Fort Pierce delays city manager shortlist after applicant-tracking glitch; commissioners set follow-up meeting

FORT PIERCE, Fla. — The Fort Pierce City Commission on Jan. 16 delayed selecting a shortlist of candidates for city manager after the human resources department discovered that 11 applications were not included in the packet provided to commissioners.

Human Resources Manager Jared Sorenson told the commission the omissions were uncovered after an applicant raised the issue and staff ran additional reports in the newly implemented Tyler Munis applicant-tracking module. “The first thing I want to make absolutely clear is that we have not reopened the position at all,” Sorenson said, adding that the missing records appear to be caused by a training/reporting anomaly rather than intentional removal.

The oversight expands a contentious discussion that began during public comment, when several residents questioned transparency in the city’s selection process and one speaker raised concerns about City Clerk Linda Cox’s public political posts. “When you have a responsibility and you’re the city clerk, you shouldn’t be advocating. You should be neutral,” resident Rick Reid said.

Sorenson said the city migrated from a platform called Civic HR to Tyler Munis in late 2024, and the applicant-tracking module went live in November. After additional training on a different reporting view in Tyler, staff identified the 11 applications that were not in the packet. Of those 11, HR determined six met the job’s minimum qualifications; one of those later withdrew, leaving five candidates who had been given short notice to complete a 15-question supplemental questionnaire. Sorenson said the five latter questionnaires were submitted on the day of the meeting.

Commissioners and staff agreed to provide parity for those newly identified applicants: the commission asked that HR offer the additional candidates the same period that earlier applicants received to complete the questionnaire. City staff recommended a 14-day parity window; commissioners generally supported that approach, but several said they would prefer not to delay the process unnecessarily if candidates confirmed they did not need extra time.

Commissioner Arnold Gaines, after discussing fairness to the late-notified applicants, urged public transparency and technical assurance that other departments using Tyler Munis have received full training. IT director Devosha Johnson said the city phased in Tyler modules over several years and that departments continue to work out configuration and workflow issues. “This was just an unfortunate event, but there was no maliciousness,” Johnson said, describing the rollout as a multi-step process that can surface “quirks” as modules are adopted.

Staff also provided the commission with an estimate for retaining an executive search firm if the commission later decides to pursue a separate nationwide search. Sorenson said search costs provided by recruiters ranged roughly from $32,500 to $47,050, with a minimum timeline of about 120 days; the city would also need to follow procurement rules and possibly add time for contracting.

On process, staff described next steps: HR will confirm which of the late applicants want additional time, preserve an audit trail of communications, and distribute final questionnaires to the commission together. The commission directed staff to place a short meeting on the calendar so the five commissioners could set a specific date to select the shortlist for interviews. City staff said the full applicant pool totaled 76 submissions initially and stood at 75 after a withdrawal; HR has produced updated reports and said it has matched third-party submissions (Indeed, LinkedIn, governmentjobs.com) to the city’s records.

Public commenters pressed for an external search and for assurances that the clerk and staff are neutral during the process. Several commissioners said they prefer to interview candidates from the existing pool before authorizing a paid executive search, while acknowledging a national search would remain an option if interviews show no suitable finalists.

The commission scheduled a brief procedural item for its next meeting to set the interview timeline and confirmed HR would email applicants to document whether they want the additional 14 days to revise questionnaire responses. Commissioners emphasized any elevation of applicants currently labeled “not qualified” should be announced in a public meeting so the process and any additions remain transparent.

The commission did not take a formal vote on candidates at the Jan. 16 meeting; staff and commissioners agreed on the procedural steps above and on holding a follow-up session to establish the interview schedule.