid and peanuts is not going to be enough to evoke the kind of feedback that... I don't mean to mock your suggestion here. A reception could be a formal, it could be a structured thing. But have the opportunity for people really to pose questions and to get some interaction where everyone could observe the interaction.

Stutsman: I guess I'd opt for a more...

Thompson: I would like to see.

Stutsman: Oh I'm sorry.

Thompson: I would like to see the questions beforehand. Have the group on the council define what questions they want to ask and what the acceptable answers are, or desirable answers.

Shramek: So have the Planning Council come up with a couple of interview questions to be asked by the Board.

Jordahl: Or at the second interview if we do it in a group, or both I guess.

Severson: Uh-huh.

Jordahl: I would like to see the interaction itself occur with the Planning Council members so that there might be some exchange rather than just suggesting questions for the Board to ask, but that's just me. Anybody else's thinking on this?

Thompson: Well I was thinking it would give them a chance to do what we just did and define what their most important priorities are.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Shramek: I just want to caution too. If that's part of the formal interviewing process you might have members of the Planning Council who are not skilled legally on what questions should and should not be asked.

Jordahl: We would have to intervene and say that's not an appropriate question or we cannot ask that question. We could also school them to some extent on what types of question they could be asked.

Lehman: Or they could be submitted ahead of time for review. So we could help them reword them or something like that so there aren't any legal problems.

Jordahl: So are you suggesting as Sally that this be perhaps at a second interview?

Stutsman: Right, right.

Shramek: OK. Let's talk about the first interview maybe too before we get to there. In the past I have generated a list of questions based on the qualifications and the characteristics that we've looked for and then the Board has gone through and either x'd out or selected the questions that they would like to be asked like in the first round of interviews as well as the second. It was also mentioned that of course that we would include a couple of questions from the MH/DD staff which normally, I would go to the staff to help develop some scenario type questions which are very effective.

Lehman: Uh-huh.

Jordahl: Yes. So that would be a part of the first interview?

Shramek: Uh-huh.

Thompson: How many questions do we usually have?

Shramek: 3 pages.

Stutsman: Yes.

Jordahl: 27, 30, something like that.

Shramek: Yes. It's quite a few. It's a pretty intense interviewing process...

Stutsman: At least plan on an hour interview. That's what we've done with other candidates.

Jordahl: So the Board would submit questions.

Stutsman: We'd submit questions to you Lora and then staff would submit questions to you, then you would come up with some.

Shramek: Generate a list and then the Board can select the ones that will be asked. Because we'll have a bank of probably at least 60 questions that...

Stutsman: When do you want those questions submitted?

Shramek: What would be reasonable? Today's the 9th.

Jordahl: Well what's our timetable for hiring?

Stutsman: I guess I've always advocated moving right along with this process. Would it be unrealistic to ask that those questions be submitted by Friday?

Shramek: That would be fine.

Jordahl: Well when will we have Lora's review? Do we already have, you've gone through...

Shramek: I looked at the resumes and applications as they came in and I'm going through the process of now looking at them for a second time based on whatever was decided here today obviously.

Jordahl: And so the Board's review would be a second stage after you have gone through an initial selection process.

Shramek: Maybe we would have more time for the actual interview questions than this Friday. Because first up for the Board would be to select their top 6.

Stutsman: Right.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Stutsman: Can we do that a week from today then? We don't work, we have Monday off.

Jordahl: So.

Thompson: So you could compile them? If we got them to you by Friday you would compile them and get them back to us by Tuesday?

Jordahl: I think we're suggesting that the Board might have its prioritized list of candidates to interview by the 19th and then the interview questions could come later.

Stutsman: Hold it. That's another, that's almost a week-and-a-half from today.

Shramek: Yes, that would be a little too far.

Jordahl: When will we have...

Thompson: We can do this concurrently.

Stutsman: All right, let's talk about one thing at a time. When are we going to have the list back to Lora of our preferred candidates? Is that the first thing?

Jordahl: Well I guess the first questions, the first question is when will Lora have completed her initial screening.

Shramek: I can have that done even by the end of today.

Jordahl: All right.

Stutsman: All right.

Jordahl: And so then we will have a... We will then prioritize, group those candidates. We've had I think a very useful grouping and to... strong, medium and weak or something like that. It makes it easier for us to go through them. And then the Board can complete our review by Friday? Is that our goal?

Shramek: Is that enough time? 4 days?

Jordahl: How about Wednesday?

Stutsman: Wednesday.

Thompson: Rosemary want to say something.

Jordahl: Rosemary wants to say something? No, she's just shaking her head at me in general.

Stutsman: Well in other times... If you have them done by today...

Thompson: Friday would be all right with me.

Stutsman: ...I guess it would be all right with me too.

Jordahl: We have one copy of the resumes?

Thompson: Uh-huh.

Jordahl: Well we could shoot for Friday. If we get it done great.

Shramek: Do you just want to make it for Tuesday?

Jordahl: Yes, Tuesday.

Stutsman: Yes let's do it for Tuesday. That gives the weekend too if somebody's available to come in.

Thompson: So where will these be kept that we can know to go look for them.

Shramek: I'll give them to Jo Hogerty.

Thompson: OK.

Stutsman: And then, would it be realistic then to ask that questions by submitted by Wednesday the 17th? I don't think it, I don't want to make this...

Jordahl: Yes, you can do the questions by then.

Stutsman: ...dissertation level questions. I think we can have it done by the 17th.

Jordahl: Questions Wednesday the 17th compiled by. Then we'll have a compilation of whom to invite on the 19th. In other words we'll work through the priority list of prioritized CPC candidates that the Supervisors will have provided on the 16th and we'll have a compilation of the questions on the 19th. So we can send out letters or make phone calls or whatever to people we want to interview on the 19th, scheduling interviews for when?

Stutsman: The week of the 22nd.

Shramek: Uh-huh.

Jordahl: OK.

Lehman: You're also asking questions from the Planning Council.

Jordahl: And the Planning Council meeting is the 16th.

Lehman: Your questions, some staff.

Shramek: Staff questions.

Lehman: And our questions. We need to communicate with all those parties.

Jordahl: We need to get this on the agenda for the Planning Council for the 16th. I don't know if there's time. That agenda may already have been mailed.

Stutsman: I haven't gotten mine yet. I don't... Usually I do it...

Shramek: At the meeting on the 16th, could 2 or 3 questions be developed?

Stutsman: That's a good one to do.

Jordahl: Well that's the goal but I don't know if the agenda has been mailed yet. We should contact Linda Severson promptly and...

Stutsman: Yes. She develops... Or Bill Gorman.

Jordahl: But Linda probably physically sends out the agenda. She could intercept it if it's...

Stutsman: Do you want to call her Lora or do you want me to?

Shramek: I could.

Stutsman: OK. And then we also... I don't know how, if we want to open it up to the entire Planning Council to be a part of that second interview or if we would suggest just a couple people come representing the Planning Council.

Jordahl: Maybe they could delegate a couple of people. I would be easier then in terms of consistency if we wind up...

Stutsman: I always think of the candidate and how intimidating it is to come into a room full of people.

Shramek: Because just with the Board, and then it's going to be 8 to one.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Stutsman: Uh-huh. And I think the Planning Council is a pretty sizeable group and if everybody wanted to participate in that that would be a pretty large group.

Thompson: But we're talking the second interview here, and if this person can't handle the Planning Council we probably don't want them.

Stutsman: Yes.

Shramek: But in the formal interview, to define what constitutes a second interview.

Jordahl: Well the second interview might occur in 2 or 3 different steps. The Planning Council could be one of those steps. You could have the Board, you could have staff and you could have the Planning Council, that's 3 separate parts.

Thompson: We could even have providers.

Jordahl: We could do that too. We can do it differently.

Thompson: They feel they have a stake on this.

Jordahl: Board, staff, providers and servers...

Thompson: But I agree that we shouldn't have just one, we would have to invite all providers if we did that.

Shramek: Right.

Stutsman: Yes. Well and then how are we going to structure the feedback from all those groups. That's another issue.

Jordahl: Yes, that's where eliminating the number of people involved is useful. We could request that the Planning Council designate 2 people and maybe a provider and a consumer to sit in on the interview and have that be a part of the second interview along with questions that they would designate.

Stutsman: I guess I would be supportive of that just so that it doesn't get...

Jordahl: Reverend Welsh has a suggestion.

Welsh: I'll probably offend somebody.

Jordahl: Well let's hope it's me.

Welsh: You want to be careful that you don't structure this so much in terms of providership. You don't want to leave out the families of the persons being served who can often articulate needs better than the person receiving the direct service. This is why, I just met this gentlemen when he came on the Planning Council this year, and that's Lowell over here, is a person who is a, not a provider, not a direct consumer. He's merely a knowledgeable person with feeling and one that I think a lot of people respect and for someone like that who is neither quote a consumer or a providers at that point, a very interested person and knowledgeable and (inaudible).

Jordahl: Well within the Planning Council parlance and the definition of categories of who is eligible to serve there, we tend to include family members of consumers in the same category as consumers because they represent the interests of those who are receiving the service rather than those who are providing it. So I guess I would be happy to see that be an open ended category.

Stutsman: I guess I would support inviting the Planning Council to send 2 or 3 representatives to be a part of this interview process and also the staff too, have 2 or 3 people be available for the interview process.

Jordahl: So how would you suggest that be structured Sally? In separate sessions or all 9, 10 people sitting around at once?

Stutsman: Well I guess I think that second interview can be everybody together, staff and the Planning Council sitting down with the candidate and asking some questions. There again I'm thinking of trying to maximize everybody's time. I just fear that we're going to get this so drawn out that it will be 6 months and we'll still be including providers, including staff, including consumers and the process will get bogged down.

Jordahl: So we could have 12 people in there. We could have Lora, and 5

Supervisors and 3 each from the Planning Council and the staff.

Shramek: Maybe we should go with ...

Stutsman: I think it would be 2 separate...

Shramek: ...2 each or is that...

Jordahl: Well see that goes back to Reverend Welsh's question. Do we have a consumer and a relative of a consumer and a provider from the Planning Council or...

Stutsman: But I think the Planning Council needs to make that decision.

Thompson: Yes.

Stutsman: I guess I would say...

Thompson: If they want to send 2 consumers that's OK too.

Jordahl: Yes, that's OK too. There you go. The Planning Council can make their own mind up about who they want to send.

Stutsman: Somehow I think... Am I thinking right? 2 separate interviews on the second round of interviews, the Board interview and then the Planning Council staff.

Thompson: Meet the community.

Jordahl: Planning Council and staff and a separate one.

Shramek: OK, so the second round we have Board questions and then we have kind of part 2 where we would have the 3 representatives from both sides with their questions that are prepared in advance.

Thompson: Which they prepare a head of time. Yes.

Stutsman: Yes, I'd like to sit in on that (inaudible) with the consumers and with the Planning Council and staff but I don't think we would be a part of that.

Thompson: I'd like to sit in on it too. I think we could learn a lot from that.

Stutsman: I agree.

Jordahl: OK, I see a circle with the Planning Council and staff and the interviewee and the Board outside of something that says physically that we're not in the same way involved. So it would be a 2 stage second interview process. When you asked about the feedback Sally, are we going to ask for written feedback from Planning Council and staff then?

Stutsman: Or we could maybe just sit down and visit with them a little bit afterwards.

Thompson: Afterwards yes.

Shramek: Afterwards.

Jordahl: De-brief.

Thompson: Uh-huh.

Jordahl: OK. Easier, save the trees. All right, are we pretty satisfied with that?

Thompson: I think it will demonstrate to the candidates that while we expect them to be accountable to us, they also are accountable to the community and we expect that. That's one of our expectations of them. That will work well.

Jordahl: There are no burning torches in the audience so we'll soon...

Howe: I don't have a match.

Jordahl: Does anybody have a match? OK. Whoa boy.

Brenda Hollingsworth: Excuse me. I do have this one comment. And if I understand what has just been discussed and decided on, it could end up that a family member is not involved in this process at all.

Jordahl: Would you please identify yourself for the Auditor's Office?

Hollingsworth: I'm sorry, my name is Brenda Hollingsworth. Is that correct?

Jordahl: It could, but I don't think that the Planning Council is likely to do that. And you're welcome to attend the Planning Council meeting on the 16th at 4:30 if you can, to make that point.

Stutsman: Quite frankly, if I'm correct, these will be open interviews. Is that right Lora or Carol? The public can attend?

Shramek: Unless they request it.

Jordahl: They could request it.

Stutsman: Unless they request an executive session. Yes.

Jordahl: Now how does that work if we have members of the Planning Council in attendance? They're not sworn. In what sense? They're not paid.

Stutsman: Well, I guess I wanted to address this too, is that I think we have to explain questions to be asked, roles. And then 2, that the Board will take their comments and take them into consideration but I guess I don't want anybody to go out of here upset if we don't, if the Board agrees not to hire who the Planning Council or an individual recommends. The final decision for hiring is with the Board, and I think that has to be made clear. That's touchy because I don't want to offend anybody but at the same time I don't want anybody to be upset saying well we wanted this person but they hired somebody else. The Board does have the final decision.

Shramek: Yes the process allows for the valuable input.

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Thompson: Uh-huh. Do we want to have more? We said 2 from the staff and 2 from the Planning Council?

Jordahl: 2 or 3 was said.

Thompson: Do we want to include 3 from the Planning Council? The staff is only a few people but consumers are hundreds.

Jordahl: So should we have 2 staff and 3 Planning Council?

Stutsman: That would be 5 I guess I think that's the...

Thompson: That would be OK.

Lehman: That's a good idea.

Jordahl: It's a nice odd number so they wouldn't get a split decision.

Thompson: That would give you better odds.

Jordahl: Yes, better odds of a family member too, that's right.

Welsh: The Planning Council could appoint people who are not on the Planning Council but who are related to that whole process.

Stutsman: Right, representatives from the Planning Council, or ...

Jordahl: Sent by.

Stutsman: ...Planning Council decides who they...

Welsh: People (inaudible) who they nominate. I would put a heavy emphasis upon a lot of family members and persons in the community where general citizens who are knowledgeable in this whole field.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Shramek: So I will contact Linda Severson for the Planning Council and Deborah Conger for the staff?

Stutsman: Uh-huh.

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Stutsman: And we're asking staff to submit questions too. OK.

Shramek: And the staff question as well as the Planning Council questions would be part of that stage 2 of the second interview.

Stutsman: OK. All right.

Shramek: So there is some more time that would be...

Thompson: And when you put those resumes at Joe's desk, are those public documents? Can anyone come in and look at them?

Shramek: Technically, yes I believe so. Several of the candidates have written in their cover letter that they're applying confidentially so they probably wouldn't want...

Jordahl: I don't know if that's possible.

Shramek: Yes. Confidence.

Jordahl: I think we need to confer with Pat White about that.

Shramek: I'm quite certain they're public documents.

Stutsman: Right. But I think those candidates that said that, I hope that they understand, when they do send in a resume that it is a public document.

Thompson: You mean they haven't informed their current employer that they're looking for another job.

Shramek: Exactly.

Jordahl: Perhaps we should write back, or have even a standard response. Your application that you used confidential and so forth, this is a public document here in Johnson County. If you prefer to withdraw your application, give you a deadline date or something over the next 5 days. Contact us and we'll (inaudible).

Shramek: In the past I've personally contacted the individuals that have been chose for the first interview process to let them know and that also their names would be in the papers as well.

Thompson: And maybe when we develop a uniform application form it could be stated on there, that it's a public document.

Jordahl: Uh-huh. But in the meanwhile, if we have 2 or 3 of these that are specifically confidential, I think we should respond to them that no they're not so that they aren't laboring under the illusion that somehow we're respecting that. Offer them the opportunity to withdraw.

Stutsman: So we get our questions to you Lora by Friday.

Shramek: Did we say by Tuesday?

Stutsman: By Tuesday. No.

Jordahl: Tuesday is our list of candidates and Wednesday is our questions.

Shramek: OK, yes. Tuesday the 16th, list of 6 and then Wednesday the 17th.

Stutsman: Are the questions? I thought we were going to do that by Friday?

Jordahl: No, we agreed on Wednesday.

Thompson: Extended it.

Stutsman: OK.

Jordahl: List of 6 candidates and Wednesday the 17th interview questions.

Stutsman: And you'll have those, that initial screening done by tomorrow morning, right Lora?

Shramek: Yes.

Stutsman: OK.

Jordahl: Wednesday the 17th, I have down here legislative day in Des Moines. Isn't that our day to...

Stutsman: No, March 8th. And we weren't on that list. I need to call ISAC this morning. Yes, March 8th, County... So I don't know if we'll miss.

Jordahl: That's right March 8th. I wonder why I had the 17th. Maybe it was an initial date we had suggested.

Stutsman: That's not the Chamber's legislative day is it?

Jordahl: Maybe it's the Chamber's legislative day, maybe that's it. OK.

Thompson: As well?

Stutsman: Each year the Chamber goes.

Thompson: The 17th?

Jordahl: March 8th is us. The Board of Supervisors. ISAC legislative lobbying.

Stutsman: No.

Jordahl: Not lobbying? Visiting.

Stutsman: That's the 8th. March 8th.

Jordahl: March 8th.

Stutsman: And the 17th I think is the Chamber legislative day. They take one day and go up and lobby the legislature on Chamber issues. I think they take a bus, don't they or something?

Shramek: But the Planning Council and staff will at least have a couple of weeks to generate their questions.

Stutsman: And we're targeting... That was the other thing. We're targeting the week of the 22nd for interviews. Should we block some times?

Shramek: We might want to.

Thompson: How about Wednesday?

Stutsman: All day? That looks good to me.

Jordahl: Are we in March now or are we in February?

Thompson: No we're in February. February 24th?

Stutsman: Yes.

Thompson: You need a bigger book.

Jordahl: I need a bigger book, don't I?

Thompson: Look at all the space I've got.

Jordahl: I've got, no, no, here the 24th. So we get the end of the pages here.

Thompson: Oh I see.

Stutsman: Isn't this something? Because I'm thinking that's the initial interviews. It will be the following week for a second interview. It will be at least 2 weeks notice, at least, for any applicants. So we're looking to putting this person in place by the end of March.

Thompson: Yes.

Shramek: April 1st, yes.

Thompson: So was Wednesday OK with everybody for interviews?

Jordahl: The 24th?

Thompson: The 24th.

Lehman: Yes.

Stutsman: Are we going to have another day set aside?

Shramek: Do you want me to, once the Board identifies their top 6 and I contact them, if they're not able to then come back to you individually? I would (inaudible) we need to get more...

Stutsman: I would say let's decide next Friday afternoon.

Thompson: Why don't we pick a fall back day. Yes.

Stutsman: Yes. Or do we want to...

Thompson: Friday afternoon?

Jordahl: The 26th or the 19th?

Stutsman: Sometimes that works, especially for out of town people.

Thompson: The 26th.

Shramek: OK.

Thompson: And then what about the second interview?

Jordahl: What's wrong with Friday morning?

Stutsman: I don't know. I could do Friday morning too.

Jordahl: I mean why don't just all day Friday and see when they can get here.

Stutsman: Let's kind of tentatively say Friday. And then you can check with us Lora. Maybe they all can come on a Wednesday, depending on who.

Shramek: If you interviewed 6 in one day that might be...

Stutsman: That would be a big day.

Shramek: Yes.

Jordahl: And the second interviews will just be, what, subject to their schedule or are we aiming at the first week of March?

Thompson: How about the 10th of March? Well.

Stutsman: Let's do that first week of March if all possible.

Thompson: March?

Stutsman: 3rd.

Jordahl: Yes we could probably do our selection review process on the 26th, inform people and schedule for the next week for the second interview.

Stutsman: Yes.

Thompson: So we don't have to have a meeting in between to vote on anything?

Jordahl: Gee I wonder. I don't think so. We're not actually making a decision on who to hire we're just culling.

Thompson: OK.

Stutsman: And we've usually called a special executive session or whatever to authorize the HR person to offer.

Peters: The procedure in the past has been to have the interviews, and then after that you have a, if everybody has requested it, an executive session. Then you have another executive session to discuss the interviews to (inaudible).

Jordahl: All right so we should schedule then an executive session on the afternoon of the 26th to follow-up or a meeting to follow-up on the interviews. And make a selection of candidates for the final interviews and direct folks to invite them. So would that be a formal meeting then?

Stutsman: Well depending on...

Peters: It would be an executive session, it could be a formal (inaudible). You're not...

Jordahl: We're not hiring.

Peters: Right.

Jordahl: So that isn't exactly an action. That's just...

Thompson: So what, do we need to set a time?

Jordahl: I think we may be... Can we wait until we find out when the interviews are going to be and then we should know that a couple of days in advance and then set the time for the executive session to discuss selection.

Thompson: Then do we need another executive session after the second interview?

Shramek: Yes.

Stutsman: Yes.

Thompson: So when would that be?

Stutsman: Well, why don't we wait.

Jordahl: It depends on when they're scheduled. If we can get all the second interviews in on the 1st, then we'd have an executive session (inaudible)...

Stutsman: We said the 3rd didn't we?

Shramek: The 3rd.

Jordahl: OK, the 3rd would be the...

Thompson: So maybe we could do it.

Stutsman: We could even do it after that...

Thompson: At the end of the day on the 3rd?

Stutsman: Yes, and I think that's what we've done in the past.

Thompson: The candidates could leave and the staff and the advisory board people could stay.

Peters: You're going to want to discuss the interviews as timely (inaudible).

Stutsman: Right.

Thompson: Yes, I agree.

Lehman: Right.

Jordahl: Now, when we're, so then we decide there to whom we would like to say tentatively offer the position subject to salary considerations and so forth?

Shramek: And I'll need some time to check the references.

Jordahl: Uh-huh. And then to formally offer the position (inaudible) in an open session.

Thompson: Could you check references in between the first and the second interview?

Shramek: On the top 3 candidates?

Jordahl: Uh-huh.

Shramek: Absolutely.

Jordahl: Yes.

Stutsman: Lora does a good job with that. OK, so we're tentatively down for the 24th and the 26th and March 3rd.

Shramek: OK.

Stutsman: OK.

Shramek: OK. Thank-you.

Stutsman: Thank-you, Lora.

Jordahl: Thank-you everybody. Let's see. We don't have a great deal of agenda left here do we?

Stutsman: I think we're doing pretty good.

(Continued in Part 3)