HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.k. Recommendation for Hiring of Programmer ' CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
' � EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 3, 1995
AGENDA ITEM: Recommendation for the hiring of Programmer. AGENDA SECTION:
Consent
PREPARED BY: Jim Topitzhofer, Parks and Recreation Director. AGENDA
��'EM # �+ 1�
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum APPROVED B •
/ �
The Selection Committee for the hiring of Programmer has completed a thorough selection process and
recommends Dan Schultz for the position. After interviewing eight candidates, the Selection Committee
chose Dan Schultz based upon his exceptional overall qualifications.
Dan currently serves as Recreation Specialist with Apple Valley Parks and Recreation. In this position, he
has demonstrated strong organizational and programming skills as well enthusiasm to create new programs
and strengthen existing programs. Dan accepted the offer at a salary of$26,500, which falls in the
approved salary range for this position. Dan will begin his position on January 9, 1995.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to hire Dan Schultz as Programmer with a starting date'of
January 9, 1995, subject to a successful pre-emplayment physical and driver's license check.
COUNCIL ACTION:
1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 29, 1994
TO: Mayor McMenomy
Councilmembers Anderson, Wippermann, Staats, Busho
FROM: Susan Walsh, Administrative Assistant
SUBJ: Selection of Programmer
The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you of the process used for selecting the
finalist for the programmer position and the basis for staff's recommendation to the City
Council for hiring.
From the advertisement in the "Minneapolis Tribune", fumishing of job posting to
metropolitan area cities and publication of the vacancy in the parks and recreation
professional journal, the City received approximately 70 applications and resumes. In
order to evaluate the applicants, a rating system was devised and used in scoring all the
applications. Applicants must meet the minimum requirements as listed in the
programmer job description; and if so, an applicant received a score of 70 points. Then
those applications are evaluated on other qualifications and criteria we established and
can reach a maximum of 100 points.
List Jost and I reviewed and scored the applications. We decided to interview
candidates who had a score of 82 and better. This initial ranking provided us with 8
candidates to interview.
The �rst interviews of the eight candidates were held on December 12, 1994. Prior to
the interview List Jost and I put together 14 questions for each of the candidates. Jim
Topitzhofer, List Jost and myself were the interview team. Each candidate was asked
the 14 prepared questions, and their answers to the questions were rated from l to S
with 5 as the highest score. At the completion of the first round of interuiews, the
interview team selected three candidates for second interviews. Based on an average of
of scores by Ms. Jost, Mr. Topitzhofer and myself, their scores were 55.33, 68 and 57.33.
Besides the oral interviews, candidates were given 30 minutes to complete written
questions.
Second interviews were held on December 14, 1994. The interview team consisted of'
Lisa Jost and Jim Topitzhofer. I was scheduled to be involved in the second interviews
but at the last moment, it was necessary €or me to meet with the City's legal counsel on
another matter.
Five prepared'questions were asked of the three candidates. Rather than ranking each
�
,s�
of their answers on a scale of 1 to 5, overall rankings were made by Ms. Jost and Mr.
Topitzhofer at the conclusion of the three interviews. Candidates were scored on
qual�cations and criteria such as professionalism, stability, experience, and answers to
the written questions provided at the first interview. The cumulative scores for the three
candidates were 38, 28.5 and 29.5.
Below is listed a summary of the scores for the three candidates. The scores for
selecting the candidates for interviews were not used in the below-listed scores. The
initial application ranking is never considered in the final scoring. All interview
candidates are considered equal when invited for interviews.
Candidate 1 Candidate 2 Candidate 3
First Interview Scores: 55.33 68 57.33
Second Interview Scores: 28.50 38 29.50
Total Scores 83.83 106 86.83
Based upon these scores, candidate 2 was offered the job subject to City Council
approval.
If you have any questions regarding this process, please feel free to contact me.