Personal Observation

In his latest "recap" of Council Meetings, Scott Adams wrote the following:

"I am at a loss to explain why Grimm and Davis voted no to approve the top six candidates.. Their qualifications in education (4 of 6 have Masters Degrees) and experience (all have held positions 2 to 5 levels above Patrol Officer) outweighed all the other candidates. Grimm and Davis did try to elevate another candidate to the interview list, but his documented qualifications were not equal to the top six. Were they trying to do a favor for a friend?"

It's too bad I was taken off of distribution (I always looked forward to receiving the recap) and someone had to forward this to me.

Anyway, here is my response:

First and foremost, I was not doing a favor for a friend. Scott, you and the others, can call it what you want. I could care less what you think and you can write what you want - as can I. My objection to the list is simple. I have always believed that you look at internal candidates - there are benefits (employees have careers not just a job, continuity, etc). Paper resumes do not mean much to me - it is easy to make a resume look better than it is. The decision not to give an internal candidate the opportunity to interview is contrary to what at least 2 others have said in public meeting, supporting internal development and advancement. To not do so, is a slap in the face of existing staff. I'll gladly provide specifics (remember a few meetings ago when we approved Stacy's tuition reimbursement???) if someone wants to challenge me more on this. I will always object to an interview list if no internal candidates are given the opportunity to interview and I feel there is a qualified candidate. In this instance, I thought there was a qualified internal candidate. I base this on my professional work experience over the past 10 years, including over 3 years in a management role.

Speaking of Stacy, I am curious as to what kind of message this sends her? The taxpayers of Rogers are paying (approx $25k) for her to complete a Bachelors degree. So what is going to happen when she is up against candidates for an Administrator job with a Masters degree and previous Administrator experience? Are the taxpayers of Rogers going to be asked to finance a Masters degree for her to compete against other candidates or will she be excluded from the interview process? It will be interesting to see how this one pans out……