Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Executive Search topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council deadlocks on choosing executive-search firm for city administrator
Summary
A Sept. 5 special city council session to select a firm to run the search for a new city administrator ended with two failed motions after sharp debate over whether to hire a local firm or an outside search team and how much community engagement to require.
The city council held a special session Sept. 5 to decide which firm to hire to run the search for a new city administrator, but two separate motions to place contracts on the next agenda failed and no firm was selected.
The meeting’s chair opened the session and introduced the second agenda item: whether to retain an executive-search firm to conduct candidate outreach, interviews and screening. One motion would have put a contract with MGT on the council’s Tuesday agenda; another motion later proposed placing a contract with a local/alternate firm (referred to in the discussion as Express or "the other group"). Both motions failed on roll-call votes.
Why it mattered: Council members disagreed on how the search should be run, a divide that the council said could complicate later confirmation votes for any finalist. Supporters of MGT pointed to its staged process — including one-on-one interviews with council members and designated community leaders — and a 12-month guarantee for candidates placed. Opponents pushed for a firm able to recruit nontraditional, private-sector candidates and for a local firm they said could provide faster, locally rooted searches.
During the debate, proponents said the right firm could help the council address administrative and procedural gaps that have emerged as the town has grown. One supporter said hiring an experienced government-focused search team would help the city "get us to the next step" and avoid repeatedly paying higher salaries to staff to compensate for missing expertise. Another council member said she preferred someone from the private sector who has been held accountable for budgets and safety rather than an insider with government experience.
Councilors also clashed over whether firms would or would not meet with the broader community. A presenter for the firm identified as MGT told the council the firm’s proposal includes outreach to designated community leaders and a community survey if requested; opponents disputed whether the other firm would offer comparable community engagement and criticized tone in one presentation that compared firms.
The session grew heated at times. One council member interrupted another with profanity, saying, "stop yapping your effing mouth," and members repeatedly pressed each other about who had consulted the community and whose priorities would be reflected in the search. Several council members said they want to avoid a process that produces a 3–2 confirmation fight for a final hire; others said it was imperative to move quickly because an interim arrangement cannot continue indefinitely.
Outcome and next steps: After two roll-call votes on separate motions (first to put a contract with MGT on the Tuesday agenda; second to put a contract with the alternate firm), the chair announced both motions failed. The council agreed the item can be brought back at a future meeting and discussed informal outreach to the firms in the meantime. The meeting adjourned with a plan to reconvene at a public workshop and conduct a tour at 6:00 p.m. (meeting point: 111 1st Street).
The session recorded no formal selection of a search firm; the council will revisit the matter at a future meeting and members indicated some would contact firm representatives to convey concerns and preferences before then.
