Park County Board of Health tables hiring committee’s recommendation amid questions about public access to applicant materials

The Park County Board of Health on March 24 tabled a vote on the hiring committee’s recommended candidate after members and public commenters raised questions about whether applicant materials should be made public before the county commissioners review the recommendation.

Chair Stephanie Lang, speaking for the hiring committee, said the group interviewed four of five applicants using the same scoring rubric with county HR present and “arrived after much deliberation” on a recommended candidate. "Her name is Malika Peterson," Lang said, describing the candidate as an associate professor of public health with experience in epidemiology and maternal-health communication, including work with tribal communities.

A board member made a motion to approve the recommended candidate; the motion was seconded by James Wilich, who identified himself during roll call as a city commissioner. Before the board could vote, several members of the public and some board members raised concerns about transparency and whether the applications or interview questions should be posted in advance of the commissioners’ approval.

A public commenter criticized the timing and availability of information: “Youyou're just sitting here and saying, okay. I prove it. I 2nd it. It's done,” (public commenter), arguing that residents had little opportunity to review applicant information before the board moved to approve. Sabina Strauss, identifying herself as a Gardner resident, said from her experience ‘‘the applications have always been public’’ and that attaching applications to the agenda allows the public to review candidates in advance.

Board members and staff clarified process points: the hiring committee’s recommendation will be forwarded to the county commissioners for final approval, and HR facilitated the interviews. Several board members said interview questions could be released but that full application files contained identifying information that might raise privacy concerns; they agreed to seek an opinion from the county attorney on what may be posted or redacted.

Given the uncertainty, the board chose to table the motion and seek legal guidance rather than vote immediately. Members discussed scheduling a short noticed meeting with at least 48 hours’ public notice if the attorney’s guidance was obtained soon, or otherwise addressing the recommendation at the board’s next regular meeting on April 14. Chair Lang said the matter "will happen for certain, if not sooner, on April 14."

The meeting adjourned after the board set the motion to hold until the attorney's input and public-notice requirements were clarified.

Notes on names: the transcript contains inconsistent spellings for the recommended candidate (the chair identified the candidate as “Malika Peterson” while the motion is transcribed using a variant, "Mallory k Peterson"). The board will proceed with final action only after obtaining legal guidance and appropriate public notice.

What happens next: the board will seek a county attorney opinion on whether applications or redacted materials can be posted, may schedule a short noticed special meeting (48 hours' notice), and will in any case take the recommendation to the county commissioners for final approval at a future meeting.