Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Executive Recruitment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Selma council agrees to start in-house city manager recruitment, sets accelerated timeline
Summary
City staff presented three recruitment options; council signaled consensus for an in-house recruitment (with internal promotion as possible) and directed staff to prepare job materials and a timeline, with first interviews aimed in about six weeks and follow-up in closed session.
The Selma City Council on June 3 directed staff to begin an in-house recruitment for the city manager vacancy after reviewing three options: internal recruitment, hiring an executive search firm, or promoting an internal candidate. Staff described costs and timelines for each approach; the council favored in-house recruiting with the option to consider internal promotion and community participation in later stages.
Staff summarized three options: 1) an in-house recruitment managed by Human Resources with modest advertising costs; 2) an executive recruitment firm, which could expand the candidate pool nationally but cost an estimated $25,000–$50,000 plus an RFP process; and 3) promoting a qualified internal candidate, which would offer continuity but could raise morale or staffing shift issues. Staff noted the executive search timeline could be three to five months; in-house timelines are flexible.
Council members emphasized the value of fresh perspectives but weighed cost and time. Councilmember Osagura and others recommended a hybrid approach: allow an initial remote screening round, then require in-person interviews for finalists. The council asked staff to prepare an advertisement, job description and a recommended timeline, and to begin outreach as soon as possible. The mayor said he hoped to post within a couple of weeks, receive responses within four weeks and hold first interviews in about six weeks.
Several residents and labor representatives addressed the council during the recruitment discussion. Mike Casenza, representing two bargaining units, praised staff and said employees saw an improving workplace climate. Members of the public urged either a professional recruiter to expand reach or an in-house process to save city funds; some suggested a hybrid approach (initial remote screening, in-person finals).
The council also discussed confidentiality, candidate travel costs and the use of community or technical panels in later rounds. The city attorney and staff noted that employment-sensitive matters may be discussed in closed session; the council scheduled further deliberations and candidate interviews as part of upcoming closed sessions. No formal resolution or vote to hire an executive recruiter was taken; instead the council gave staff direction to proceed with an in-house recruitment and return with materials to finalize process details and any required budget action.
