Navigating Complex Recruiting Environments – The Case of Quasi
Public Institutions and the Open Meeting Law
Scott Esposito, Managing Director, Horton International
In late 2011, Horton International successfully concluded a C-level search for a State
quasi-public institution. During the search, Horton International worked closely with its
quasi-public client to adapt the recruiting process to accommodate the state government’s
Open Meeting Law. This legislative provision required that the institution’s business be
aired and conducted in a public setting where stakeholders could provide input to the
process. This level of transparency, while serving the public interest, presented a number
of challenges to both the institution and our firm. The following summary highlights the
modifications and steps taken to ensure compliance with the law while selecting the best
talent for this important role.
Formal roles and responsibilities
A close partnership is critical for any successful recruiting project; however, the addition
of the Open Meeting Law required that the client’s Governing Committee and the various
sub-committees clearly establish specific responsibilities to support the process. As it
pertained to this case, there were essentially six major players participating in the search
project, the Governing Committee, responsible for managing the institution’s business in
a fiduciary capacity; the Personnel Committee, responsible for final screening of
candidates and presentation to the full the Governing Committee; the assigned outside
counsel, responsible for ensuring the process was compliant and properly documented;
the Preliminary Selection Committee, responsible for the initial screening and
interviewing of candidates; and the search firm, responsible for executing the recruiting
project with direct accountability to the Preliminary Selection Committee.
Ensuring process compliance
The Preliminary Selection Committee worked under an exemption to the Open Meeting
Law which provided for the “preliminary screening of candidates” These private
meetings or executive sessions are described in greater detail below:
“A preliminary screening committee can consider and interview applicants if the chair
declares that an open meeting will have a detrimental effect in obtaining qualified
applicants; provided, however, that this clause shall not apply to any meeting, including
meetings of a preliminary screening committee, to consider and interview applicants who
have passed a prior preliminary screening. This approach permits a hiring subcommittee
of a public body or a preliminary screening committee to conduct the initial screening
process in executive session. This Purpose does not apply to any stage in the hiring
process after the screening committee or subcommittee votes to recommend a candidate
or candidates to its parent body. At the time that the executive session is proposed and
1
voted on, the chair must state on the record that having the discussion in an open session
will be detrimental to the public body's ability to attract qualified applicants for the
position. If the public body opts to convene a preliminary screening committee, the
committee must contain fewer than a quorum of the members of the parent public body.
The committee may also contain members who are not members of the parent public
body”.
The common denominator throughout the recruiting project was “transparency”. In
addition to original research, the position was broadly communicated through national
job postings, the client’s web site, meeting records and social media. Outside counsel
served as the conduit from the executive recruiter to the Preliminary Selection
Committee, properly structuring and documenting all meetings and passing through the
preliminary candidate slates. Search updates and other progress reports were formally
presented to the Governing Committee at agreed upon intervals. All outside
communications regarding the retained search project and employment inquiries were
directed to the executive recruiter.
Educating Candidates
All potential candidates either applying directly to or solicited for the position were
briefed on the structure of the project. It was described as a gated process with the loss of
anonymity after advancing past the Preliminary Selection Committee stage. This message
was reinforced by the executive recruiter at the time of the initial interview and
assessment, and by outside counsel at the time interviews were conducted by the
Preliminary Selection Committee. Those selected for final interviews faced the full
Personnel and Governing Committees in a public setting where qualifications and
suitability for the position were openly debated. One interested aspect of managing the
candidate pool was the incorporation of internal candidates. These officers had the ability
to learn the identities of outside candidates once the cloak of anonymity was removed and
also had the option of attending final interviews with the public at-large.
Documenting activity
The need to create an end-to-end paper trail was especially important with this search
given the constraints of the Open Meeting Law and the right of regulators and the State
Attorney General to audit and review the process for compliance. In addition to the
normal documentation and search updates provided to clients, the executive recruiter
collected and provided detailed metrics to ensure thoroughness and quality of execution
at each step. Under normal conditions, the executive recruiter would share and discuss
only those candidates who met the position requirements and standards. For this project,
a process was established to share with the Preliminary Selection Committee, the
backgrounds of candidates who formally posted for the position, but who were identified
as “not qualified”. This extra step provided assurance that full consideration was given to
those who self-nominated for the position.
2
Making a final selection
In total, more than 20 potential candidates were interviewed by the executive recruiter. A
slate consisting of eight candidates was recommended to the Preliminary Selection
Committee. Seven of these candidates were interviewed by the Preliminary Selection
Committee over two executive sessions, with one candidate withdrawing from the
process. Three finalists were selected from the original seven and passed along to the
Personnel Committee. In a special joint session of the Personnel Committee and the
Governing Committee, the three candidates were interviewed in a public forum. The
finalist was selected in a continuation of the session one week later. Despite a number of
modifications to the standard executive recruiting process, this search was successfully
completed in less than 100 days.
3