Here is the latest installment on the Tredyffrin’s interim supervisor appointment . . . I feel like keeping this interview process transparent has become my life’s work. With so many things going on in the world, why is it so important that this township process work correctly? Because it just is.
So where does the interview process currently stand? Well, here goes. I emailed our township manager Mimi Gleason (and copied township solicitor Tom Hogan and the Board of Supervisors) the link to the specific Community Matters post, along with reader comments. In my email, I addressed the issue of the supervisor’s Personnel Committee conducting the candidate interviews vs. the Board of Supervisors. I suggested “. . . the appointment of an elected official is not a personnel matter.” Further suggested that the “. . . situation could be easily remedied if all the supervisors were in attendance on January 26 and participated in the interview process.”
Here is Mimi’s response to that email:
The full Board must vote on the appointment of the interim Supervisor in a public meeting and will do so.
There is no problem with the Personnel Committee, or any other subcommittee of the Board, interviewing the candidates. The Home Rule Charter does not require the Board of Supervisors to interview the candidates. However, in the interests of full transparency, the Board has chosen to have interviews conducted by the Personnel Committee and has invited the public to the interviews. The Board is going beyond the minimum requirements of the Home Rule Charter and the Sunshine Act in order to provide even greater public access to this process.
I’ll be around all afternoon. Let me know if you have any more questions.
After receiving this email, I still had questions for Mimi and sent the following email (copying Tom Hogan and Board of Supervisors):
Thank you for your response, however I do still have a few questions.
(1) You say that the Personnel Committee, or any subcommittee of the Board of Supervisors can interview the candidates, then why the ‘Personnel Committee’ vs. the Finance Committee or any other subcommittee? If appointing an elected official is not a personnel matter, why choose the ‘Personnel’ Committee for the interviews?
(2) Bob Lamina stated at the Board of Supervisors meeting that the candidates would be interviewed by the supervisors. By having a ‘committee’ rather than the Board of Supervisors interview, is this really meeting the objective?
(3) I appreciate that there is no requirement for the Board of Supervisors to interview the candidates in public; however, didn’t that option go away when the township advertised and solicited resumes for the vacancy; which was then followed by Bob Lamina’s statement that the supervisors would interview the candidates. Bob made a commitment to the residents that the supervisors would interview the candidates – there was no caveat from him that the interviews would be conducted by a subcommittee, Personnel Committee, etc. The implication of his words was ‘all the supervisors’ would interview.
(4) If only 3 of the supervisors are going to interview the candidates in the Community Room (without it being televised) how is that the other 3 supervisors (Olson, Richter, DiBuonaventuro) will know the candidates responses to the questions. If this interview process is public, will there be minutes taken of the meeting? How do the 3 supervisors who conduct the interviews discuss the matter with the 3 supervisors who do not attend the interviews, without breaking the Sunshine Law. I understand that the vote will be in public, but how can the supervisors discuss this matter prior to the public vote if 50% of the board does not participate in the interviews?
Mimi, you say that the supervisors are going beyond the requirements to provide transparency. If that is the case, then why not just have a quorum with 4 supervisors present for the interview process and remove doubt and questions about the process. The Board of Supervisors have an opportunity to make this process right.
I will put off posting information related to this topic on Community Matters until after business hours today. It is my hope that all supervisors appreciate the importance of the interview process and will be encouraged to participate . . . or at a minimum, one more supervisor beyond the 3 supervisors currently onboard.
Rather than emailing her responses, Mimi called and we talked through my questions/concerns. Here is where we stand . . . the Personnel Committee, consisting of three supervisors (Lamina, Kichline, and Donahue) will conduct the supervisor interviews on Wednesday, January 26 at 7 PM; the public is welcome. Neither Mimi nor any other township staff will be present for the interviews and there will be no minutes of the meeting taken. The three candidates conducting the interview will apparently brief the other three supervisors on the interview process and the candidates.
Mimi explained that it was difficult to find an available date for all supervisors for the interviews. I asked if that was the reason there were only three supervisors instead of all six supervisors attending the interviews and she was not sure why. I suggested that an easy scheduling solution would be for the interviews to be conducted before or after the regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting on Monday, January 24. Presumably, all supervisors could attend and since it was a public meeting, there would be a record of the meeting with minutes. I was told that this option was considered but not accepted . . . it was thought the interview process would take too long and they wanted the candidates to have sufficient time.
Although I encouraged a fourth supervisor should attend the interview process to have a quorum, at this point that appears unlikely. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if one of the other three supervisors, either JD, Paul Olson or Evelyn Richter, stepped up and agreed to participate in the interview process on January 26?
The appointment of an interim supervisor is a serious duty of our elected officials (even if only for a few months) and I do not want to see the process manipulated by politics.
What do I mean manipulated . . . ? Only one of the four supervisor candidates, John Bravacos, has stated that he will not be on the ballot for the Special Election in May. Presumably, the other three candidates, Eamon Brazunas, Mike Heaberg and Kristen Mayock, all intend to participate in the Special Election required to fill the vacancy.
To be clear, I am not questioning the credentials of these three candidates but the only non-political appointment for this interim supervisor position is John Bravacos. Additionally, John Bravacos is a former township supervisor and former chair. To appoint one of the other three candidates would be politically motivated and give an advantage to that individual in May’s Special Election. For the record, a Republican (Warren Kampf) held the vacated seat and John Bravacos is a Republican.
7 CommentsAdd a Comment
So… All the supervisors will vote for the replacement, but only a few will interview them. Hmmm. And since there will be no minutes taken, the supervisors who aren’t there, will be able to make educated votes because?????
I still contend that the decision has already been made. If it hasn’t, the rest of the supervisors would fel compelled to be present for the interviews.
I know how it looks . . . but I want to believe that the system can work. Idealistic, right?
With all the discussion about this proceeding going on, can someone please review just what the proper way this should all be handled. I mean just how is the interim Supervisor appointed, and what is the process, statutory or otherwise.
What is supposed to be public, what isn’t. Interviews? Deliberations after interviews? thanks
You want to know? What difference will it make? If not Bravacos, then you will have more to write on here.
You need to know like the rest of us, just what the process is and to know it will be followed.
Or would you like the board to call you so you can make the decision?
Lower Merion just held a special meeting to interview two candidates for a commissioner vacancy.
The meeting was open, televised and recorded. Thirteen of the fourteen commissioners were present.
Just wondering, why the difference?
Christine — Isn’t it interesting how Lower Merion handles their commissioner vacancy vs. Tredyffrin? Lower Merion conducts a special public meeting to interview the 2 commissioner candidates for their vacancy. The interview meeting is televised and 13 of the 14 commissioners attend the interview process.
You ask, why the difference . . . in my world, there should be no difference. Lower Merion has the process right.
I agree that the process being used by the supervisors is strange and not ideal. And we can be envious of how LM interviews Commissioner prospects, but the Lower Merion Commissioners and School Board have to be the most financially irresponsible of any along the Main Line. We should be very grateful that our Supervisors and School Board work hard to deliver good services at a good price. They are not perfect but they do a darn good job most of the time.