Dear SLO County Supervisors: Here’s why we chose only 3 finalists for clerk-recorder vacancy

Editor’s note: Here is a lightly edited copy of the letter sent to Board of Supervisors by three of the five members of clerk-recorder review committee.

We are three members of the Interim County Clerk-Recorder Review Committee.

Collectively, we represent many decades of experience in public service, two of us having served as both elected and appointed city clerks for most of our careers. We have all served on professional application screening panels numerous times.

We understand that some members of the board may be disappointed that the committee was unable to recommend your desired number of seven qualified applicants for interview on Oct 12. We ask that you consider our thoughts before adding candidates to the three names unanimously recommended by the committee.

The recruitment challenge

For many years, it has been difficult almost everywhere to find up to seven sufficiently qualified candidates for public sector, department-head level positions. It is particularly challenging in SLO County, given our higher housing prices and generally lower salaries when compared to pay scales in our wider recruitment market. Your Clerk-Recorder vacancy has the added difficulty of being only an interim position.

The board’s decision to not set minimum qualifications (MQs) beyond the threshold for political candidates (18 years old and a SLO County resident-voter) was, we understand, intended to cast a wide net. While such minimal MQs are uncommon for an appointed professional position (versus an elected one), there is nothing wrong with casting a wide net — as long as application screening is conducted thoroughly and against some generally agreed upon professional qualifications.

MQs vs. screening qualified candidates

Because the limited MQs were not sufficient to properly screen the applications, it was important for the committee to discuss and generally agree upon desired experience and leadership qualifications. Having these would also support the board’s desire for an open and transparent process by allowing us to explain how we differentiated the candidates. Therefore, we spent a good bit of time on Sept. 8 discussing the qualities needed in an interim clerk-recorder.

We heard from the county administrative officer, who shared his thoughts about key qualifications. He also conveyed his perceptions of what department employees need and want in an interim clerk-recorder, emphasizing “prudent leadership” and “subject matter expertise.” Hands-on experience was identified as essential, both in elections and the many others duties of the office. The experienced clerks on the committee weighed in with our insights. We all seemed to agree that non-partisan, apolitical, team-oriented leadership was very important, along with integrity and the ability to build trust among differing populations.

We reviewed a “screening criteria” and “rating scale” provided by county staff to support our review of the applications. While these tools were not meant to be used in a prescribed empirical fashion, committee members present on Sept. 8 agreed they would offer helpful guidance when examining the 44 applications.

The number seven: An arbitrary requirement or desired goal?

Knowing the recruitment was likely to be challenging, at our first meeting we discussed and also affirmed that if we could not find seven qualified applicants in the pool of 44, then some lesser number would be acceptable. In other words, we should not recommend applicants whom we deemed unqualified merely to reach an arbitrary number. In addition to respecting the board’s time, we felt our professional duty is only to recommend people we truly believed are qualified.

Results of committee review

Between Sept. 8 and 20, committee members independently reviewed the 44 applications. On Sept. 20, we shared our individual conclusions. At a very high level, we were aligned in our final judgments.

First, we judged the vast majority of applications as lacking in relevant experience (37 of the 44 applications were not recommended by any committee members). While we reached some differing judgments about those who should be interviewed, all five committee members recommended these three candidates:

• Jeffrey Barry, former Yolo County chief deputy clerk-recorder

• Elaina Cano, Santa Barbara County chief deputy clerk-recorder (former SLO and Pismo Beach city clerk)

• Helen Nolan, SLO County acting clerk-recorder (former deputy clerk-recorder)

We, the signatories to this letter, believe that only these three candidates are sufficiently qualified to serve as a SLO County interim clerk-recorder. Mr. Bell added two candidates, Mr. Stew Jenkins and Mr. David Evans. Ms. Janssen also recommended Mr. Evans, along with Ms. Lisa Legge and Ms. Barbara Schmitz.

There was added discussion of Ms. Legge, the assistant city clerk of Bakersfield. Our view was that while she held a job that could lead to a clerk-recorder post someday, she had only been in that position for 2 1/2 years and her role was not at the level necessary to lead the SLO County department today.

Mr. Bell spoke in favor of both Mr. Evans and Mr. Jenkins and explained his support for their candidacy.

Ms. Janssen indicated that she had added more candidates to her list just to get closer to the board’s desired number of seven. But understanding that this was not an absolute requirement, she concurred that the top three candidates were the most qualified (because she could not attend the first meeting, she had missed our earlier conversation on this point).

In conclusion

All five members of your committee had the recommended three candidates on their short lists. Attracting three very qualified candidates is a very good outcome, especially since this is a one-year interim appointment for an elected position. This outcome should be celebrated, rather than considered a disappointment. The smaller number of finalists, while not reaching your goal of seven, will allow the board ample time to probe their backgrounds and qualifications before making this very important appointment.

If, however, the board wishes to interview additional candidates, it would not be productive to reconvene the review committee. As professionals, we have already our best recommendations and cannot, in good conscience, recommend added candidates. We thank you for the opportunity to serve on the review committee.

Ken Hampian is a former city manager of San Luis Obispo; Lee Price is a former city clerk of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo and San Jose; and Marcia Torgerson is a former city clerk and deputy city manager of Atascadero.