Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Attorney Appointment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines to approve city attorney appointment after concerns about process and vetting
Summary
Following a staff recommendation, councilors voted 4–3 not to approve the appointment of the recommended candidate for city attorney; several councilors said they were not given full opportunity to participate in the formal interview process and requested additional time.
The Grants Pass City Council on Monday declined to approve a staff‑recommended appointment for the city attorney position after several councilors raised concerns about the hiring process and their level of participation in interviews.
City HR/administration staff presented the recommended candidate, identified in the staff packet as Stephanie Knoll (spelling as presented by staff). The presenter summarized the recruitment: a wide outreach by a consultant produced two qualified candidates, one of whom remained engaged and completed background checks. Staff said the candidate holds multiple bar admissions (Oregon federal district, U.S. Supreme Court and Minnesota bar noted in staff remarks), a J.D., an M.S. in GIS and prior county legal and risk‑management experience, and that background checks returned clean results.
Several councilors praised the candidate’s qualifications but said they were dissatisfied with the selection process. Councilor Rob recounted previous hiring practice that included council participation in formal interviews and said that process produced thorough vetting; he said the current process gave the executive team greater weight because they conducted the formal interviews without full council participation. Councilor Indra said she had not met the candidate and did not feel ready to vote. Councilor Joel asked to delay the decision to allow more time to contact references and meet the candidate; others said they had positive impressions from an informal meet‑and‑greet and from staff background checks.
A motion “not to approve” the appointment passed on a 4–3 roll call. The council did not hire the candidate at the meeting and directed that the matter remain unresolved; councilors discussed tabling or re‑running the process and several voiced support for re‑engaging the recruitment process with more council involvement.
Why it matters: the city has been operating under outside legal services since the city attorney position became vacant. Councilors said they want a transparent process that includes clearer council participation in the final selection for a high‑level legal post.
Next steps: councilors asked staff to return with options — either to re‑run recruitment, provide more candidate information for council review, or schedule a public interview process — and to bring the item back for council consideration at a future meeting.
