(ACTION) Construction of a process for the naming of an interim Chief Probation Officer.
Comm Hale said the Chief’s last day in the office is June 12. He said his conversation with the Mayor “when we met with him to discuss Jesse’s departure, indicated that we would move post haste and get a recommendation to him. And in particular, it was clear that we had an Asst. Chief, prepared. Given the Commission’s decision to open it up to other members in the Dept, we find ourselves here, setting up a process.” He suggested working backwards. He suggested using the same protocol used last time in hiring an interim Chief. Applicants were reviewed, interviews were set up and the Commission interviewed them. Letters of recommendation were not required then.
Comm. Chuck: said that possibly personal references would be useful, if letters of recommendation are not.
Comm Connolly suggested that interested parties submit a resume and cover letter, and attachments up to 10 pps (including letters of support).
Comm. Hale asked who would generate the notice for the job. The Chief said the Dept would. He suggested posting for at least a week.
When would the Chief think it best to have a recommendation. The Chief said it depends on what the Commissioner prefers for the Chief helping to transition in the new person.
Comm Hale projected that if the deadline were May 22, then with some effort, the Secretary to get copies of those resumes to the Commissioners on Friday. That would give 4 days to review the materials if interviews were to start on Wed. the 28th.
Comm Connolly said he preferred longer than a week’s notice.
Notices of the opening will be posted by the Chief’s office, on May 14, with application deadline of May 23, end of work.
Comm Connolly said that the Commission would then have time to review the materials over that holiday weekend, and then it’s a matter of scheduling interviews. The Commission will have 10 days to make a recommendation. Optimistically by June 2 and if there’s many applicants, a realistic goal of June 6.
Comm. Hale said that the notice and materials requested is critical.
The Chief reviewed, these recommendations will be acted upon at a Special Commission meeting on May 13th. The Department will be subsequently directed to post a notice no later than noon the next day, probably earlier, regarding this opening and with a deadline of May 23, 5pm. And be responsible for getting that notice posted. All materials from interested individuals should go to the Juvenile Probation Commission office.
The Chief said that all mailboxes of Dept staff/division offices would get an announcement. Posting on bulletin boards in 3 main locations. A stack in the reception area of YGC, and admissions area of Juvenile Hall.
The Chief raised the question of using the word interim. He said he didn’t think that was what the Commission had in mind. Connolly replied that that was a fair comment, but to state it any other way would imply that the job would last past the Mayor’s term, which is also not necessarily the case.
He said that anyone applying should know that, but he said it should read that this is a permanent appointment to Chief for the balance of the current Mayor’s term, no guarantee beyond that.
Comm Connolly said that what the Chief just stated would be appropriate in the notice.
The notice does not have to include the word interim.
Comm. Hale asked about the interview process. Need a standard set of questions. Should questions be based on the job description?
Comm Connolly asked Comm. Hale to come up with a list of questions that the Commission can review, for use in the interviews.
The Chief asked if all candidates who submitted a resume would be interviewed. Comm. Connolly said his inclination is that they should interview all of those who submit a resume and cover letter. “The act…expresses a sincere desire to be considered.”
There was a short discussion regarding educational qualifications. Comm. Hale recommended setting a master’s level requirement. Comm Connolly opposed this. It was decided not to seek a “minimum” educational level.
The Chief was asked if the job description included a minimum educational requirement. He did not recall.
Comm. Chuck asked about who would be included in the selection process. Since the community had spoken out about wanting to be included in the selection process. Is there a need for an opinion from the City Attorney regarding this?
Dep City Attorney Sanchez said that it was up to the Commission.
Comm. Hale said that public comment would be allowed during public comment, before a decision is made.
Comm Chuck asked what part of the process would be required closed session.
Sanchez said that the only portion of this process that would be open session would be the discussion of qualifications. As far as the discussion of certain candidates, that would be done in closed session. Then the Commission would announce in open session those who would be recommended.
Comm. Connolly was against setting an educational requirement.
The Chief said that the Commission should decide if this recommendation is for a person to just sit out the balance of the current Mayor’s term, or someone who will survive that and into the next administration.
Comm. Connolly said that the decision would be based on finding the best candidate, which would obviate those other considerations mentioned by the Chief.
Comm. Hale said that all candidates should know up front about the political realities of a Mayor’s prerogatives.
Fia Valentino, OSA, asked how community people would be included in this process of hiring? They need to be a part of this.
Ed Williams made comments regarding the Chief recommending the Asst. Chief, and how his leaving might set up his returning to try and take LCR. Comm Hale said he was out of order. Comm Connolly allowed him to finish his comment, which was about setting an educational requirement. Comm. Connolly reminded him that they rejected that recommendation.
A representative from Instituto Familiar de La Raza expressed her concern for the last meeting where the community showed its desire to participate in the selection, via an advisory committee or some such body, and asked if the Commission was going to follow up on this.
Comm. Connolly said that his understanding, confirmed by the City Attorney, is that at the Ad Hoc Comm. and Special Meetings of the Commission, there is public comment on any matter of the jurisdiction of the Commission and on matters addressed by the Ad Hoc Comm. itself. He encouraged everyone to continue to show up at the meetings, and to submit written documentation to the Commission’s office on this topic.
Quest: so the extent of the community’s involvement will be the public comment?
Comm. Connolly said that they were free to do anything they wanted, from speaking with the Supervisors, Mayor, writing their concerns. The process before the Commission, and they are slightly hamstrung on what’s available to them, and this is that process.
Comm Hale said that legally they couldn’t do it. The Charter lays out the selection process, and the fact that they are held in closed session, they are bound by oath, and members of the public are not, and because it is privileged information, they are responsible and liable for any invasion of privacy. If things were to get out by public members, it’s not the public members that are held accountable. And that’s why the sessions will be closed. The process referred to by Instituto rep. was when they were talking about a “full on” search for a Chief, where they would, and had done, allowed candidates to meet with representatives of the community, at their sites, let them meet and then have them ask whatever questions they had, and then bring their recommendations via public comments to the Commission. That was Comm. Bonilla had expressed that.
The Instituto rep said a joint process was mentioned. Comm. Hale said that that was discussed but there was two discussions, one about what was immediately needed for the next 6 mos, when the Chief departs, and the long-term, and had discussed the limited nature of the selection because they just don’t know (and they wanted to make all candidates aware this could very well be ongoing or it could be 6 mos). And if it was for 6 mos, everybody was in agreement that this big process wasn’t necessary, but if it was for a much more extensive search, opened up to the “universe” not just the Dept, that’s when they could create processes where the public has the opportunity to meet and interview candidates. But because this is a truncated process and even in that process they would still be meeting as a Commission, in closed session to discuss the candidates qualifications, so that’s the difference here. All he is looking at, at this point is a Chief for 6 mos.
Comm. Connolly reviewed: special meeting on May 13, 5:30pm at City Hall. The Commission will vote to direct the Dept to post notice of the opening for Chief Probation Officer, including the description discussed today. Deadline for receipt of materials from candidates, consisting of cover letter, resume and up to 10 pps of anything the candidate wishes to include. Deadline of Friday 23rd, 5pm at the Commission Office. There will be no minimum educational requirements. Comm. Hale will devise some set questions to ask all candidates. The Commission as a whole will interview the candidates that submit applications, in the last week of May and first week of June. The Commission will hopefully submit a recommendation by the first or second of June, but no later than the 6th.
Comm Hale asked for materials to be date/time stamped when they are received.
Comm. Chuck so moved, Comm. Connolly 2nd. The question was called and upon voice vote, carried 3-0.