I’m impressed with what I’ve read by and about Sean Stegall.
With Sean we have a candidate for town manager that celebrates openness, wants to make community a cornerstone of his efforts and recognizes Chapel Hill’s need for some “conflict resolution”.
He has a flexible management-style – a trust in the folk working at all levels in our government and within the community.
But, as the town manager, the work of leadership is more about tapping into and leveraging the collective energies of those who work for the community, are served by the community and who are elected to govern.
The manager must create a sense of purpose that connects people together and drives the organization to a higher level of performance. This is best accomplished by assimilation of the collective “visions” held within the organization and community.
HS
As a person that can pinch the meanest of pennies – I heartily welcome a candidate thoroughly experienced in budgetary matters.
Sean is responsible for the preparation, execution and monitoring of a budget of $277,000,000. In addition, Sean is charged with development of the five (5) year financial plans for the City’s major operating funds.
c.v.
We could definitely use more than a spritz of entreprenurial spirit
If an organization is not constantly looking to improve its processes and procedures, it is falling behind.
– and the background and desire to use technology to drive operational efficiencies.
Stegall also is developing a wireless Internet program for Elgin residents, something that interests many Chapel Hill leaders as well.
Already, Elgin employees are using a Motorola system to communicate with each other, filing reports from the field, etc.
Wireless transmitters are on all city water towers.
“Being familiar with technology that may be one of the benefits of being 33,” Stegall said. “Technology is not an end in and of itself. It should be used for other ends.”
N&O
And he understands that the relationship between manager and Council is nuanced
The old saying goes, “Council makes policy, staff implements policy.” But policy making and policy implementation are not separate and distinct functions. In reality, policy making/implementation is a continuum of thought and relationships that transform ideas, policies, goals and plans into observable outcomes or ends such as a new street project, homeless shelter or park improvement. Because of this fact, council and staff share this continuum and are partners ensuring each other’s success. Because of this partnership, there must be open and on-going dialogue among the town council and department heads. Finally, this dialogue must include all community partners whether it is media outlets or neighborhood associations.
The Chapel Hill town manager must create a sense of purpose through a shared vision and open dialogue by and between the council, staff and community.
HS
Yes, he’s young. So what? We need a candidate with vitality and a fresh perspective to help our community make the next step in its evolution. Sean’s capabilities and diversity of experience are more than comparable to our current manager’s when he was selected.
Though I’m not a big fan of his take on TIFs (tax increment financing)Â or the joy of gambling profits, I liked his current perspective on town and hope his responses are more than “window dressing”.
Good luck Sean on your interview. Remember, Chapel Hill, for all its age, is still a youthful community – expect a fair hearing.
OrangePolitics (OP) is covering Council’s (injudicious?) final sprint to hire a new manager.
OP’s Ruby Sinreich commented June 2nd on the quick narrowing of the field to a handful of white males.
Robert Peterson, June 5th, put on his tin foil hat and, I believe with some accuracy, laid out a scenario where one of the three putative candidates is a “ringer” . As he observed “What we have here, on paper at least, is a superstar. What better way to insure his getting the position than to pit him against someone mired in controversy and someone with 20 years less experience.“
This week, Council will spend 38 hours reviewing and then selecting, with minimal opportunities for direct public interaction, a new Town Manager. Unless, as Council member Mark Kleinschmidt avers “with all confidence that if there’s any doubt at the end of the week that we’re not hiring the best person for this job, we will hire no one.”
What role will Chapel Hill’s citizenry play in the evaluation of “what’s best”?
With the limited information before us; the Herald Sun’s Q&A’s of Ragan, Stancil and Sean Stegall – their bio’s ( Stegall,Ragan, Stancil) posted on the town’s manager search site – an article from the News and Observer – some Googled references – one wonders how the greater citizenry is supposed to evaluate these candidates.
They won’t have much of an opportunity this final week as 36 of the 38 hours set aside for candidate consideration are closed, closed, closed.
“The Council will move that this session be closed under North Carolina General Statute 143-318.11(a)(6).”
The Council’s actions to fill this key position with much less public discussion and involvement than other recent issues, for instance the renaming of Airport Rd. to Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., seems counter to our town’s stated desire for maximum governmental transparency. To cap the current process off by cloaking a majority of the discussion behind 143-318.11(a)(6), well, it puts the fine point to folks concerns.
The remaining two hours for public input? The Mayor will be juggling Council and public participation.
I don’t quite understand Mark K’s response to Ruby S’s rushed feeling by saying “I don’t know why you insist on calling it a runaway train” when so many of the search committee’s meetings were ill-scheduled (for reasonable public participation) or closed under 143-318.11(a)(6).
- 10am, Weds. Mar. 15th, Mar. 22nd, Mar. 29th
- 10am, Tues. Apr. 4th [CANCELLED], Apr. 11th
- 8am, Tues. Apr. 18th; Sat. Apr. 22nd (the 1st possible one for me to attend)
- CLOSED Mon. May 8th 10am ; Fri. May 19th, 2pm ;Tues. May 30th, 9am
Missing an opportunity for greater openness, the minutes of the open meetings were only available at Townhall and not published on the town’s website.
As someone that closely followed the process (as well as one can without easily accessible minutes of the search committee’s meetings), I disagree with Mark’s comment that
“The decisions regarding the development of the selection process were all held in open public meetings–I think there were at least two of those–and there was a public meeting to assist on development of a profile.”
Feb. 27th, Council discussed some exciting options like “a website with questionnaire for public comment” and a process structured so the “Community to meet with all finalists“. But, sadly, these proposed mechanisms for community outreach were subsequently discarded (the public commentary) and watered down (this week’s two-hour, Mayorally-filtered, candidate meet-n-greet).
Direct citizen commentary was limited to the regular 3 minute slot.
By the Mar. 6th meeting, OP poster and local personnel expert Anita Badrock (VP, Smithers and Associates) suggested two possible “processes” for selecting candidates. As she observed:
I recognize that we have a culture of openness in our community that the Council wants to respect, but I believe the citizens would understand and be better served by a process that would allow the best qualified candidates to confidentially explore this career opportunity to the maximum extent possible. Many of the most highly qualified applicants are probably the kind of professionals that aren’t unhappy with where they are currently, but are excited and intrigued about the possibilities and opportunities that exist in Chapel Hill. That’s the type of person that probably would not want his/her current employer to know (s)he’s looking.
As someone that’s hired their share of sensitive workers, I also recognize the need for some discretion.
Unfortunately, the concern for candidates confidentiality out-weighed public necessity and the more citizen-interactive options, factored into Process #2, were soon to be dispensed with.
As per Process #1, 30 or so folks – Council members, staff, the local political “usual suspects” (former Council members, business folk, the Chamber, etc.) – were “interviewed” to develop a candidate profile. These interviews constituted, I guess, a surrogate for the public feedback via website or a general solicitation for written/oral comments.
In another blow to timely transparency, it was only recently that the candidate profile was published.
Ruby is on to something when she remarks that the Council
has set-up this entire process without actively engaging or even encouraging the public’s input in a meaningful way (ie: before we were down to a choice between 3 straight, white, males). I’m not saying we should be sitting in on confidential meetings or anything, but it really shouldn’t surprise the Council if most Chapel Hill residents don’t even know this is going on, and rest of us are annoyed about how it’s going.
I’m concerned this is becoming a trend rather than an anomaly…
The Council was elected to make decisions. NC statute and local ordinances require minimal public participation in one of the hardest decisions a Council will make.
Only a growing Chapel Hill custom of transparency – part of what folks seriously or sarcastically call “Chapel Hill values” – obliges the Council to widen participation – to cast sunlight into the deepest shadows of the decision-making process – to reach beyond conservatively expedient approaches – in selecting a person, if recent history serves, that will have more influence on our community as any ephemeral elected Council member.
This week, to echo Ruby, the citizens of Chapel Hill will have a chance to see if Council continues a growing trend away from greater transparency and participation or if their behavior is an anomoly in their pell-mell rush to fill this key position.
Are you an early morning person? Interested in Downtown’s evolution? Like to interact with political heavy-hitters? Chapel Hill’s Downtown Partnership, a confederation of UNC, Town and business interests, is looking for two new members.
ALL CALL
The Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership has two available board positions beginning July 1, 2006.
The first is a Town of Chapel Hill appointed position. It is a three year term, running July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2009. Eligible applicants are downtown property owners that contribute to the Municipal Service District Tax. Town Council will appoint this position on June 26, 2006.
The second is a CHDP board appointed position. It is a one-year term, running July 1, 2006-June 30, 2007. Anyone can apply for this position. The Board will appoint this position in June 28, 2006.
To apply for either position – please go to http://www.chapelhilldowntownpartnership.com/ and link onto the link at the bottom of the page for the application. The application should be sent to the Town Clerk’s office ASAP.
Liz Parham
Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership
308 West Rosemary Street, Suite 202
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
(919) 967-9440 office
(919) 967-9475 fax
They’re soliciting two members though the terms of Fine, Perry and Alexander, at least based on the website are up. Also, UNC representative Suttenfield is moving on to greener pastures.
[ UPDATE: ] Via Liz Parham – UNC has appointed Steve Allred and Linda Convissor to replace Nancy Suttenfield and Roger Perry.
(more…)
