Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Vacancy Applications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Louis Board delays selection process for single board vacancy after reviewing 38 applications
Summary
Board members said they received 38 submitted applications for a single board vacancy but noted many are incomplete or duplicates. The board agreed to collect all materials, permit time for review, and reconvene at the next regular Tuesday meeting to name candidates for public interviews.
Board members discussed how to handle 38 submitted applications for a single board vacancy and agreed to postpone selecting interview candidates until the next regular board meeting to allow time to collect and review all submissions.
The board chair and several members said the application pool contains a mix of complete and incomplete submissions. One board member said they had reviewed 17 submitted applications and identified approximately eight that appeared complete; another said she had identified five strong candidates from the initial batch. Several members reported missing files or attachments and asked staff to consolidate materials into a single folder and confirm that all submissions also appear in the Diligent Community platform.
Secretary Jones said she had not yet reviewed all applications and asked for time to examine the full set before nominating interviewees: “I would like to receive all 38 before I, say any 1 number or whatever or persons because I feel like I don't have everything in front of me.” Board members discussed a process of elimination to remove clearly incomplete or nonserious submissions before scheduling interviews.
Nut graf: The board determined it lacked enough time in the meeting to review all 38 submissions, agreed to compile a complete and consistent application set for members to review, and set the selection of interviewees for the next regular Tuesday board meeting so interviews can be scheduled and conducted in public session.
Discussion included practical questions about interview logistics: whether interviews would be in person or virtual, how long each candidate should have, and whether the board should use a common roster of questions. Board members proposed ranges from 5 to 15 minutes per candidate and debated whether to allow follow-up questions. One board member suggested placing the item on the next Tuesday regular meeting agenda to collect nominees and set interview dates.
On a motion to table the item until the next regular Tuesday meeting, the board voted in favor and the motion passed. The board also discussed that some applications appeared to be non-applications (for example, an uploaded charter-bus request form was noted among attachments) and asked staff to ensure attachments correspond to the applicant’s answers.
Ending: The board voted to table action on naming interviewees and will reconvene the topic during the next regular Tuesday meeting; members instructed staff to compile all 38 submissions in a single, accessible package for review.
