Thread by @shayshinecastle

Next: Update on the city manager search. Reminder: Feb. 25 is a community q&a with those finalists.

Wish I could remember exactly how many applications the city received. It was dozens.

5 finalists have been interviewed, Young says.

Identified only as letters.

Two "very strong finalists" have been ID'd after a council ranking process, Young says: Candidate K and Candidate I.

Brockett: "These two finalists were chosen by every single council member as their top two choices. So we have a strong consensus."

Yates: Clarification is that council members interviewed the 5 semi-finalists. We didn't do that as a whole council. Our input was given separately and independently.

"Interesting and surprisingly, or maybe not surprisingly given the strength of the two candidates" these 2 were unanimously agreed upon. "The votes were compiled and there was very clear alignment."

Over 60 applicants, Yates says.

"When will the names and backgrounds of those 2 finalists be available to the community?" Yates asks.

Jen Sprinkle, HR director: The recruiter will notify these 2 individuals. A press release will be issued after that.... before the community forum next week, so by Feb. 24.

Yates: "If we can get it out a few days before that, it would be great. As much advance notice as we can provide to the community, so they can do their own due diligence."

Brockett: We're trying for this week, barring unforeseen circumstances.

Friend: "It was a delightful process."

Weaver saying the resumes were all anonymized: No names, no cities, identifying info redacted. "That's a step I think we should take broadly in the organization."

Weaver: Do we need a motion?
Carr: Yes. There are legal considerations in being a semi-finalist.

So ANOTHER surprise public hearing tonight.

Young, Brockett praising Sprinkle, which is such a delightful name. If I ever have an alter ego, she will be called Shay Sprinkle.

Brockett makes a motion. We're going to jump back to the subcommittee public hearing first, then come back to this one.

OK, back to the city manager public hearing. Again phone number is 312.626.6799

Link: tinyurl.com/y6ax54rg

I've already forgotten why we're having a public hearing.

I'm not sure I was ever exactly clear, but it's because the city has ID'd two finalists for the city manager position, Candidate K and Candidate I (it was i, right?)

I gotta say, it really kills me that I don't know who these people are.

LOL only one speaker, Lynn Segal, who starts by talking about the CU South process subcommittee. Weaver breaks in and reminds her that this is for the city manager process. She gets muted.

This is confusion created by the process! Lynn says. She gets unmuted now.

"This is a big deal. The city manager stays forever before you can get rid of 'em. Luckily we got rid of Jane." LOL

I live for this drama.

Normally I wouldn't, but it's been a long pandemic with no one to gossip about except my roommate.

I mean, Idk what you would even speak about at this public hearing, because we don't even know who the finalists are. I guess the process in winnowing candidates?

As Paul Culnan does: I would really like you to have 3 finalists instead of 2.

That was the plan, council said, but since they all agreed on the two, they decided not to have a third.

Weaver asks why Culnan would prefer 3 people.

"These are letters," Culnan says. "I know nothing about these people, and you are saying we should look at two." I would prefer three.

Brad Segal agrees. "We've had processes at CU where they only have one candidate. That was no good."

Swetlik: "When you put someone out in the public in a job role, they put at risk their current job. That can have very devastating negative consequences for them. Keep that in mind."

"If we don't feel they have a really, really good shot at getting this job, we don't want to sacrifice their current job," Swetlik says.

Weaver: "This is ultimately goign to be a council hire. Given that there was such broad agreement, we didn't want to bring someone in (knowing those risks) when the chance (of them being hired) is small."

That was based on advice from the HR experts and consultant.

Friend: I was able to figure out some cities even from redacted materials. Says that un-redacted list will likely not be released, as a community member requested.

"I think we would be causing harm" to include a third person when our unanimous recommendation was to look at these two, Friend says.

Brockett: There will be a legitimate choice between these two. They are fantastic candidates, and there was "a real drop-off" between them and the third place applicant.

I realize we're asking you to trust us here, and some people won't, Brockett says.

Unanimous council vote to advance these two finalists.

Yates: We have this rule that if a motion is made under "matters." We've had it for a long time. It doesn't seem to work on Zoom.

He and Friend are part of the engagement subcommittee. They're meeting tomorrow and promise to address this surprise-public hearing issue. Will report back in a couple weeks.

Weaver: From my experience, it was never really that sustainable in chambers either.

"Seems to me like we should either not take public comment or ... invite public comment ahead of time."

"It didn't really work very well in chambers either. We've struggled with this as long as I've been on council."

Friend: "These are uncomfortable and odd situations."

Carr: There's no requirement under the law that there be a public hearing. It's a tradition in Boulder; it's more of a policy consideration.

Brockett has some more info on the finalists!

So far just repeating the same stuff. Boo.

The Feb. 25 community q&a will be interpreted into Spanish. You can submit questions ahead of time.

That link again: bouldercolorado.gov/city-manager/c…

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!