New city administrator Steve Powers attended his first council meeting. He’d attended a work session the previous week, though he had not officially assumed the post.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

From left: Ann Arbor city councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) at the July 13 interviews with two finalists for the city administrator job. Higgins is chair of the council search committee.

For their 10-minute presentations, Oppenheim and Powers had been asked to talk about what they’d try to accomplish in their first 90 days on the job. They covered much of the same ground that they’d discussed during Tuesday’s round-robin interviews with councilmembers and senior staff, talking about how they’d familiarize themselves with the organization and the community of Ann Arbor. [See detailed Chronicle coverage of those Tuesday sessions for Powers and Oppenheim.]

When asked during the Q&A to describe the most challenging part of their presentation, both joked that it was handling PowerPoint – Oppenheim had difficulty advancing the slides and eventually enlisted the aid of a city staffer, and Powers’ presentation included a blank slide, because he couldn’t figure out how to insert the image he wanted to use. Powers also noted that it was difficult to know how much of his sense of humor to show in this context – his wife, for example, had advised him to delete some slides that he’d included.

Seven of the 11 councilmembers were on hand for the presentations and follow-up questions: Mayor John Hieftje, Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Steve Kunselman (Ward 3), Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). The other four councilmembers are expected to watch a video of the session prior to Monday’s council meeting. There will be a resolution on the July 18 agenda to nominate a candidate, but no name will be added to the resolution until the evening of the meeting.

Higgins, who’s chair of the search committee, told her council colleagues that on Monday a candidate will be nominated, a discussion of that nomination will take place, and hopefully the council will arrive at a consensus, she said. Or it’s possible that councilmembers will decide they don’t yet have an acceptable candidate, she added, and the process will continue.

However, based on a nearly hour-long discussion on Wednesday among councilmembers, it seems that a consensus is coalescing in favor of Powers – though both finalists were praised. Powers’ management style and familiarity with Michigan’s economy and governance structure were among the reasons cited by those councilmembers who are leaning toward hiring him.

This report briefly summarizes the presentations of Powers and Oppenheim, as well as the questions they were asked on Wednesday morning. The discussion among councilmembers at the end of the session is reported in detail.

Candidate Presentations, Questions

The two finalists gave their presentations and answered questions separately – Steve Powers went first, followed an hour later by Ellie Oppenheim. Per the council’s request, the presentations focused on what the candidates would do during their first 90 days on the job. The sessions were held in the council chambers at city hall, and were broadcast live on Community Television Network (CTN).

Candidate Presentations: Steve Powers

Powers spoke about his desire to familiarize himself with the organization and the community, saying he would immerse himself in that task. He said he knows that the community values process and transparency, and that people have strong opinions – he’d learn to appreciate and understand that. Acknowledging the city’s assets and quality of life, Powers described some of the challenges that Ann Arbor is facing – declining revenues, fewer staff resources, higher costs for health care and pensions, and aging infrastructure, among other things. Showing an image of a duck swimming in water, Powers asked whether the city is like that – calm on the surface, but paddling like crazy underneath.

Powers told councilmembers that he wouldn’t come in with his guns blazing – the “ready, fire, aim” approach isn’t effective, he said. Rather, he’ll talk with councilmembers and others in the community and listen to what their priorities are. For example, he’d likely start in the fall, so his first 90 days would put him into the heart of the next budget cycle – labor negotiations and understanding the needs of employees and management would be critical. His approach would be to “communicate, communicate, communicate” – he’s found that to be successful over the years in Marquette County, where he currently serves as county administrator. Ann Arbor is too complex to assume he could understand those complexities quickly, he said.

“My actions in the first 90 days would confirm that you made the best choice for city administrator,” Powers said, “and that choice is me.”

Candidate Presentations: Ellie Oppenheim

Oppenheim identified five priorities for her first 90 days. First, she’d start fostering important relationships – with councilmembers and staff, but also with community leaders from the university, library, Ann Arbor SPARK, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, merchant groups and others. That would set the foundation for future relationships. Secondly, she’d learn the lay of the land within the organization, including budget forecasts, memorandums of understanding with labor, infrastructure needs, and any emerging issues.

Community engagement would be important, too. She’d make herself as accessible as possible – for example, attending a game at Michigan Stadium with 109,900 of her “new friends,” she said as she held up a University of Michigan T-shirt. She’d visit the surrounding communities of Saline, Dexter and Chelsea, and would be a frequent customer at local businesses and restaurants. Her fourth priority would be to foster collaboration, building bridges to maximize connections at the county, state and federal levels.

Finally, Oppenheim said all those things would accelerate her learning curve, giving her a framework to meet the council’s expectations and the community’s needs. At the same time, she’d stay personally grounded by her two pillars of stress management: getting regular exercise, and planning her next vacation – she looked forward to a trip at Thanksgiving to visit her family. She thanked councilmembers for their consideration.

Candidate Presentations: Questions from Council

Following their presentations, each finalist was asked the same set of nine questions by councilmembers. Several of the questions related to the presentations – what had been most challenging about preparing them, for example – and more broadly about whether the candidates were comfortable speaking in public, or publicly discussing controversial topics. Questions also covered other types of communication, eliciting details about the ways in which Powers and Oppenheim would seek input and convey information in different contexts.

Many of the candidates’ responses repeated themes and examples that they had provided during round-robin interviews on Tuesday morning. Readers can find detailed Chronicle accounts of those interviews here: Steve Powers; Ellie Oppenheim.

Consultant Feedback, Council Discussion

After hearing from the candidates, councilmembers were debriefed by Scott Reilly of Affion Public, the consultants hired to help conduct the search. Councilmembers then discussed the two candidates for about a half hour before adourning.

Reilly said he’d met with the city’s executive staff – including city attorney Stephen Postema and Barnett Jones, head of public safety services, who both had participated in Tuesday’s interviews – to get feedback on the candidates. Reilly summarized key strengths identified by the executive staff for each candidate.

Ellie Oppenheim, a finalist for Ann Arbor city administrator, talks with Scott Reilly, a consultant with Affion Public, the firm hired by city council to help conduct the job search.

The executive staff found that Oppenheim was very articulate, and a good communicator. They liked that she has diverse experience in large organizations – that’s a valuable asset that she could bring to the city. She also has high energy. “She was described as a pistol,” Reilly said. The executive staff felt that Oppenheim was results-oriented, and seemed comfortable in a leadership role.

For Powers, the executive staff liked the fact that he gave very specific examples in response to behavioral questions, Reilly reported. They felt his responses were very thoughtful and down to earth, and that he was candid and straightforward. They liked his answers about how he communicates. Stylistically, that way of communication seemed natural for him – it wasn’t something he learned in a book.

The executive staff also appreciated Powers’ management style and approach, which would be good for team-building. Though running a county is different than being a city administrator, the county board of commissioners is similar in size to the city council, and Powers’ experience collaborating with department heads would be an asset. Lastly, his specific experience with finance and economic development in Michigan’s current climate was something the executive staff valued as well, Reilly said.

In addition to this feedback, Reilly said the candidates were holding a meet-and-greet for city staff that morning. He planned to collect input from that, as well as from the councilmembers.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked if the staff had raised any alarms about either candidate. Reilly replied that the executive staff recognized there wouldn’t be a perfect candidate – there never is. The two candidates had different styles, and would be different in their approach to getting things done. The staff recognizes that there’s going to be a change, regardless of who’s hired, Reilly said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked Reilly to review the search process so far. [The council voted to hire Affion in April 2011, based on a recommendation from the search committee led by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). The firm is being paid a fee of $18,000.]

Reilly described how he and other Affion staff had spent several days in Ann Arbor meeting with the council and staff, and holding public forums to get input on the qualities that the community wanted in its next city administrator. The consultants then went through the recruiting process – proactively contacting people who might be a good fit but who weren’t actively seeking jobs, as well as getting responses to a job posting that was up for about 50 days.

Affion interviewed all candidates who met the minimum qualifications, then scheduled formal interviews with a subset of that group. The candidates were asked for written responses to questions, including why they were interested in this job, what experiences they’ve had in building community consensus, and how they’ve handled finances in a tight economy. There was another round of interviews based on the written responses, then a fourth round with Reilly, who said he was looking to see if candidates would be a good fit for the Ann Arbor community and the organization. The firm also conducted criminal, educational and media background checks, and checked references. From about 60 applicants, Affion winnowed the pool down to 8-10, from which councilmembers chose two finalists. The rest of the process has been public, he said.

Council Discussion – Process

After Reilly’s summary, Higgins told her colleagues that they’d discuss the rating sheets that each councilmember filled out, but they wouldn’t make a nomination at that point. There will be a resolution on the council’s July 18 agenda to nominate a candidate, she said, but no name would be added to the resolution until that meeting. This will give councilmembers who didn’t participate in the interviews time to watch the tape of Wednesday’s presentations, she said. [Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) did not attend the candidate interview sessions on Tuesday or Wednesday.]

At Monday’s council meeting, a candidate will be nominated, a discussion of that nomination will take place, and hopefully councilmembers will arrive at a consensus, Higgins said. Or it’s possible that they’ll decide they don’t yet have an acceptable candidate, she added, and the process will continue.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) wondered how appropriate it was to put forward a candidate’s name, if in the end the council can’t reach consensus. He said he was looking at it both from the applicants’ perspective as well as a procedural perspective. What message does that convey to the public?

Higgins said that was the point of this discussion. Councilmembers would either see one of the candidates clearly rising and consensus building around that person, “or we won’t.” It’s difficult for candidates and councilmembers to hold this evaluation in a public forum, she said. Not every candidate will have only positive attributes, but councilmembers need to be respectful in their discussion, and make their views known in as positive a way as possible. Which candidate has the better qualities?

Mayor John Hieftje clarified that the rating sheets were only used to evaluate two aspects – the candidate’s presentation, and the interview.

For the purposes of this report, comments from Wednesday’s discussion are organized by councilmember.

Council Discussion – Impressions of Candidates: Sabra Briere

Briere noted that these two candidates are very different in style, and in their ability to answer questions quickly and thoroughly. She had asked a question about which previous positions they had held that related most closely to the city administrator’s position, and why. Both candidates gave thorough answers, Briere said, but Powers drilled down to precise examples quickly, without much prompting. And in a later conversation, he had grasped some of the challenges that Ann Arbor is facing now, and saw those not just as challenges, but as opportunities. That’s a positive thing for her, Briere said.

Mayor John Hieftje talks with Ellie Oppenheim, a finalist for the Ann Arbor city administrator job.

It was clear that he’s not as comfortable giving a public presentation, and not as polished as a public speaker, Briere observed. But she thought his ability to communicate was better in small groups and one-on-one. When he relaxed, he was clearly very knowledgeable and comfortable.

Briere also liked the fact that he’s data driven. He can look at situations from a high level, but also identify practical steps to take. She felt that Oppenheim would be a more dynamic leader, and more open to the challenges of implementing innovation and change. But she gave Powers slightly higher marks. It was hard, because both candidates got high marks, she said.

Both Powers and Oppenheim worked hard to understand Ann Arbor, Briere said. She was impressed with Oppenheim’s presentation, with very specific information about Ann Arbor. That showed Briere that Oppenheim had spent time doing her homework. Powers had looked at Ann Arbor’s economy, and understood the pressures on it. Both candidates recognized that they need to engage the community in a variety of ways, Briere said. In an earlier conversation, Powers had brought up the fact that economic development doesn’t currently have a coherent focus within the city government, and he asked if councilmembers wanted that effort more in the hands of the city. That was an interesting question to bring forward, Briere said.

Council Discussion – Impressions of Candidates: Marcia Higgins

Higgins agreed with Briere’s observations, especially regarding public speaking. When Powers shared that he only makes formal presentations about six times a year, that helped her understand why he might feel uncomfortable. He’s very knowledgeable, and when he is focused on one person, Higgins said, his communication skills amplify considerably.

She said she enjoyed being able to choose between two highly qualified candidates. They had two very different ways of presenting publicly. To her, it’s a question of who fits best with the community. “And that’s a decision we’ll be making Monday night.”

Higgins reported that both candidates were very close in her ratings. Powers ranked just a little higher. That has a lot to do with the trust he talks about – building trust with elected officials and department heads, working collaboratively, and owning up to his failures. She was impressed when he acknowledged a shortcoming, and that he could clearly articulate what he’d learned from his mistakes. Higgins said she also appreciated that Oppenheim could think quickly on her feet – that trait was evident from situations that Oppenheim described during Tuesday’s interviews, she said.

Council Discussion – Impressions of Candidates: Stephen Rapundalo

Rapundalo felt that Powers made his points much more quickly, and answered questions more directly. Powers engaged people well in formal and informal settings – he wore his role and his background on his sleeve. Yes, he was less polished, Rapundalo said, but “what you see is what you get.” His ability to transcend various types of people seemed more apparent, more natural in terms of his style. What the city lacked in the past was someone who could really engage in the community, Rapundalo said. Powers would bring that as an asset.

Rapundalo indicated that the candidates were very close, but in the end, he said he’d give Powers the nod. The fact that Powers is data driven is “near and dear to my heart,” Rapundalo said, though it could be done to a fault “as some people keep reminding me.” Reilly had mentioned that the executive staff likes Powers’ financial background, Rapundalo noted, but his human resources background is also important, especially in contract negotiations. That’s a clear asset, Rapundalo said.

It’s not that Oppenheim didn’t have that experience too, Rapundalo added, but the expertise was more apparent with Powers. His knowledge about Michigan’s economic landscape is also important, Rapundalo said. It’s not the only reason to hire Powers, but it’s an advantage. Different dynamics are at play in the state and in Ann Arbor, and the city administrator will need to maneuver in that environment. It takes quite a learning curve to do that, Rapundalo said – it’s not something you can pick up in 90 days, or even a year.

He recalled Powers saying that once the council makes the policy decision, the city administrator will execute it – and it should be done in a unified manner. That’s key, Rapundalo said, and he hadn’t heard that stated before. It’s a thoughtful approach for managing and communicating – something that the council places high value on.

Council Discussion – Impressions of Candidates: Mike Anglin

Both candidates were very close in their ability to express who they are, Anglin said, and there are very clear differences between them. They have different leadership styles, and the scale they’ve worked at was different – one of them, for example, worked at large organizations, where there weren’t major budget constraints. The question is who would fit best in Ann Arbor.

Steve Powers, left, a finalist for the Ann Arbor city administrator job, talks with Ward 5 councilmember Mike Anglin in the city council chambers on Wednesday.

Powers made a point that he’d only worked in situations where an organization was contracting, Anglin said, and that made an impression. That’s where Ann Arbor finds itself. Yet Powers spoke to what the city has to offer – Powers was very buoyant, Anglin said. Ann Arbor residents view themselves as far from defeated, and Powers understands that.

Powers also spoke about driving down decision-making – everyone is important to the organization, including front line employees. Powers has experience in government, staying with an organization over a long period. He helped turn around the local economy when many said it wasn’t possible, Anglin noted. Overall, Anglin found the match for Ann Arbor was stronger in Powers.

Regarding their presentations to councilmembers, Anglin said he rated both candidates evenly. Both currently have jobs that require them to be good comunicators. Anglin said there were certain words that the candidates used that influenced him. With Powers, it was the “ready, fire, aim” concept – describing a common approach that Powers felt should be avoided. Both candidates worked in university communities, both presented a code of ethics, and both said they could take orders and implement decisions, Anglin noted – that was terrific to hear. The fit is close, Anglin concluded, but he’s leaning toward Powers.

Council Discussion – Impressions of Candidates: John Hieftje

Hieftje said he was pleased that either candidate could do the job. That’s always a good sign. There were striking differences in background and decision-making – two completely different styles. Hieftje said he saw very narrow differences between the two, and it was a close call. He wanted to think about those styles over the next few days, and think about what would be a good fit. “I still have a lot of thinking to do over the weekend,” he said.

He reminded his council colleagues that it was their job to make policy decisions. The important decisions for a city administrator will have a lot to do with staff, he said, and that will be determined by small group or one-on-one communication and assessment. That’s a big part of the administrator’s role. It’s harder for councilmembers to assess that one-on-one style, but it’s very important, as is the ability to lead a competent staff.

Regarding Wednesday’s presentations, Hieftje said that one candidate had better presentation skills – he didn’t mention which candidate – but that his scoring of their skills was very close.

Council Discussion – Impressions of Candidates: Stephen Kunselman

Like his council colleagues, Kunselman observed that both candidates are qualified. A lot of people from the West Coast live in Ann Arbor, he observed, as do people originally from northern Michigan. [Most of Oppenheim's previous experience has been in California and Nevada, while Powers has spent the past 15 years in Marquette – in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.] The thing that struck Kunselman most was when Powers said he had the trust and respect of his board, which has four of the original nine county commissioners who hired him. That’s telling, Kunselman said, when you can gain the trust and respect of officials who didn’t hire you. It shows an ability to truly work with the community and elected officials that have divergent constituencies.

Continuity in government is very important, Kunselman said. Things don’t get accomplished in a short period. The question about Oppenheim is whether she has the ability to work long-term with elected officials.

Kunselman was also impressed that Powers took a risk of not having notes for his presentation. [Powers told councilmembers that he'd left his notes at the hotel, and had decided not to retrieve them.] It showed Powers’ ability to think on his feet – we all find ourselves in that position, Kunselman said. For her part, Oppenheim was very informative, and had a different style, Kunselman said, but her presentation was more scripted. Both worked well, Kunselman said, but personally he thought the candidate who took a risk was the person who impressed him.

Council Discussion – Impressions of Candidates: Tony Derezinski

These two candidates presented classic alternatives, Derezinski said. One candidate had worked for larger entities, but never led one. [Oppenheim has worked in significantly larger organizations than Powers has. Most recently she was CEO of Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority – the top leadership role for that organization.] The other candidate is a person who’s been with an organization for long period, who’s the person where the buck stopped, Derezinski said. A lot of Oppenheim’s experiences are very valuable, he said, especially in an academic community. But Marquette – where Powers works – is also an academic community, he noted.

Looking at the two presentations, Derezinski noted that one style covered a lot of different points (Oppenheim), while the other was minimalist (Powers). But listening is important – given those two styles, in which style is listening more important? That’s critical, Derezinski said, because you can learn so much more from listening than from speaking. Is there a dialogue? That’s critical in terms of picking up nuances of what others are saying, and working that into your decision-making. Derezinski indicated that there were a lot of issues to weigh as he considered these candidates.

Next Steps

Four councilmembers – Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) – did not participate in the interviews on Tuesday or Wednesday, though Hohnke attended a Tuesday evening reception for the candidates. As the Wednesday morning discussion wrapped up, mayor John Hieftje said the four who didn’t attend had good reasons for not participating. Hieftje did not elaborate on that, but said the four absent councilmembers would be able to watch the video of Wednesday’s presentations and discussion prior to Monday’s council meeting.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she’d been in touch with Smith to brief her as much as possible – hopefully everyone was trying to do that for the councilmembers who didn’t attend, she said. [Smith is recovering from surgery.] Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) noted that everyone had received the same materials on the candidates, even if they hadn’t attended the interviews.

Wednesday morning’s session will be replayed several times on Community Television Network (CTN) Channel 16 prior to Monday evening’s council meeting:

• Friday, July 15 at 1:30 p.m.
• Saturday, July 16 at 7 p.m.
• Sunday, July 17 at 5 p.m.
• Monday, July 18 at 10 a.m.

The session will also be available from CTN’s video on demand service.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public organizations like the city of Ann Arbor government. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The job opening will be be created by outgoing city administrator Roger Fraser, who announced his resignation publicly at the end of a Feb. 28 city council work session on the city’s budget. In early May, Fraser will be taking a job as a deputy treasurer for the state of Michigan.

The recommendation to be considered by the council at its April 19 meeting will come from a search committee, which was appointed at the council’s March 21 meeting. The committee was tasked with recommending an interim administrator and with presenting a plan for a selection process to hire a permanent administrator. The plan is to provide for internal as well as external candidates for the permanent job.

The interim job was open just to internal candidates, with the stipulation that the interim administrator would not be considered for the permanent job. Although the wording of the April 19 council resolution is not yet final, the process for making the permanent hire is expected to begin with a job posting immediately following the council’s April 19 meeting. The committee’s recommendation on base salary will be to target recruitment in the $145,000-$150,000 range.

At the March 21 council meeting, mayor John Hieftje indicated that he would like to see the hiring process completed by late summer, or mid-summer if possible. To meet that goal, an ideal timeline would leave the posting open for 30 days, with basic vetting of candidates completed during that time. Also during that period, starting in early May, the search committee will be recommending that a consultant – Scott Reilly with Affion Public – make a site visit to Ann Arbor for a day and a half of meetings with various constituencies, to gather input on the “intangible” aspects of job qualifications that are expected of the successful candidate.

The ideal timeline would use May and June to winnow the field of candidates and to interview finalists. The city’s human resources department would collaborate with Affion throughout the process. An offer would made at the beginning of July, and the new permanent city administrator would start at the beginning of August.

At meetings held on Wednesday and Friday morning – April 13 and 15 – the search committee discussed goals for the interim administrator, salary range for the permanent job, the public process, and how the city’s human resources department will work with an outside consultant.

Search Committee Membership

Members of the search committee are: mayor John Hieftje;  Sabra Briere (Ward 1); Christopher Taylor (Ward 3); Marcia Higgins (Ward 4); and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2). Higgins is chair of the committee.

In making nominations at the council’s March 21 meeting, Hieftje indicated that the committee members had not been chosen by seniority, but rather to get a good mix of experience and perspective. He stressed that the committee would only make recommendations and that the whole council would need to approve all the decisions.

Committee members were all present for both meetings on April 13 and 15, except for Briere, who did not attend on Wednesday, and Taylor, who did not attend on Friday. At both meetings, the search committee members were joined by Robyn Wilkerson, the city’s head of human resources. Richard Martonchik, also with the city’s human resources department, attended Wednesday’s meeting. The meetings took place in the conference room on the fourth floor of the city hall building.

Permanent Job: Recruitment

At the March 21 council meeting, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) had asked that when the hiring plan is presented to the council, they also receive a cost impact analysis of various options for doing the search.

In search committee discussions, Wilkerson pointed out that if the city’s human resources department handled the entire process, then no direct costs for recruitment and assessment would be incurred by the city.

However, Wilkerson pointed out two potential disadvantages of not using a search firm to assist with the search. First, the city’s HR department would not necessarily have as wide a network as an search firm, through which it could reach potential candidates for the job. Second, there could be a perception, even if not accurate, that the city could not maintain the confidentiality of an application as well as an outside consultant.

She noted that when the candidates are brought in for interviews, at that point their names would become public. It might be that candidates drop out at that phase, she said.

Wilkerson mentioned three possibilities for outside consulting – the Michigan Municipal League, Career Directions, and Affion Public. She said that Career Directions might be more interested in assisting with the assessment phase than the recruitment phase.

In recommending Affion, a firm based in Harrisburg, Penn.,Wilkerson noted its nationwide network and previous experience working with the city of Ann Arbor. Affion’s Scott Reilly, who would be handling the administrator search, was highly recommended by former community services area administrator Jayne Miller, Wilkerson said. She said that Miller had reported Reilly was good at finding the type of person an organization was interested in.

Affion’s previous work for the city of Ann Arbor included consulting on the search for the city’s park and recreation manager, as well as the park and recreation deputy manager, in 2008. Those searches resulted in the hires of Colin Smith (an internal hire) and Jeff Straw.

Affion’s direct fee would be $18,000, Wilkerson reported to the committee. That would not include the cost of site visits by the consultant or travel for interviews of candidates, she said. Asked for an estimate of those costs, Wilkerson ballparked the number at $4,500, but noted that it depended on the cost of airfares at the time. Higgins said she she found it reasonable that the overall cost would be less than $25,000.

The flat-fee structure of Affion contrasts with a percentage-of-salary level used by the Michigan Municipal League. The 10% that’s typically used by the MML would translate to $14,500-$15,000, based on the $145,000-$150,000 range that the city’s HR department is recommending for recruitment. Fraser’s base salary is $145,354.

Permanent Job: Salary

In reaching the recommended salary level to be used for advertising the job, Martonchik provided search committee members with comparable salaries of other city administrators in Michigan, as well as in other parts of the country. The city of Champaign, Ill. had just recently undertaken a similar search, and had been willing to share its research on comparable salaries, Martonchik told the committee. The committee was presented with comparable data in three different sets – Michigan cities, Big Ten cities, and midwestern cities. The Chronicle combined the sets of cities to compile the following list, sorted by base salary from low to high:

Municipality   Population   Salary

State_College_PA  42,034   $112,439
Wauwatosa_WI      46,000   $115,169
Battle_Creek_MI   53,364   $122,500
Royal_Oak_MI      60,000   $123,500
Wyoming_MI        12,000   $123,717
Middletown_OH     51,600   $125,000
Troy_MI           80,000   $133,000
Novi_MI           52,231   $133,482
Janesville_WI     61,310   $136,000
Plymouth_MN       71,930   $137,824
Southfield_MI     78,000   $137,971
Sterling_Heights 124,471   $140,207
Grand_Rapids_MI  198,000   $142,000
Ann_Arbor_MI     114,000   $145,354
Sioux_City_IA     82,684   $148,636
East_Lansing_MI   48,500   $150,000
Edina_MN          47,000   $150,000
St.Louis_Park_MN  45,000   $151,866
Farmington_Hills  82,111   $152,491
Washtenaw County           $155,000
AATA CEO                   $160,000
Hamilton_OH       63,000   $160,000
Iowa_City_IA      62,220   $160,000
Champaign_IL	  81,055   $171,440
Ames_IA           52,319   $176,199
Evanston_IL       73,874   $185,000
Dubuque_IA        57,637   $198,844

*Reflects voluntary decrease in salary of 3%. Was at $147,000.

-

Besides base salary, the committee was also presented with data on vehicle allowances, bonuses, and deferred compensation. Some kind of vehicle allowance appears standard, while bonuses are rare.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that Champaign had included Ann Arbor in its study of cities of populations from 40,000-100,000 – even though Ann Arbor’s population exceeds the parameters for the study. That was because Champaign felt that Ann Arbor was comparable for its purposes. He wondered, though, if the other cities to which Champaign compared itself were comparable for Ann Arbor’s purposes. Martonchik felt that the comparatives were appropriate.

Martonchik also shared with committee members the average compensation for Eugene, Ft. Collins and College Station: $170,000. Average salaries for deputy city managers in the western part of the U.S., he said, were $163,000 for the following cities: Berkeley, Santa Barbara, Tempe, Ft. Collins and Eugene.

Permanent Job: Public Process

At Friday’s meeting, part of the conversation focused on how the public will give the recruiter input about desired qualities of the candidate, in addition to the qualifications listed in the formal job description.

That job description is expected to be posted immediately following the council’s April 19 meeting – Higgins had reminded her colleagues at the council’s April 4 meeting that they were supposed to provide feedback on the current administrator job description by April 8. As one of the places the job should be posted, Wilkerson mentioned the job board of the Alliance for Innovation, which describes itself as “an international network of progressive governments and partners committed to transforming local government by accelerating the development and dissemination of innovations.” [.pdf of draft job description] Retired Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel is a former board member of the Alliance.

The “intangible” part of the job description is proposed to be gleaned by the consultant, likely to be Affion Public, on a visit to Ann Arbor in early May. Wilkerson suggested it’s important for a one-on-one meeting to take place between the consultant and individual councilmembers, plus between the consultant and staff members who report directly to the city administrator. In discussion with search committee members, the following groups were also identified as important to include: employees; citizens – likely via neighborhood associations; and the university, business and nonprofit community.

Interim Appointment: Goals, Conditions

At Friday morning’s meeting, committee members briefly discussed the need to define some specific goals for the interim job, so that important policy issues don’t get overlooked in the transition. Wilkerson suggested that the fire protection services study and the solid waste collection study would be useful to call out specifically. Derezinski also suggested that the implementation of budget decisions would be useful to specify as goals for the interim administrator.

Candidates for the interim job were solicited internal to the city’s organization with a simple form indicating interest. [.pdf of application form for interim city administrator]. A key condition for the interim job is expressed on the form: “Internal applicants who are planning to apply for the permanent position of City Administrator cannot be considered for the Interim role due to a potential conflict of interest.”

Current public services area administrator Sue McCormick has been widely assumed to be a logical appointment as interim and possibly as permanent administrator. But based on the condition that applicants for the permanent job cannot be considered for the interim position, if McCormick is interested in the job long-term, she won’t be able to serve as interim.

The Chronicle asked McCormick on Feb. 28, the night Fraser announced his resignation, if she’d contemplated accepting the challenge of the administrator’s job. McCormick explained that she’d not had much time to think about it – she learned of Fraser’s departure only a few hours before.

Interim Appointment: History

Historically, the city has taken a variety of approaches to appointing an interim city administrator. When Del Borgsdorf resigned in 1990, then-assistant city administrator Donald Mason was appointed on an interim basis.

But the city of Ann Arbor’s organizational structure no longer includes a deputy position – whether that’s called a “deputy,” “assistant,” or “associate.” In that regard, the transition to a new administrator will be different from the transition in 1990. It will also be different from the kind of transition the community witnessed recently for Washtenaw County. Deputy administrator Verna McDaniel was a natural possibility for the administrator position when Bob Guenzel retired, partly because she already held the deputy position. She was the only candidate that the county board of commissioners interviewed for the administrator’s job, and was promoted in May 2010.

Instead of an assistant city administrator, the city has key top-level area administrators, all of whom report to the city administrator: safety services area administrator; community services area administrator; public services area administrator; and chief financial officer.

Those positions are currently held by Barnett Jones, Sumedh Bahl, Sue McCormick and Tom Crawford, respectively. The principle of civilian oversight of police powers would likely preclude consideration of Jones as interim; however, the other three could be candidates based on their positions within the city. In his capacity as chief financial officer, Crawford could have the broadest knowledge and experience with all of the city’s departments.

But even when the city has in the past had an assistant city administrator, the person in that position has not always been tapped for the interim position, when the city administrator has resigned. When Alfred Gatta resigned in 1995, the council appointed a two-person team as interim: city clerk Winifred Northcross and Ron Olson, head of parks and recreation. The joint appointment of Northcross and Olson was made, despite the fact that the city had an assistant city administrator at the time – Ron Bauman. [.pdf of council resolutions/minutes when it appointed the last three interim administrators]

The council minutes show that the choice not to include Bauman was controversial. The motion to appoint the two-person team failed on the first try, but the motion to appoint a three-person team – Northcross, Olson and Bauman – also failed. So the council returned to its original two-person team and approved it on a 6-4 majority.

The closest parallel today to the appointment of Northcross and Olson would be city clerk Jackie Beaudry and parks and recreation manager Colin Smith.

The position of assistant city administrator eventually evolved to “associate” city administrator – Olson and Northcross then both became associate city administrators. Northcross retired, and was replaced by Susan Pollay. Pollay was subsequently appointed executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

When Neal Berlin resigned in 2001, Olson was appointed interim, supported by Pollay. In 2006, Eve Silberman, writing for the Ann Arbor Observer, described it this way: “When Berlin himself left, former parks boss Ron Olson and Downtown Development Authority director Susan Pollay held the city together until Fraser came on board in April 2002.”

It’s partly due to that experience as associate city administrator that some in the community have suggested Pollay as a candidate for the current opening.

Other names of people who have logged long-term service with the city and have some experience across more than one department include Wendy Rampson and Matt Naud. Rampson previously worked in the systems planning unit (a part of the public services area), and is now head of the planning department (a part of the community services area). Naud is environmental coordinator, and in that capacity works across different departments. Naud is also the assistant emergency manager for the city.

The council will likely hold a closed session toward the beginning of their April 19 meeting to deliberate on their choice of interim administrator, and only after that point will the name of the appointee be made public.

The interim administrator will be paid an unspecified monthly stipend in addition to their current city salary.

In addition to mayor John Hieftje, the following councilmembers will serve on the committee: Sabra Briere (Ward 1); Christopher Taylor (Ward 3); Marcia Higgins (Ward 4); Tony Derezinski (Ward 2). Higgins will chair the committee.

The committee is charged with providing a recommendation to the council at its second meeting in April for an interim city administrator. At that meeting, the committee is also expected to present a plan for a selection process for hiring a permanent administrator, which is to provide for internal as well as external candidates. Hieftje said he hoped to conclude the process by mid-summer.

This brief was filed from the boardroom in the Washtenaw County administration building, where the council is meeting due to renovations in the city hall building. A more detailed report will follow: [link]