Melbourne Beach hires MGT to run town manager search after two presentations; vote 3-2

Melbourne Beach commissioners voted to hire MGT to conduct the town manager search after hearing presentations from two executive-search firms and a public comment period. The motion to enter a contract with MGT passed by a 3-2 tally; the transcript records the final outcome as a 3-2 vote but does not list individual roll-call votes for the final selection.

The decision followed two hourlong presentations. A recruiter from MGT (identified in the meeting as Jim, recruiter, MGT) gave a detailed overview of his firm’s recruiting network and methodology, emphasizing active outreach, candidate screening and a one-year placement guarantee. He said the typical search timeline is about 90 to 120 days but told commissioners it could be shortened if the town moves quickly on approvals and interview scheduling. “No matter how qualified somebody is, it’s all about cultural fit,” he said when describing what he looks for in finalists.

Anne Lewis, senior manager with Raftelis, presented the second proposal. Lewis described Raftelis’s process of stakeholder interviews, a recruitment brochure built from individual and group interviews, targeted outreach (including ICMA and state manager associations), and telephone screening of semifinalists. “When I perform an executive search, my goal is no surprises,” Lewis said, describing the firm’s approach to background checks and internet searches and its practice of presenting a candidate book for the commission’s review.

Why it mattered: The town’s manager position is now vacant, and commissioners said they wanted outside help to run a legally defensible, broad search while the town’s small staff continues day-to-day work. Commissioners pressured both firms on how quickly they could produce qualified finalists, how they would protect candidate confidentiality, what checks they would run and how the town could present a realistic compensation and relocation picture to prospective hires.

Key details from the presentations and discussion - Timeline: Both firms described multi-step searches. MGT gave a typical range of 90–120 days and said it could compress the timeline if the commission approved the brochure and interview schedule quickly; MGT’s recruiter said it could often complete “within 90 days” if commissioners and staff moved rapidly. Raftelis described a similar staged process (profile → outreach → semifinalist screening → interviews) and recommended a 30-day minimum posting period to allow candidate due diligence. - Outreach and sourcing: MGT said it draws from a private national network (the presenter said he works with 35 other recruiters and that the firm has placed candidates in 45 states). Raftelis cited its public-sector network, industry groups (ICMA, state manager associations and the Florida League of Cities) and a national consultant roster. - Screening and checks: Both firms described candidate screening interviews and internet/social-media reviews. Background and criminal/financial checks would be done on top finalists and require candidate consent. Raftelis said it asks supervisors, subordinates and peers as references for a fuller picture. - Cost and guarantee: MGT’s presenter described advertising as a line item of roughly $2,000 and a one-year guarantee (the recruiter said the firm would assist to replace a candidate who leaves within a year, usually charging only advertising costs on a replacement search). Raftelis described invoicing in three parts and additional advertising fees if community engagement options are added; Lewis did not cite a single fixed dollar total during the presentation. - Candidate confidentiality and competing searches: Commissioners pressed both firms about candidates applying to multiple jurisdictions; both firms said they track other active recruitments for serious candidates and would share such information with the commission during candidate review meetings.

Public comment and procurement questions Two residents addressed the commission during public comment. Sherry Quarry urged the town to avoid outside consultant costs and suggested the town could run a search in-house or rely on state association resources, noting the expense and uncertain return: “I don’t see why it’s above our level to be able to do it ourselves and save possibly $41,000,” she said. Another commenter asked whether the RFP process met the town’s procurement rules; town attorney Ryan Knight advised the commission that issuing an RFP and receiving two proposals is legal under Florida procurement law (the commission heard there is a separate CCNA requirement for some contract types that was not applicable here).

Action and next steps - The commission first voted (motion to use an executive-search firm) earlier in the meeting and approved proceeding with a search firm (that vote was recorded in the transcript as 4-1 with Commissioner Anna Butler dissenting). After scoring the two proposals using a procurement matrix included with the RFQ, commissioners moved to contract with MGT based on the matrix scores; the final selection motion carried with a 3-2 vote (the transcript records the 3-2 tally but does not show individual named votes for that final selection). - Town attorney Ryan Knight said he would contact the selected firm and prepare a contract; commissioners requested an executed agreement as soon as possible. - The commission also scheduled a special meeting to continue budget work on August 19; commissioners said they expect the contract and timeline work for the search to proceed in parallel.

What the commission asked both firms to do before finalists are presented Commissioners asked the firms to: prepare a recruitment brochure for commission approval, provide a candidate outreach and advertising plan (including costs), commit to confidentiality procedures for employed candidates, outline reference and background-check scope for finalists, and propose an estimate of how long the search would take given the town’s calendar and availability.

The commission’s vote begins the paperwork phase; the selected firm will return with a formal contract and a recruitment plan that the commission must approve before public outreach and candidate interviews begin.