White: I want to talk about communications because it's a real pain.

Slockett: Oh yes, open meetings. How could I forget that? I have some...

White: Let's hear about public records first of all, which is easier. All the paper that you get is going to be of public record. If Grace Shim or John Doe shows up at your counter wanting to look at anything you have, they're entitled to inspect it and copy it, including the resumes any other material that people send in. You'll probably start getting letters supporting different applicants. Those are all public record. The open meeting statute is a little trickier. I'll start with my bottom line advice, which is no 2 of you should talk to each other about this unless you're in a meeting. The reason is the open meeting statute prevents a majority of a committee from deliberating public business unless they've got a posted agenda. This afternoon if Cletus has a question, he shouldn't go to Tom to raise it. Logistical questions probably need to be routed through Mark or some other intermediary. Tom and Kim are not currently covered by that so Tom and Tom or Tom and Kim could talk, whether you want to or not is your own affair. But the reverse will be the case on January 2nd when they take office.

Slockett: What would you recommend in...

White: It's really awkward.

Slockett: In that regard with just considering an appearance of impropriety would you recommend that it might be better not do it.

White: I would.

Slockett: Yes.

White: That makes it fairly important that you settle this as thoroughly as you can in your next meeting and what's going to be on that agenda, what you're actually going to do. If the need arises for you to communicate, you can always call a special meeting, either with a waiver of notice or a short notice. But it sounds like you probably won't need a special meeting.

Slockett: What about communications with the applicants?

White: That's fine.

Slockett: There's no problem in communicating with them, whatever. Is there any...

White: No, as long as it's individual.

Slockett: Is there...

White: Any of you could meet privately with any of the applicants. That's a policy call on your part, whether you want to do that.

Slockett: Is there...

White: There's certainly nothing wrong with that. It really is a vehicle for you to try to get to know these people. You need to do it fairly carefully and circumspectly. I would recommend if you do it that you certainly keep a log of where and when you were. If you choose to meet privately with candidates, that you let every candidate have that opportunity.

Slockett: Is there... should we notify... is there any requirement to make public that log or to let other people know that you had the discussion?

White: No.

Slockett: What's the purpose of the log?

White: In case somebody complains that you're not reconstructing, out of memory, what you did.

Slockett: OK.

Conger: What if we've already had conversations with people who are intending to apply? Do we need to make notes on that?

White: I wouldn't go so far as to say you need to. I just think it's a good idea to have a record in case there's a complaint of some sort.

Slockett: What about... does this communication... what about e-mail and written communication, that sort of thing? Telephones, obviously telephones, would be covered.

White: Letters between you...

Slockett: Between myself and the other people.

White: Letters are OK. E-mail is probably not OK. If it's strictly an e-mail message, that's OK. What you start exchanging... The law clearly covers electronic meetings. So if 2 of you are engaged in conversation, that would become a meeting. That can be a tough line to find.

Slockett: Uh-huh.

White: It's getting increasingly tougher to decide what's the difference between you e-mailing Deborah and she replying and you replying versus a chat room or an online meeting. It's a gray area.

Slockett: But there would be no problem in posting comments to JC News or something like that, a public forum.

White: No.

Slockett: That might even be a good way to do it. If we wanted... except it's limited to a certain part of the public.

White: Well it certainly is.

Conger: Yes.

Slockett: I don't think it would be a good way to do it I guess, thinking... second thoughts. Well it gets complicated. That's why I really wanted... I don't want anyone to have any surprises or to be... I've seen cases where someone thought they did something innocently and then were criticized after the fact so I just wanted all aspects discussed.

White: Call me if you have specific question comes up. One of the logistical questions is as the resumes and letters arrive, are you going to go ahead and put them on the web page?

Slockett: That's a good question. We'd be happy to do it if some folks would like them to be. I think one thing you'd want to consider is would this have anything on a chilling effect on the applicants if it was...

Conger: If we're going to do that, we need to put it in the ad.

Kriz: You should... I agree.

Slockett: Yes.

Painter: Yes.

Slockett: So we would want to notify them when we put it in the ad.

Redlinger: What would be a reason for that, putting it on the web page?

Slockett: Just so the public would be able to form an opinion and give advice...

Redlinger: Well then you better put them in the newspaper too because not everybody has a web...

Slockett: There's a little difference in cost.

Redlinger: I know that.

Slockett: Yes, that's a point.

White: The newspaper is free to run them.

Slockett: Yes.

White: There's nothing to prevent any paper from printing it.

Slockett: That's true. I think it might be kind of an interesting idea myself.

Conger: It would make it very open and it would make the appointment process very accountable.

Painter: Yes, it sure would.

Slockett: So is that in favor, Deborah?

Conger: I don't know. I need to think about it.

Painter: There's like a big leap at the same time, that's the only thing. Usually there's so much reticence about personnel issues.

White: Interesting... That doesn't even take a committee decision. Any one of you could do it. It's all public record anyway.

Redlinger: I'd have some reservations about what you put in there. Just names and addresses maybe.

Slockett: Well that would be something I'd probably rather not put in is addresses.

Redlinger: Well name, well...

Slockett: Names...

Kriz: But you're looking at the name and the content.

Painter: You're thinking of the whole contents.

Slockett: ...the whole thing. I was thinking the whole...

Kriz: This is why I'm interested. This is my resume. This is...

Conger: What about letters of support or letters of detraction? Would we also print those?

Slockett: I think it'd be great to just put the whole thing on myself.

White: It's your call.

Slockett: Well I'd sort of like to see what other people thought.

White: You have to be careful of negative letters. Again, although they're of public record, we should take care not to spread innuendo or damage somebody's reputation.

Slockett: There have been some really nasty things in campaigns in the past.

White: Sometimes even outside of campaigns...

Kriz: I don't really have a problem with the letter of intent, why I'm interested, and the resume. Perhaps some of the support or negative letters, I would think that could be...

Slockett: I think we...

Kriz: I think those are going to find... If there's a strong feeling, those are going to find their way into the media one way or another anyhow. That takes the burden off us and the slander and anything like that.

Conger: Will letter of support be considered in the appointment process? Or letters of detraction?

Slockett: Sure.

Conger: If they would be, then that... I don't know. I think that changes it. If you're basically going to base your decision only on the resume and the cover letter...

Kriz: I think the letters of support or letters sent against somebody would enter in mostly when it came to do we want a special election (inaudible). I'm not sure the people deciding it but I would think the people...

Slockett: My recollection is I don't recall anything in writing against anyone. Usually I hear that through a phone call.

Redlinger: I don't either.

Slockett: You get the positive letters.

Redlinger: I kind of recall that people generally write for somebody, not against somebody.

Slockett: Yes, I don't recall...

Conger: If they knew that those letters were going to be part of public record, published on our web page, it would probably really minimize the amount.

Kriz: Tone it down.

Conger: If you didn't get any before anyway, I guess it's not an issue but somebody would think that twice.

Redlinger: I really don't recall getting any against anybody.

Slockett: I don't either.

Redlinger: All for somebody...

Slockett: Yes, which is why you would normally...

Conger: Did you consider those? You used those in the appointment process as criteria to make your decision?

Slockett: Well sure. They're...

Redlinger: I don't know. I'll have to think about it.

Slockett: They're public record. I'm sure that they were given to everyone on the Committee and shared.

Redlinger: Yes, they were.

Slockett: Yes.

Conger: Were letters of reference included as part of the application process?

Redlinger: Not that I recall.

Slockett: What do you mean, included as part of...

Conger: Letters of reference...

Slockett: What do you mean included...

Conger: Well a lot of times if you're applying for a job, they'll say we need 3 references. People will write letters.

Redlinger: I don't believe so. Were they Tom? I don't remember that they were.

Slockett: No, we didn't ask for that. But we'll get them.

Redlinger: You'll get them anyway.

Slockett: I got calls from all over the country supporting people. It can be trying.

Redlinger: You even get some after you nominate.

Slockett: Yes.

Redlinger: Some of those aren't so nice either.

Slockett: Well you're only going to make one person happy and that person is going to think well of course you picked me. I was the logical choice.

Redlinger: That's right. I was the right one all along.

Slockett: You're not going to make anyone happy. But you'll make a lot of people angry.

White: One other aspect of communication that I want to try to encourage you to talk about is the agenda. This agenda is pretty much Tom's. Each of the 3 Committee members have the same say so as to what goes on and I'd recommend that you at least be as clear as you can be on how, not only when you're going to meet next, but how the agenda is going to be designed. One of the reasons for that is that if you get to a meeting and somebody wants to talk about something that's not there, you can't do it under the Iowa Open Meeting Statute. It's preferable to error on the side of having too much on the agenda rather than too little. I think my recommendation would be if any of the 3 Committee members want an agenda item, it just automatically goes on there. We're all sort of assuming that the Auditor's Office will continue to handle the logistics but even that's not a particular requirement. He's pretty well equipped to do it, having brought the minute taker today.

Slockett: I don't have any ego involvement in doing it either. If anyone else would like to do it, I have no objections.

Conger: Well if you're gone on the 15th, we probably aren't going to have a meeting between now and when... the 3 of us... I don't see a reason to have a meeting.

Redlinger: Before the 1st of the year.

Conger: The 3 of us...

Redlinger: No, I don't either. Unless something comes up but, as of right now, I don't see anything happening.

Slockett: You could... you would have a quorum and so forth. If you needed to meet, you could.

White: As soon as he goes to the Philippines you and (inaudible) could meet and...

Redlinger: That's true.

Slockett: Call an election.

Painter: A mad grab for power.

White: But we'd have to notify him. (Inaudible).

Redlinger: We could send it to 629 Brown Street.

Slockett: That might be a little difficult.

Redlinger: Is it 629? Brown Street?

Slockett: Yes, that's it.

Redlinger: I don't know how I knew that.

White: No, we'd have to give him notice reasonably calculated to apprise him of the pendincy of the meeting.

Redlinger: Yes, I don't think that's going to happen anyway.

White: We'll have to find somebody...

Painter: We'll put the minutes out on the web so you can look it up in the Philippines.

Conger: We should set a meeting date now for January for when you 3 want to meet.

Slockett: Yes.

Redlinger: Yes, I think that's a good idea.

Slockett: It's going to have to be after the 5th.

Conger: If he's going to be back on the 5th, then...

Painter: Uh-huh.

Conger: ...shortly after that.

Redlinger: Is the 5th Monday?

Slockett: The 5th is Tuesday. How about the 6th?

Painter: The 6th? When?

Slockett: How about at 2:00 p.m. to give me the morning to...

Kistler: Do you need the Board's calendar?

Slockett: Yes, that would be a good idea. Does that sound OK?

Painter: That sounds fine.

Redlinger: You'll be an old hand by then Tom.

Slockett: Yes. Anyone who has an agenda item should just contact Mark and he can put it on.

Painter: I think you could tentatively set the times for the dates when you're going to be interviewing so that when... People are going to be calling you between now and then. They can get it on their calendars.

Redlinger: Yes, we should probably have that some what set up too.

Conger: Uh-huh.

Kistler: If you're talking about the 6th, it's clear for this room.

Slockett: OK. The 6th.

Painter: What time were you saying at?

Kriz: 2:00 p.m.

Slockett: Should we start interviewing on Friday, the 8th? Or do you want to do it Thursday? Maybe we should do it the 7th and 8th.

Redlinger: Tom, do you remember how long they're allowed?

Slockett: No, I don't.

Redlinger: I don't either.

Slockett: I don't know we if set a time or we just had the questions that we went through. I don't think we...

Redlinger: We surely...

Slockett: We scheduled times.

Redlinger: ...people scheduled times of some kind.

Slockett: Yes.

Redlinger: I was thinking an hour but I don't know whether that's right or not.

Slockett: Yes, that sounds right to me.

Kriz: You did a half dozen interviews? (Inaudible).

Slockett: Yes, 7 or something like that.

Redlinger: 7 or 10. I can't remember how many it was. Somewhere along in there. It seemed like it took 2 or 3 days. I don't think you should schedule them all day because you need a little to do your own business in your office. We did them in the afternoons. It took about 3 days. I don't know if that's right or not either.

Kriz: Well if you allotted an hour, you probably got 3 days (inaudible).

Redlinger: Yes.

Slockett: Well, I think it is good to fill it as soon as we can.

Kriz: As soon as possible.

Painter: Sure.

Redlinger: Once you get the interviews done, as I recall, it didn't take us long to make a decision.

Slockett: No, I think it was pretty clear.

Kriz: Well then you probably should look at starting the afternoon of the 7th perhaps or something. If you're going to do an hour, 3 or something.

Slockett: Afternoon of the 7th, 8th...

Redlinger: For instance if you started at 1:00 on the 7th and did 3 on the 7th, 8th and 10th or 11th...

Painter: 11th.

Slockett: I've got it written down... Mark, is there an ESRI meeting at 1:30 on the 11th? I think... You don't have your calendar. I believe so. Could we do it on Monday morning instead of Monday afternoon?

Redlinger: Sure, you can do it whatever time you want to.

Slockett: Yes.

Redlinger: Start at 9, 10 and 11. That gives you the afternoon off. Or you can do them all in the morning. That's strictly up to you guys.

Slockett: Uh-huh. Do you want to do it 1:30-4:30 on the 7th and 8th?

Painter: Sounds good to me.

Redlinger: Be sure those are tentative because a lot of that would depend on how many you get.

Slockett: Right. But these are just time slots that we can tell people.

Redlinger: Yes.

Slockett: Then on the 11th, 8:30-11:30. Of course, those can vary depending on how long the interviews go. Some of them probably won't go anywhere near an hour.

Redlinger: That's true. That's true.

Slockett: Some might go longer.

Conger: Then on the 12th you could get together, have a meeting and make your decision.

Slockett: I would think so.

Conger: If the person needs to give 2 weeks notice, they would still be able to start around the 1st of February.

Slockett: Uh-huh. So we'll meet to make a decision or continue the interviews on Tuesday morning from 8:30-11:30 because I also have a GIS Follow Up Meeting in the afternoon written down there. I don't know whether that is tentative or...

Kriz: Where would you do the interviews?

Slockett: We could do them...

Kriz: Because the Tuesday morning you'll have a (inaudible).

Slockett: Yes. This room...

Redlinger: We did them downstairs in the conference room previously.

Slockett: We did them in the conference room downstairs.

Kriz: OK.

Slockett: We'll have to check the schedule for that conference room but...

Redlinger: Make sure that's available.

Slockett: ...between that one and there's a conference room on the other side of the wall back there and this room and we've got another conference room in the Auditor's Office is necessary. We'll find a place.

Conger: It probably would not be good though to have this discussion there if there's a Board of Supervisors meeting in here...

Slockett: Uh-huh.

Conger: ...that Tuesday morning.

Kistler: Excuse me, the 12th would be the night meeting. So you could come in.

Conger: Oh OK.

Slockett: OK. Yes, if we could have them all...

White: The night meeting would be the 14th.

Kistler: Oh right. I'm sorry. Tuesday.

Kriz: Tuesday's a work day.

Kistler: I see 5:30 in here but it's another meeting.

Redlinger: Well those are only tentative dates anyway, subject to change. You can tell people that. You may have to make some special arrangements with somebody to interview them... when they could get off work too.

Slockett: Uh-huh.

Redlinger: I don't think we had to do that but it could happen.

Slockett: Sure, it could happen. We didn't really... Everyone didn't express their opinion about putting information on the web. So you want to have another try at that? Again, as Pat pointed out, anybody could do it on their own but I think it would be nice to have a consensus about it. I guess I would argue from... I like what Deborah said starting out. Just as a gesture of being completely open... I don't think we should get... I don't think we can differentiate... If we're going to publish on the web letters of support, I don't think we can decide which ones are positive and negative and screen them out. I think if we did that, we'd have to publish all of them. Do you disagree with that, Pat?

White: Uh-huh, yes. You have to make this judgment letter by letter. I would urge you not to publish anything that is slanderous or defamatory and you don't know that until you see it.

Slockett: OK.

Redlinger: It seems to me like we got a lot of them that one time.

Slockett: Yes, we got lots of phone calls and letters.

Redlinger: I don't know whether that's going to hinge any on your decision to do that or not but that's...I think that's a decision the 3 of you are going to have to make because will probably happen after... well maybe not.

Slockett: Some of them will be coming in. I don't know. This is a democracy, it isn't all pretty.

Painter: I think those letters would have to be signed. I'd do it kind of the same way the Press Citizen does.

Conger: Oh sure.

Redlinger: Oh absolutely. I would... I get a letter that's not signed, it goes right in the waste basket.

Painter: I don't think that would carry any weight.

Slockett: I certainly wouldn't be in favor of putting any unsigned letters...

Kriz: That someone would actually go through the process of calling in and verifying it too, like the newspaper does, or is supposed to do.

Conger: The thing with slander... With slander, unless we know, how do we know if it's the truth or if it's...

White: We have a responsibility not to redisseminate a slanderous statement. The likelihood of that happening is pretty small.

Slockett: Yes. The way that I would handle it is I'd just have my staff, if they had any questions at all, fax a copy over to Pat.

White: I can be the censorer if that question arises.

Slockett: I really don't think it will be...

White: No, it'd be pretty unusual.

Slockett: There is always the possibility.

Conger: Well the letters to the Editor in the Press Citizen though... Maybe verge on slander. I don't know.

White: No, they screen things. They wouldn't publish something that would... they would have the same responsibility.

Slockett: One thing is, they could get to be more like letters to the editor if we do publish them on the web.

Conger: They would be.

Painter: Yes.

Conger: That's exactly what would happen. I guess one of my fundamental questions is how much weight are those going to have in the decision making process.

Slockett: Some.

White: As much as any one of the 3 of you chooses to give it or not.

Painter: Yes, that really varies.

White: It's a personal choice.

Conger: I think if people know they could maybe sway your decision by writing or not writing a letter, it's going to make a difference on whether they write a letter or don't write a letter.

Slockett: Well it depends very much on what the applicant does. Obviously, if you have lot of letters of support from people who are prominent in the community and well respected, it has an impact. It's the same, just the same, as people in any other job selection process.

Conger: Well then in the ad in the paper does this need to be stated, that letters of support are going to be considered or that people have the opportunity to do it?

Slockett: I don't think so.

Redlinger: I don't think I'd do that. You'll get thousands of them if you do that.

Slockett: I just think it's a matter of when you're applying for a job, everyone knows that job references have an impact and generally you get some.

Conger: OK.

Slockett: You're right. We actually... the person that got appointed had a huge number of them the last time. I don't think that's why she got appointed but...

Redlinger: No, I don't either.

Slockett: I guess what I think is that people who are likely to get appointed are also likely to get a lot of really good references.

Redlinger: Yes.

Slockett: The question still remains whether or not to do it. Another reason to possibly do it is to try it and see. We haven't had this technology available before and maybe it will work out very well, maybe it won't. But we really don't know unless we try it. Maybe now is the time to try it.

Conger: I guess I would vote in favor of it. I can't really find any good arguments against it.

Slockett: OK.

Conger: Publishing the resume, the cover letter and any letters of support. Have it all be totally 100% open.

Redlinger: Who's going to do this?

Slockett: We can do it.

Conger: The Auditor.

Slockett: We can do it. We can scan them in and put them on the web.

Painter: Then you won't have to give us copies of them either. We can just bring it up and read it online.

Redlinger: You got to give me a copy.

Slockett: We'll give you copies too, unless you request not to.

Conger: I guess you really don't need to for me if you're going to put it on the web. I can look it up on there real easy.

Painter: It's already established as documents of public record. This is just simply a different kind of access to those. And it will be very interesting to monitor the reception that that receives.

Slockett: The minutes will be there and the documents.

Kriz: Any way we can get information out to people is fine and if we haven't tried it there's no reason not to. Let this be the test market for it and lets try it. If it's a fiasco and it doesn't work out we will have learned from it. If it works really well then we can expand other things into it. But it's a way to do it and it's reasonably inexpensive to do it for us so...

Painter: It's another one of those situations it doesn't limit anybody's options it's just an additional option for finding the information.

Conger: The thing is sets such a precedent so if we do it you think in terms of the future are there are arguments where we're going to wish that we didn't, hadn't done this.

Kriz: Yes I tried to think of those and I can't at this point in time.

Conger: I can't either.

Painter: I can see people hesitating perhaps or having to give them pause. But the fact is if that does give them pause then they should probably take a pause before they take the step of submitting a resume for that kind of position.

Redlinger: Maybe then that would be a good reason to say that their responses or letters of recommendation are going to be put on the internet.

Conger: I think we should just say something in that add about it being an open record. This is going to be a public, all applications...

Kriz: I agree.

Conger: ...Are considered public record and have that as part of the application.

Redlinger: Like Tom I was to trying to sit here and think of any objections to it and I can't think of any.

Kriz: I agree with Kim. If a person has a real hang up on that, they're entering public life.

Conger: Public office is not the place they should be.

Kriz: That would weigh on my decision is this the right type person anyway.

Conger: But I think people have in an interview don't they the option...

White: Not for this position. This is not a confidential employment matter.

Slockett: Call executive session.

White: This is a public policy position.

Conger: I thought in my interview I had the choice to have it open or closed when I was appointed.

White: Well you may have. If the committee wants to try to close it we can talk about that.

Conger: It was actually up to the candidate if they wanted it open or closed. That's what they told me. It could go either way depending on what I wanted.

White: My advice to you is don't give candidates for the position of Board of Supervisors that option.

Redlinger: I agree with that.

White: It's an elected position filling a vacancy to create public policy they ought to be willing to talk in public.

Redlinger: I agree.

Slockett: OK so Cletus I heard a yes from you too.

Redlinger: I was sitting here trying to think of any objections and I can't think of any.

Slockett: The only problem that I could think of is if it became really voluminous and the University of Iowa said we don't have any more space.

Redlinger: That would be my concern.

Slockett: Then we might have to pull them at that point.

Redlinger: I would...

Slockett: Because the scanned images take a lot of disk space.

Redlinger: We probably got several hundred didn't we Tom, or more letters for people?

Slockett: Was it that many? It was a lot.

Redlinger: I can't remember for sure but it seems to me like there was a stack that thick. I might even have them. I'm not sure. I kept them for along time and then I might've have finally thrown them away.

Slockett: They've never objected to anything so far. They supply Johnson County Community Network supplies the space.

Conger: I guess this is maybe something to check out because if you get 100 of them on there and the next time your people don't get on there...

Painter: At that point I think we have to take it down.

Slockett: Yes if we can't put them all on I think we should just take it down. But I don't think that will happen.

Painter: Yes.

Slockett: They would still be available for anyone to come and inspect because they are public record.

Conger: Will those remain in the public record on the Web page available indefinitely or after the interviews are over then you can take it all out of there and have space available again.

Slockett: Yes after the decision is made it will be taken out. That would be my... For myself.

Conger: Aren't meeting minutes taken off at some point?

Slockett: Yes.

Conger: Or are they public record clear back.

Slockett: They're always a public record but they're not...

Conger: They're not kept on the web page indefinitely.

Slockett: Right. No I think they would only be relevant until the decision is made and then they would be taken off of the web. They would still be available.

Redlinger: If we would always have a paper copy if anybody wanted to look at them.

Slockett: At least till we made disposition.

Redlinger: Till after the time expired for the election or whatever point you set.

Slockett: I don't think there are any legal requirements for how long those type of records should be kept so they could be... It would basically be at the discretion of whoever got the record. Well we've covered a lot of subjects. So Pat do you have anything more to discuss.

White: I'll defer to Mark on this. I was going to suggest I'm not sure I heard a motion with a second and a vote by Conger, Slockett, Redlinger to proceed to fill the vacancy by appointment and authorize the Auditor to publish notice of the committee's intention to do that.

Slockett: I don't believe I heard it either.

Conger: I'll move to do that.

Slockett: Is there a second?

Redlinger: Yes.

Slockett: All in favor say aye.

Conger: Aye.

Redlinger: Aye.

Slockett: All opposed. The record can show it was a unanimous vote.

White: Good luck.

Slockett: OK. Is there a motion to adjourn.

Conger: So moved. OK.

Redlinger: I second that one too.

Slockett: All right.

Adjourned at 11:27 a.m.