Palo Alto committee discusses process to replace retiring city attorney, delays firm selection

The Council Appointed Officers Committee of the Palo Alto City Council on an agenda item for the city attorney recruitment reviewed proposals from three executive search firms but did not select one, directing staff to gather references and return with a draft recruitment brochure and firm interviews.

The meeting, led by Chair Stone, focused on replacing City Attorney Molly Stump, who announced she will retire at the end of the calendar year. Sandra Blanch, the city’s human resources director, said the overall recruitment is expected to take “approximately 6 months” and that proposal costs from the three firms range “between $30,000 to $39,000.”

Committee members pressed staff and each other for more detail on how the searches would be tailored to a council-appointed officer, how much involvement the city attorney and other subject-matter experts would have in candidate screening, and how quickly the process could be completed.

“We haven't done one in the legal field” recently, Blanch said, adding that the city has worked with all three firms previously and that one firm, Bob Murray & Associates, was the firm that placed Molly Stump. Vice Mayor Venker and other council members said that history makes the search unusually urgent because many other cities are concurrently recruiting city attorneys.

Committee members raised three recurring concerns: - Customization of the recruitment. Council Member Burt and others said some proposal language read as standard boilerplate and asked whether recruiters would design a customized candidate profile specifically for a council-appointed city attorney, rather than follow a generic executive process. Blanch said the recruiter would work “with HR and also with each of you to craft this recruitment brochure.” - Local experience and candidate fit. Multiple members said firms with Bay Area experience could better identify candidates willing to accept Palo Alto’s unique mix of utilities, university-adjacent issues and Bay Area cost-of-living realities. One member said Terry Black and Company appeared to have the most local experience; others noted that an out‑of‑area recruiter could expand the applicant pool statewide. - Timeline and guarantees. Council members said they wanted a tighter front-end process (candidate profile and outreach) so the search can move faster and produce a higher-quality applicant pool. Assistant HR Director Nick Raich said each firm’s bids include a standard guarantee: if the council declines to select any finalists, the recruiter will relaunch the search one additional time with the recruiter absorbing most costs, and the city paying only tangible expenses such as additional advertising or reprinting brochures.

Committee members also asked that the final interview process include external city attorneys on technical-assessment panels to help evaluate candidates’ legal skills. Blanch confirmed that the city will “include other colleagues with the same expertise” as panelists when interview panels are developed. Several members asked that outgoing City Attorney Molly Stump be asked to review the recruitment brochure and, if agreeable, participate in candidate assessment or a limited transition role after December.

Public comment included a process suggestion from speaker Herb B., who recommended that the committee identify goals, objectives and key performance indicators and include them in the recruitment brochure and candidate evaluation. Herb B. also urged the committee to be explicit in the brochure about the technical skills the city expects in its chief legal officer.

No formal motion or vote to select a recruiter occurred. The committee discussed holding short, back‑to‑back interviews with recruiter representatives and penciled scheduling options for a follow-up committee meeting to interview firm representatives. Staff volunteered to prepare a draft recruitment brochure in parallel and to contact recent local agencies that have worked with the three firms for reference information.

The committee closed by trying to schedule the next meeting and asking staff to coordinate availability. Committee members referenced a primary, penciled meeting time they described in the record as the “20 second” at 5:30 p.m. with a backup “20 third” at 6:00 p.m. Staff said they would coordinate firm availability and committee calendars and circulate the draft brochure and the city’s 2010 brochure as a reference.

Outcome: committee deferred firm selection, directed staff to obtain references and prepare draft recruitment brochure, and agreed to reconvene for firm interviews. No binding contract or selection was made at this meeting.