Selection committee asks two firms for interim village administrator proposals

The selection committee discussed three recruitment proposals for the village administrator position and voted to request written proposals from MGT Impact Solutions and Ardent for an interim village administrator, while notifying the attending vendor referred to as "Workplace" that the committee would not advance it at this time.

Randy Bewkes, a consultant who identified himself to the committee as representing municipal recruitment work, told trustees the participating firms try to match candidates to the community and that they offer placement guarantees. "If something doesn't work out that the candidate either... voluntarily leaves or you release her, we'll do the search again and free," Bewkes said, describing a one-year guarantee and three months of post-placement coaching his team provides.

Committee members questioned firms' prior experience and timelines. The consultant said recent searches filled comparable municipal posts in neighboring towns and that a typical search timeline runs about three months, with 30 days of advertising required to meet minimum posting expectations.

Several trustees raised the option of hiring a short-term, contracted interim village administrator while continuing a permanent search. One trustee argued that an interim would "give us an opportunity to hire somebody that's well qualified to do this" and would reduce pressure on the permanent search given that four trustees will face election this spring, which could affect who serves under a new administration.

The committee's motion (as described by the member who introduced it) directed staff to notify Workplace that the firm would not be selected at this time, to thank them for attending, and to invite Ardent and MGT to submit written proposals outlining interim scope and costs. The motion passed; the committee chair said the item will be on the agenda in two weeks and that he will contact the firms to request written proposals and prepare them for presentation.

Committee members asked for specific cost proposals and clarifications about employment status for an interim contractor; those details were not specified at the meeting and were left for the firms' written responses. The committee also asked firms to outline proposed interim durations (speakers discussed examples ranging from about 60–90 days up to roughly 10 months in different scenarios) and any transition support included in the fee.

The meeting closed after a final procedural motion and adjournment. The committee did not take further formal action on staffing terms at this meeting; it requested written proposals to inform a future decision at the next committee meeting.