Council’s process for appointing a new Mayor
I received a LOT of feedback following my recent posts on social media regarding my concerns about the process Council is planning to implement to select our next Mayor.
While the majority of people were appreciative of the transparency and my views, for some, the message got lost in the delivery. Some stated that they worried that me pointing out the flaws in the process would cast a shadow of doubt upon the appointment of the new, incoming Mayor, before that person has had a chance to prove themself in the position. I would like to challenge that idea by pointing out that if one member of Council raising concerns over the process results in widespread public doubt, then the issue is clearly with the process. Not with the Council member speaking out, or the Mayor we appoint. If we are to move forward, unified behind one candidate, all 7 members of Council need to be 100% on board.
Here's a quick recap of my social media post:
Council President Chris Foster sent Council members an email stating he wished to limit how many of the 15 candidates would be interviewed. He suggested the following process: “We should distribute a worksheet to all members. Allow them to select 6 people they wish to interview. Those with 3 checkmarks or more make the person-to-person cut.”
Following the March 15 Council meeting, this is ultimately the process Mr. Foster has decided to move forward with.
This method of selecting applicants to interview has been used in the past in a limited way, specifically for the selection of candidates to interview when appointing to the city’s Charter Commission. Traditionally, and historically, all applicants for Council and Mayor appointments have been interviewed.
Additionally, the last time this method of selecting applicants to interview was used, the most frequent breakdown of votes on Council was 4-3. The Council President at the time recognized this, and he strove to still give those three members a voice in the interviews. This is one of the reasons three was the number chosen to make the cut to be interviewed.
Today, the makeup of Council is different and, according to meeting minutes you can find on the city’s website, since the new Council was sworn in last December, most votes that are not unanimous (7-0) have been 5-2.
Because of this 5-2 breakdown on Council, it is unlikely that the two members in the minority on Council will have some of their selects make the cut, since the minimum number of checkmarks a candidate needs to qualify for an in-person interview is three.
However, acknowledgment of this 5-2 dynamic on Council is difficult for many to not only acknowledge, but to discuss. But it is a reality, and the way we can unify Council on this important decision and future important decisions is make sure every voice on Council is heard, not just some.
Many on Council have stated they hope for a 7-0 vote on the Mayor appointment. If that is the hope, then we are not off to a good start. The process we have adopted has made me question the intent behind the minimum of three checkmarks required for a candidate to get an in-person interview.
When I posted on this topic previously, I was not only educating the public on where Council is in this very important process, but also trying to get some citizen engagement. Whoever we appoint will have to run this year, and likely next year as well. Incumbents have a significant advantage historically. Therefore, I believe the public should be involved from the beginning.
But my post was also about accountability, because I do not think this process is being handled fairly.
So, how do I think the process should be handled?
My preference is to interview ALL of the candidates. I do not think 15 is an unreasonable number of candidates to interview. If someone is passionate enough about our city that they have applied for this position, they deserve to make their case. However, I am open to compromise, so I suggested the following process for Council President Foster to consider.
Send each applicant a few questions to answer in a timely fashion.
Allow Council a few days to read the responses. This will give Council more information with which to make a decision in the event we are unfamiliar with a candidate.
Have each council member select six applicants they wish to interview, as Mr. Foster suggested.
Award an in-person interview to any applicant with two or more check marks.
Each Council member should be given a list of qualifications they can use to rate each candidate during the in-person interview.
The three questions I am suggesting we have each candidate answer in Step #1 are as follows:
How do you envision Hudson in 5 years? 15 years? 30 years?
Describe the role of the Mayor in Hudson.
Why you?
One of the fundamental issues I have with the process Mr. Foster has decided upon is that we are expected to narrow down our list from 15 candidates to 6 with very little information. This means we are selecting candidates based on personal knowledge (and, likely, personal bias), or lack thereof, of each candidate. That is never how you should narrow down a pool of applicants.
In response to my challenges of this process, Mr. Foster cited our Board of Education’s process for interviewing and selecting a new superintendent. He postulated that limiting which candidates receive an in-person interview for the Mayor appointment is acceptable based not only on precedent set forth by a previous Council’s use of limiting applicants to interview when appointing to the Charter Commission, but also precedent set forth by the Board of Education and school district in their Superintendent search.
This comparison is apples to oranges. One cannot compare the appointment of a largely ceremonial Mayor to our school district’s exhaustive search for a Superintendent.
Hudson City School District (HCSD) has an entire web page dedicated to the Superintendent search. On the web page, HCSD has an intro that reads, “The search process will be conducted over the course of several months to ensure the best candidate is hired to serve the Hudson schools, community and its citizens. The district will be transparent in the hiring process.”
Applicants who chose to apply for the Superintendent position were required to submit a copy of their Ohio Superintendent license or certificate, a letter of interest, their resume, references, and transcripts. Additionally, they also list some agreed upon qualifications (see image below).
I would like to note that the process which the school district followed to find the ideal candidate was established months ago and agreed upon by the entire Board of Education. Their process enables them to easily pare down the pool of applicants based on qualifications.
Council has come up with our process for appointing our next Mayor in a seemingly arbitrary way, without the full support of Council, and no compromise has been made even when Council members have requested it. We also do not have an agreed upon list of qualifications to assist us in making this decision.
On Monday, FOX8 News reached out stating they wished to do a follow up on their previous coverage of Hudson’s Mayor, and had found my post. They asked me for a comment or to do an in-person or Zoom interview. I declined both.
Part of the reason for that is because following the former Mayor’s comments about ice fishing, residents told me they wondered if my interview had fed into the media frenzy. I value their opinions and concerns, but upon some reflection, I have decided that I disagree that speaking to the press added fuel to the fire. By the time I even agreed to be interviewed, the incident had exploded nationally on social media and in the media.
I believe utilizing the media to reach more residents can only benefit them by giving them the information they need and deserve. It is a tool I believe all public officials should use to get news and information out to residents. For those reasons, I am glad FOX 8 covered the story and regret not providing comment, because I think I could have added some perspective to the story that is missing.
Former Councilman Hal DeSaussure gave an interview about his view of this process of interviewing mayoral candidates. And in just one sentence, he summed up the entire point I have been trying to make – interviewing all 15 candidates is not a burden to Council.
To wrap up this post, I think it’s important to bring it all back to what I believe is at the core of public service – progress. We need a new Mayor. Our community wants to move forward, away from the incidents that have brought us here. I believed that I had a moral obligation to lay out my concerns and offer a compromise for not only the public’s benefit, but also for the benefit of my colleagues on Council. Transparency in the way we are conducting this process is important. While my suggestions ultimately were not given the consideration I believe they deserved, I am excited to move forward with my colleagues on Council in a positive way to select the right person for this position. I am still hopeful that all 7 of us can find one person that we believe will help lead our city forward, towards progress, no matter what process we use.
Follow my Facebook and Twitter for frequent updates!
Have questions? Want to share your thoughts with me on this issue or a different one? As always, I would love to have a conversation! Email me directly at nkowalski@hudson.oh.us.
*This blog was updated on 3/17/2022 at 1:30 p.m.
