Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Recruitment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board narrows administrator finalists, agrees to add one department‑head candidate and require values assessment
Summary
Committee discussed the county administrator recruitment process after several finalists withdrew; commissioners asked for an expanded finalist pool, a core‑values assignment for finalists, and for staff to secure a video interview and materials before scheduling in‑person interviews.
Members of the Committee of the Whole discussed next steps in Cook County’s search for a county administrator after three semifinalists withdrew or became uncertain and the board requested additional candidate information.
Pat, the county’s recruitment contact, reported that two finalists had formally withdrawn and a third was uncertain because of a scheduling conflict. Rowan Watkins, county staff, and Pat recommended adding an additional candidate from the semifinalist pool who has department‑head and planning experience. “I would definitely encourage adding that person,” Pat told the committee, noting the board would want the candidate to complete the same background and assessment materials as the other semifinalists.
Commissioners debated whether to rely solely on resumes and prior scoring or to widen the pool and apply consistent assessment tools. Commissioner Gamble urged a values-focused approach drawn from outreach to experienced county administrators: “In one word, what do you think you need to look for in a county administrator? In one word, what is a huge red flag?” Gamble said he used those interviews to assemble a prioritized set of core values and argued the board should require finalists to rank and explain their top values so the board can assess fit and temperament. Several commissioners agreed to ask finalists to complete a values exercise and the work‑personality (WPI) questionnaire already used in the process.
Logistics and timeline: Pat said he would reach out immediately to the one identified department‑head candidate and attempt to secure a recorded (video) interview and required assessments within roughly one week; the committee discussed whether to delay invitations to in‑person interviews until the board can see that additional candidate material. Commissioners agreed that if, after in‑person interviews, none of the finalists are acceptable, the board should be prepared to restart the recruitment.
Process improvements and evaluation tools: Commissioners recommended several practical interview-stage additions: (a) request the finalists to prepare a short written exercise that identifies and defends their top five core values; (b) provide the board with the work‑personality index and any written materials in advance; and (c) maintain a consistent scoring rubric that weighs education, experience, competencies and values. Commissioner Mills suggested capturing a short writing sample from candidates while they wait, to evaluate on‑the‑spot written communication and clarity of values.
Decisions and next steps: The committee directed Pat to invite the identified department‑head candidate to become a finalist if the candidate completes the same assessments and to circulate the candidate’s video and assessment materials to commissioners. Pat will also contact the two next‑highest scoring semifinalists (applicants 1 and 4 as identified in earlier scoring) to proceed with scheduling, and staff will produce the core-values assignment and instructions for finalists. No hiring decision was taken at the committee session; scheduling of interviews and any rescoring were left to a future board meeting.
