Search Committee for the City Auditor - Special Meeting

Okay, I'd like to call the Monday, December 1st, 2025 meeting of the special search committee for the city auditor meeting um city auditor uh to to order. The assistant clerk, please call the role. Councelor Dowitz, present. Councelor Heath, present. Councelor Heg, present. Councelor Kazinskis, present. Councelor Mack, present.

Announcement of open meeting recordings. The open meeting recording is posted over there. Does anyone see a recording other than staff? Seeing none, we'll move on to the item on our agenda, review of this otter position. Last meeting, we took quite a bit of time to go over line by or section by section of the um job description. Uh we came up with edits. Council Heaven was gracious enough to take his time to put those edits together. Um they are part of our packet and were posted as part of our packet um for tonight's meeting. Um, and our first order of business, I believe, would be to see if there's any further edits or comments related to that. I'll open the floor to that. I just have one other I just had one question and it's on line um 21 on the original one that we did. It was on line 20. Um, instead of work using the work word appraising in my notes, I had providing performance reviews of employees. Um but other than that I had found no other difference in the entire document.

Any other edits? No good caps. That was one I may I very well may have missed. So I'm glad we're looking at it. Um otherwise I I did my best to capture everything covered. um quite a bit of changes in catchy my review. So again,

I made short notes in it as well knowing that you had taken the full notes and I didn't find anything comparing the two. I went over again just to see if there was anything else caught after our discussion and I think it's been cleaned up very nicely and I appreciate everybody's comments and work on it. And thank you again for everything else. entertain a motion to accept the job description with that one edit on line current line 21 changing a phrasing to providing.

So moved second [clears throat] motion made by councelor M. Second by councelor Heath to accept the um job description as presented here with the the one edit. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. Motion carries. If there's any further comments, questions about the audition. It was posted. It is on the city's um website. Um I haven't verified it personally with the um with director Morris if it's been posted on the other post posting site she spoke about, but I'm assuming it has as well. Um but I have nothing further than that.

Just for clarification, I think it because it does have to job description. So the next um the next kind of step is that this goes to HR and the job description lives in HR. Is that correct? Just want to be sure we're all clear on the process. That would be my understanding that the parties would be this getting to HR and then the next steps would be HR getting back to us with applicants in order to begin the review of those applications. But um council he and I will try and stay on top of the next steps for that. And we did ask for all of applicants not to be not for them to be vetted. Um and then I think our just our next step would be prior to any interviewing would be come up with um specific questions during the interview process. I believe you found that was a requirement. Correct.

Yeah, it is requirement. Sounds like a plan. Anything further? I make a motion we motion by councelor May second by councelor Heglin to adjurnn. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed motion carries state. Thank you.