Committee members present: County Auditor Tom Slockett, County Recorder Deborah Conger, County Treasurer Cletus Redlinger. Also present: County Attorney Pat White, Recorder-Elect Kim Painter, Treasurer-Elect Tom Kriz, and Deputy Auditor Mark Kistler acting as Recording Secretary.

Convened 10:03 a.m.

County Auditor Tom Slockett: I think... Does everyone know everyone except maybe you don't know Mark Kistler, Deputy Auditor? Yes, Cletus doesn't know him. You know all the other folks, don't you?

Deputy Auditor Mark Kistler: Yes, I do.

Slockett: OK. Well does everyone have an agenda? Does anybody want one? (Inaudible). Mark doesn't have one. Do you want to hand one to Pat too? This is designed to be as flexible as possible. But I tried to give it a little bit of structure just to... in terms of discussing the situation. I did receive on December 3rd a letter of resignation from Joe and the Code Sections where that's covered are 69.14a 1a and 69.4. 69.4 essentially just says that the resignation goes to the County Auditor. He did give it to me and I meant to bring a copy of it up but I didn't.

County Recorder Deb Conger: I've got a copy.

Slockett: You've got a copy? It's just very straight forward. Do you want to read it, Deb?

Conger: Dear Tom, please accept my resignation from the Johnson County Board of Supervisors effective at the end of the day on December 31st, 1998. It has been an honor and a privilege to work on behalf of the citizens of Johnson County. I have also greatly appreciated the hard work and dedication of our employees working every day to meet the needs of county residents. I look forward to continue working on behalf of the needs of local government and our citizens in my new role in the State Senate.

Slockett: Here I'm passing around copies of 69.14a Code Section that covers... It's the Code section that has most of the information about the resignation and the process. Then 69.8 the Committee of County Officers is empowered to make the decision. I've got a copy of that. It essentially names the Auditor, Recorder and Treasurer. In the event that any of those offices has been eliminated through a combination, the County Attorney would sit on that Board. OK, that's on the back of this page. The appointment... This is a question I just talked to Pat about. One of the first things that it says in 69.14a is that the appointment will last until the next pending election, as defined by 69.12. There's some question about that. I'll pass that out and maybe we can look at it. Pat's going to have to give us an opinion about what this means. The first paragraph defines pending election as... the earlier Code section says that the appointment lasts until the next pending election. If you look at the last sentence in the first paragraph, it begins, as used in this section, pending election means any election at which there will be on the ballot either the office in which the vacancy exists or any other office to be filled or any public question to be decided by the voters of the same political subdivision in which the vacancy exists. The question is are these the voters of the same political subdivision in which the vacancy exists that will be voting in the sales tax election. Rethinking what I told Pat earlier, I thought there was some question whether this was a county or a city election. But what I was really thinking about is the sales tax is a county-wide sales tax imposed by the Board of Supervisors. Whether it's a city or county election, I don't know. But it certainly is... It seems to me it does include all the voters of the same political subdivision. That's a matter for Pat to decide. That would put a little different spin on this situation. But I'll go on with what the Code says about the time lines and so forth. It may not affect the decision that we would make today about appointing or electing. The appointment can be made after the vacancy occurs or... Oh I skipped over the notice. This Committee of the Auditor, Recorder and Treasurer can either decide to call an election on its own or it can decide to appoint. I'll start with the appointment. If we appoint, we must appoint within 40 days after the vacancy occurs. Again, that appointment will last until the next pending election, as defined in 69.12. If we decide to appoint, we are required to publish a notice to allow the voters to call an election through petition, if they so choose. The Code sections that are governing the notice are 69.14a 1a, 331.305, 618.14, 49.53 and 618.3. Essentially what that says is that it needs to be, to summarize, it needs to be published 4 to 20 days before the election for the election notice. It needs to be published in a newspaper of general circulation. What we ordinarily do is publish these in all of the official county newspapers, even though that isn't required by law. The appointment then can be made after the vacancy occurs or after the publication of the notice, which ever is later. The petition can be filed to call an election by the public within 14 days after the appointment is made or publication, which ever is later. In the event that the notice... If the appointment is made less than 14 days after the notice is published, then the petition couldn't be filed until 14 days after the notice would be published, which would be later than the 14 days after the resignation. That's how that would work. The appointee must have resided in the county for 60 days prior to being appointed. That's about the only qualification that I can see, other than being a resident and so forth. OK. That pretty much covers, I think, the appointment, the process, what the Code says about it. Next is the election. This, as I said, could either be called by this Committee or it could be called by petition. The election, once decided upon, either by the petition or by this Committee, is set "at the earliest practicable date but while still giving 30 days notice to the public." The special election is prohibited from being combined with a school election. That seems to be the only limitation on the elections that it can be combined with.

Conger: When is this sales tax election scheduled for?

Slockett: The sales tax election has been requested by the City for March 30th.

Conger: March 30th.

Slockett: In looking at the time lines, I don't believe in... Pat speak up if you disagree, I don't think it would be possible to delay this election until March 30th. I think that would be beyond...

Conger: But the Supervisors actually set the date, don't they?

Slockett: Actually the Auditor sets the date.

Conger: So you could set it whatever time...

Slockett: ...in consultation with the other cities.

Conger: Could you set it earlier (inaudible).

Slockett: No, because of the time line, it couldn't be set earlier. It could be set later.

Conger: Than the 30th of March you mean.

Slockett: Yes.

Conger: Well there's no way to combine that.

Slockett: There's no way to combine them that I can envision. Unless, the County Attorney would allow an interpretation of the earliest practicable date since that election was coming up and just delay it for that long. But I see him shaking his head no.

County Attorney Pat White: No, that means as soon as you can do it.

Slockett: Yes. I believe that that pretty much covers what the Code says about the situation. That brings us down to the question of whether we can agree. This is legally a meeting between Deborah, Cletus and myself at this point. We're the officially designated Committee. I've invited the new Treasurer and the new Recorder to attend. It seems to me, if we... I guess to me I would like it if we could come to a consensus and all agree on whatever method we choose to move forward with because the new people are going to have to live with the decision. In fact, if we did choose the option of appointment, depending on how fast we moved forward, but if we use the normal period of time to accept resumes and so forth, the new people would actually be making the decision. That's why I've asked everyone to attend. I'm really hopeful that that can happen. I guess one of the ways we could proceed that I might throw out is to discuss first whether or not we ought to call an election. Then if decide we would rather appoint, we could move on to that discussion. Does anyone have any thoughts? I've had calls from the public on both sides.

Conger: Uh-huh.

Slockett: Although, I have to say the calls I've received have been heavily in favor of appointment and avoiding the cost of an election. But I have received calls on both sides.

Conger: In calling an election, we don't have the option to make an appointment. But in making an appointment, the option still exists to have a special election. I guess in my feeling, if we went through an appointment process, the election option is always still there. If there's public impetus and motivation to do that.

Slockett: I guess what I'd suggest is that we each just speak in order and that way we won't miss anybody and no one will feel like they're interrupting the conversation or anything. Let's just go from person to person. Kim, do you have a point of view?

Recorder Elect Kim Painter: Sure. Deb, did you have anything else to say? No, OK. I have heard also people of both persuasions, feelings on both sides of the issue. Some people have expressed some strong opinions about an election but the majority of people also in my experience have said they wish to avoid the cost of a special election. I also agree that this does leave us, or leave the people, the option of doing the work together... petition and still having the special elections. I would be in favor of it appointment also.

Treasurer Elect Tom Kriz: Very much so in favor of the appointment. I think by going the other way right out of the shoot, you do, you close one door. I've talked to a few people who have been real aggressive in wanting an election, or wanting to spend the money. A few, but very few, in comparison to the people that said whoever it is needs to put their heads together, try to come up with the best person, somebody that would blend with everything to avoid that. Whether that can be done or not, I don't know. I would certainly favor the appointment rather than the cost of an election.

County Treasurer Cletus Redlinger: Well you and I have already been in on a couple of these and I think we've always done an appointment. There's been special elections but I think we've always done an appointment. I guess my question to Pat is are we really doing any good here since we really don't have a vacancy yet?

White: Yes, I think you are.

Redlinger: I know we have the letter of intent to resign but we're...

White: No, you actually have a resignation now for a future date. The Code actually envisions... 69.14a includes language, the Committee may publish notice in advance if an elected official submits a resignation to take effect at a future date.

Redlinger: OK.

White: But you couldn't... One of the things we debated is who has authority, the current committee or the new committee? I think by virtue of the timing of the resignation, that's answered in that the new committee has authority to appoint.

Slockett: The actual appointment can't occur until after the vacancy actually occurs.

White: So January 1st would be the earliest day that you could appoint.

Slockett: Right. January 2nd, actually. That's when the new officers take office.

White: There's a days gap isn't there.

Redlinger: That's actually a Saturday.

Painter: It's a Saturday.

Slockett: It's a Saturday, but the 1st is a holiday. They actually take office on the 2nd.

White: Whether we want to appoint that quickly is another question.

Slockett: Yes.

White: I think it is OK. In fact, a month or so ago... The meeting you're now having is an idea that Tom and I had talked about then as the best way to try to get this started is to hope that all 5 of you would be unanimous on how to get started. That would obviate who has authority. Now that we have a resignation, there isn't any question. I think that you can go ahead.

Slockett: Yes, when we originally talked about it, we didn't have a resignation. We didn't know we would at this time.

White: Well we know that we would but we just didn't know when.

Slockett: We didn't know when, yes. But we didn't know we would actually have received it at this point. In fact, I was hoping Joe would come to the meeting but he decided to just go ahead and resign instead.

Redlinger: I guess my personal opinion is to go ahead and appoint. Whether or not you have an election is going to be based upon whom you appoint, which I will not be a part of.

Slockett: OK, so far we've got 4 people in favor of... I'll say that I've also received input from the public on both sides of the issue. The strong argument that's made for an election is that this is an important policy making decision maker for the County. It's for a period of time that's the same period of time which we elect members of Congress. For that reason, we ought to have an election. I think that's a strong argument. The thing that overrides it on balance in my mind is the fact, as Cletus has pointed out, in the past we have appointed. I haven't always been in favor of it but we always have appointed. Every time that we have appointed where an election has been called by the voters, one of the big issues in the election has been anger at the side that called the election for forcing the public to pay for the election. In every instance, our appointment has prevailed over the challenger. To my mind, and from comments I have received from the public during that period of time, I really do feel that there is a strong feeling out there that the public doesn't want to pay the cost of an election. They think that we're capable of appointing someone for an interim period. I think that weighs on the side of making an appointment. Secondly, the argument that I think you've all made in the course of the day that if we appoint, there's still an option to have an election. But if we call an election, there's no option to avoid the cost of that election.

Redlinger: Tom, what's the round figure cost of an election, just generalities? 20,000? 25,000?

Slockett: 25,000, I would guess as a round figure. It all depends on the turnout.

Redlinger: Sure, I understand.

Slockett: We're estimating that the cost of the sales tax election will be about 43 to 45,000. In consulting with Linn County, it's really a general election style turnout. It's a much bigger turnout and it costs more to have an election. But normally, an election of this type is a much smaller turnout. We can usually get by with the minimum number of poll workers in each precinct. It would be closer to 25,000.

Redlinger: I guess I would like to have an election but monetarily wise I think we should go the other route first and if enough people feel like we need an election then they can get the petitions and go. .

Slockett: Yes, and I neglected to mention that the number of signatures on a petition needed depends on the number of people that voted for governor in the last election, or president, depending on whether it's a presidential or non-presidential election.

Redlinger: In this case it would be governor?

Slockett: This case it would be governor. There were 33,722 votes for all candidates in the gubernatorial elections. It would take 3,373 signatures, valid signatures, to trigger an election. Well...

Conger: What about timing? When we're talking about an election, what would the timing be for getting someone in here as opposed to appointing someone and getting them in here?

Slockett: Well we're required to...

Conger: (Inaudible) be faster?

Slockett: We're required to call the election within... at the earliest practicable time, which means immediately, but giving 30 days notice. Essentially, it would be probably 37 days by the time we could publish the notice.

Conger: From today?

Slockett: From today, if we decided to call an election.

Conger: (Inaudible) 37 days from today. If we do an appointment, we can have somebody...

Slockett: If we do an appointment, it depends on the process that we choose. Theoretically, I certainly wouldn't recommend it, but... Pat may say that it's not even legal, but I think theoretically, we could just vote someone in right now and that would be the end of it. I think the public would be very upset at a process like that. I certainly wouldn't recommend it and would be strongly opposed to it. The process that we use, in fact that's the main reason that Pat and I talked about this earlier, was if we wanted to make an appointment by taking resumes and having them due by the 2nd of January, we would then be able to move in the fastest possible time to do the interviews and decide on the selection.

Conger: So you could really have somebody appointed by the middle of January, by say the 15th of January. That process (inaudible).

Slockett: 40 days, not until 40 days after the vacancy occurs.

Redlinger: You have to do it within that time frame, don't you?

Slockett: Right. The appointment has to be done...

Redlinger: Within...

Conger: Not from the time the letter is submitted...

Slockett: ...so February... Pardon me?

Conger: It's not from the time the letter is submitted, the resignation is submitted.

Slockett: From the time of the vacancy, I believe.

Conger: It's from the time... January 1st until 40 days, which will bring it up until February.

White: My opinion is you could, if you wanted, make an appointment any time after December 31st. If you went ahead with the notice.

Slockett: Right, you can't do it until the vacancy actually occurs.

White: I would disagree that you could do it today.

Slockett: Yes, I agree. Well...

White: You'd have to publish the notice.

Redlinger: Well the vacancy hasn't occurred...

Slockett: But if the vacancy had occurred, we could though.

Redlinger: Yes.

Conger: Yes, but it hasn't so there's no way we could appoint somebody today even if we wanted to.

Slockett: Well, we couldn't...

Conger: It has to be 40 days after the vacancy occurred. He's still on the job.

Slockett: Yes, that's true but we could... I don't know. We might be able to make the decision. They just couldn't start serving...

White: Yes, identify who you intend to appoint.

Slockett: We're talking about hypotheticals here. I assume we're not going to do that anyway.

Conger: You‘re right. (Inaudible). Let's get to reality.

Redlinger: We might also have a problem if there was a disagreement between the current officials and the newly elected officials coming in, if there was...

Slockett: If we appointed now, the old guard could do the appointment, instead of the...

Redlinger: I think it would be best to wait until after the 1st of the year because it says after the vacancy, something about after the vacancy.

Slockett: Well 40 days after the vacancy is the...

Redlinger: It must be done by that time.

Slockett: ...but anytime before that can be done.

Redlinger: So you've got about until the 10th of February or somewhere along in there.

Slockett: So what I guess I would suggest is that we would think about a possibility of publishing the notice that we intend to appoint. Meet the legal requirements for that, announce that we would like resumes due on January 2nd, which is the... or if we could make it...

Conger: We could make it earlier than that. Then they could be in here and...

Slockett: 3rd or 4th?

White: Yes, you don't need to wait. Use whatever deadline for that you want, if that's the process you want, but you could make that next week to 2 weeks.

Conger: Yes, we could essentially have resumes in by the 25th, which would give people 3 weeks to get resumes in.

Duffy: You better make that the 23rd.

Conger: Then we could start interviewing the first week of January.

Slockett: Uh-huh.

Redlinger: The 23rd is the last day before Christmas.

Slockett: Do you want to do it then?

Redlinger: Fine with me. I don't have a problem.

Conger: 23rd, yes.

Redlinger: 4 p.m. on...

Kriz: I don't see it going any longer than that, as long as the interest is out there. Let people get started on it.

Painter: Yes, they'll come in.

Redlinger: There are people that's interested and they would surely get their resumes in as soon as they can.

White: It's not as though this is a surprise.

Redlinger: That's right.

White: People have been kind of planning this since June.

Slockett: The last time...

White: Probably since March.

Slockett: The last time we did this... In fact I heard that one person already has a business card announcing that they're a possible future supervisor.

Redlinger: Is that writer available?

Slockett: That's what I heard.

Redlinger: How did that get out? I didn't know that was common knowledge.

Slockett: Now the last time we did this, one of the things we did... I don't really think it's necessary. See what you think. But we actually published in a newspaper for a job opening just like you would any other opening. What happened was we got letters from people who clearly did not understand...

White: What it was...

Slockett: ...what they were doing. They were just job hunting. It seemed kind of unnecessary.

Redlinger: Can we just put a notice in the paper rather than in the job section?

Slockett: Sure.

Redlinger: Just put a notice in the paper.

Slockett: Well if we put one in, then we're...

White: You're going to incorporate it within the statutory notice too.

Slockett: Yes.

White: Put a line in there saying persons wishing to be considered for appointment to the vacancy shall submit a resume by whatever date you want.

Kriz: So tie it right to the...

White: That's an option.

Kriz: That would make some sense.

White: There are no limits on advertising or notices. You can publish as much as often as you wish, assuming you've got the budget some place to do it.

Slockett: I guess we'll have to find it. So does that sound like an acceptable suggestion? That we just incorporate into the official notice that resumes should be filed where... in the Auditor's Office?

Kriz: I would think that would be consistent.

Slockett: We've got the mailboxes in our office. We can immediately distribute them to other folks. We'll mail them to the new folks. Due date of...

Kriz: Well the 23rd is really just slightly over 2 weeks away. It depends on when you can get the notices published. If you're going to put it in the rural things, you've got cutoffs for papers.

Redlinger: (Inaudible) you put it in the rural papers.

Kriz: I think the cutoffs for a couple of those are Monday. (Inaudible).

Slockett: Well one thing that I mentioned... I don't think this should have a material effect on our decision making, but I am going to be on vacation until January 5th. I won't have as much time as you folks do to read over the resumes. But that's a vacation. The tickets are already purchased.

Redlinger: That's too bad.

Kriz: There should be an Iowa Code for that, shouldn't there?

Slockett: Yes, so I won't be able to look at them anyway.

Redlinger: When are you leaving town?

Slockett: I'm leaving the 15th.

Redlinger: The 15th.

Slockett: I'm going to go the Philippines. I've never been in that part of the world.

Redlinger: You'll be back to work on the 5th?

Slockett: Uh-huh.

Redlinger: I won't.

Slockett: It was designed to come during the Christmas and New Year's holidays as to not take up so many days but I didn't realize it was going to come in the middle of this mess.

Redlinger: Well maybe we ought to extend that date.

Kriz: Yes, it would seem pointless to me to have an earlier date with no input from one of the 3 people.

Slockett: Well, we could still... you could still be looking over...

Redlinger: Maybe we ought to go to the 31st of December.

Kriz: The 30th or something...

Conger: Uh-huh.

Redlinger: You think? The 31st of December to submit resumes because like Tom says, it's going to be until next week before you get it into the rural papers.

Conger: Right.

Redlinger: I'm not sure about the Community Advertiser, what their deadline is.

Slockett: That isn't one we normally use but we could put one in there. It would probably be a good idea.

Redlinger: Yes, it probably would. They claim they have 30 some thousand...

White: Put it in the new County section.

Conger: Yes, they go to all possible...

White: Has that been decided? Did we buy that yet?

Conger: No.

Redlinger: They'd run it anyway, wouldn't they?

Slockett: Well they can publish it. We'll just include that in our publication.

White: Just a thought on timing, if you're going to use the 31st, you would almost be better off to move it up a day to the 30th. You'd have a work day to copy and distribute to Kim and Tom so they would have it going into the weekend. If the deadline is the 31st, you probably won't get distribution until the 4th.

Conger: I think we could copy and send them out as they come in, not wait until the... That way we'd have them as they come in.

Kriz: Is the 31st a normal business day as general fall hours, full...

White: Yes.

Redlinger: If that's the case, then it wouldn't do any good for Deborah and I to have them.

Slockett: Do you not want them?

Redlinger: I don't really know what good they'd do.

White: Don't you assume your successors would at least be interested in your private...

Kriz: I would for sure.

Redlinger: You would?

Kriz: Yes, interested in yours.

Redlinger: Well that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. That's fine. Instead of me sitting in the big chair, you can sit in the big chair and I'll come visit you.

Slockett: All right, we'll distribute them as described earlier.

Redlinger: OK.

Slockett: We're going to have questions about the process. I guess essentially we'll just ... The requirements of the job are just that you be 18 years of age and a citizen.

Redlinger: A resident of the county for 60 days.

Slockett: A resident for 60 days and not a convicted felon, essentially, I think. Could a convicted felon serve in public office? They can't be a registered voter, I know, unless they have...

White: Unless they're pardoned.

Slockett: ...unless they're pardoned.

White: In Iowa, it's actually aggravated misdemeanor, if you're... That's part of why Ole Munson was more significant than just the charge itself. He would have been out of office, had he been convicted.

Redlinger: Oh, that's the reason he would have been out of office. I knew he would have been out of office.

Conger: Was he convicted?

White: No. Didn't they lose a Treasurer a few years back who had a second offense drunk driving and then lost his job?

Redlinger: Yes, Linn County.

White: Yes.

Slockett: Is it aggravated misdemeanor for being on the Voter Registration roles?

White: No.

Slockett: That's valid. That's what I thought. In terms of... Do we want to discuss what process we'll use for interviewing? Basically, I assume we'll read the resumes and see if we want to narrow it down, see which of the applicants we want to interview, see how many we have. If it doesn't seem practicable to interview all of them, then we'll figure out a method of paring them down.

Redlinger: What did we do, 10? Did we do 10 last time? 7 or 10? I can't remember.

Slockett: I can't recall.

Redlinger: I don't remember either.

Conger: Did you interview everybody that applied?

Redlinger: What's that?

Slockett: No.

Conger: Did you interview everybody that...

Redlinger: No. I think we had what 30 some...

Slockett: Yes, we had a huge number.

White: Oh my God.

Redlinger: Yes, we had a lot of people I think we picked either 7 or 10, I can't remember which it was.

Slockett: That was the election in which we had one of the applicants ask that he be given consideration for affirmative action as a republican. That was pretty cute.

Kriz: I think it would make sense to screen it down to 3 or 5 or something like that. I suppose it depends on the number but I would assume if you had that many before you might well have that many again.

Redlinger: Well you're going to get some that you just throw them right out like that. They'll be some really good ones, probably more than you really care to interview. But somehow you've got to cut them down.

Slockett: As I mentioned, we did actually put an ad in the newspaper for a job opening and we got applicants we might not have otherwise gotten.

Conger: Well since the only qualifications are being a resident of the county...

Kriz: And of legal age...

Conger: ...and 18, it does open it up pretty wide. I don't know how you get away from not interviewing everybody that has those qualifications, if those are the only... if that's the description of the job.

Slockett: Well you can simply look at... If you can, by looking at the applications, you can tell that there are certain people who are the obvious choices and that other aren't. I think it's fine to narrow it down.

Redlinger: I think we did really well. I don't think even a whole lot of discussion about who to interview or not to interview as I recall.

Slockett: No, it was pretty clear.

Redlinger: Yes.

Slockett: It may or not be... Again it will depend on how many we've got. Well, let's see.

Kriz: So we're looking at posting it as part of the official notice. I think that makes some sense.

Slockett: There will probably be some news coverage of it too. I think the word will get out. We'll post it on our web page and the County's web page. So information will be there.

Redlinger: So what did we decide about the due date for the applications? The 30th?

Slockett: I think we decided the 30th, didn't we?

Redlinger: OK.

Slockett: Is there any... does everyone agree with that?

Kriz: Due in the Auditor's Office by a certain time?

Redlinger: Well it would be 4 p.m., 12/30.

Slockett: It'd be 6 p.m.

Redlinger: 6 p.m.. Must be in the office.

Slockett: So we don't want a postmark date? Should we say...

White: Say it must be received by the Johnson County Auditor by 6 p.m. on...

Redlinger: I think that's good you put that in there because what if it's too late by mail and you've already made the appointment?

Slockett: Yes. So in that case, if we got one that's postmarked before the due date, but it wasn't received by the office, it would be too late.

White: Uh-huh.

Slockett: All right. That's the way it is now for most election notices. It used to be the other way, with the postmark date. Is there anything else?

White: You should at least think about whether you just want resumes or you want a cover letter or a statement of reasons for wanting to serve or something more than just the resume.

Kriz: Yes, that was my next question. Yes, I would think some statement of why I have an interest in this would certainly help if you have any... It could be as menial as I'm unemployed and I need a job or it can go into more depth. But at least it would be a way of...

Slockett: A cover letter stating why the applicant is interested in serving in this position... Last time we had a number of questions that we asked each... the same question to each applicant.

Redlinger: Those are the ones we interviewed, we asked questions.

Slockett: Yes.

Redlinger: Just to get...

Slockett: So that we would treat everyone fairly. But the applicants are so different that... I don't know, what did you think about how that worked?

White: I don't know how it worked. I wasn't there.

Redlinger: I was there. I'm not really sure how it was. It must have worked all right.

Slockett: Yes, I think it worked pretty well, except I just think... I'm not sure that it gave us more information than if we just asked each individual... Just had a discussion with them about the things they wanted to talk about and that we wanted. But it's something to consider.

Redlinger: (Inaudible) questions is to ask everybody the same thing. If you don't have a set of questions, you may forget to ask them something that really might be material to the position.

Slockett: Someone may say, if you would have asked me that, you would have chosen me, but you didn't ask me.

Redlinger: That's true. But that's something that can be decided later... what the routine is going to be.

Slockett: Do you suppose you would have those questions that we asked?

Redlinger: I don't know.

Slockett: I looked and I didn't keep them.

Redlinger: I'll have to look.

White: Wouldn't you have minutes some place?

Slockett: Yes.

Conger: Minutes of the interviews?

Slockett: Sure, everything is public. As you'll see when you get the minutes, that this meeting... it will be very thorough.

White: Although you can't tell it by who's here, this is a public meeting. Anybody who wanted to attend would have been able to, which is also one of the things that I recommend... That you at least give some thought to how you're going to follow up in deciding how many people to interview, who to interview, whether you're just going to set another meeting and get together and then see where you are, or whether you want to create any process for helping do that.

Redlinger: We should probably wait until we see how many applications you get. If you only get 10 or 12, you probably interview the whole... all of them. If you get 30 or 40, I wouldn't think you'd want to interview them all.

Slockett: Yes, that wouldn't make sense to interview that many.

Redlinger: I don't remember how we broke it down as to who to interview and who not to interview.

Slockett: Normally, my experience in interviewing for jobs is there's usually a break off point where it's fairly clear, where you can cut off the interviews. I think either we'll see that or we won't. If we don't see it, then I think we should interview all of them, but I just think it will be clear to us that there are certain people from whom we will most likely select.

Redlinger: It seems to me like that's about the way it went last time, whenever we did it before.

Slockett: I think it will critical in terms of... I think the applicants will want to know whether they'll be on the ballot in the sales tax election. It would be...

White: I think the answer is no.

Slockett: The answer is no, OK.

White: I understand why you would raise the question and I've read it a great many times since I opened this up. But I think the answer is in the language any public question to be decided by the voters of the same political subdivision and the sales tax isn't going to be decided by the voters of the County. It's going to be decided by these little pockets of...

Redlinger: Are all of the voters eligible to vote in the...

White: They are. But each city, first of all the contiguous areas, Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty, Tiffin, Hills, decide as a unit. And then Lone Tree, Oxford, North Liberty, Solon, Swisher, Shueyville and the unincorporated territory all decide on their own so you have a series of decisions rather than...

Redlinger: ...a decision by one. OK.

White: This is a minor technicality but I want to be sure to correct it. The term of the appointment isn't precisely the same as congress in that when you have the general election in November of 2000 the rest of this term gets filled by the leading non incumbent vote getter as I recall for the term that would start in 2001. So it's actually at 50 some days.

Redlinger: It starts when you vote for canvass, doesn't it? Or something like that?

Slockett: Right.

White: Right and then when they qualify...

Slockett: As soon as they get the certificate of election...

White: ...and take the oath.

Redlinger: So it's actually a little longer than that.

White: So somebody would replace the appointee, like presumably, within a week after the election.

Slockett: Good point. Is there anything else that we need to discuss, anything that anyone would like to bring up? If not, do I hear a... Pat?

(Continued in Part 2)