Transparency in the Executive Transition Committee
Let’s talk about transparency.
Today, September 30, 2024, marked the first meeting of the Executive Transition Committee, tasked with determining how Ottawa County will search for our next County Administrator. Most of the discussion revolved around selecting the recruitment firm for this process. Joe Moss came prepared with a list of agencies and firms he claimed to have spoken with, but he only mentioned the name of one—a small local firm that, according to Moss, comes "highly recommended." When Commissioner Belknap asked Moss if he had a second option, Moss didn’t answer the question directly. Instead, he reiterated his support for the first firm. Ultimately, the committee decided to recess until tomorrow, after the other county meetings, to invite a representative from this chosen firm to present to the board.
Here’s where I have concerns:
When only one firm is presented to the board, it gives the appearance that Moss has already made the decision. This doesn’t feel like the "best practices" Moss claims he and the board are following. I was told that the list of other agencies would be included in a packet uploaded to the county's website, but as of 5:30 pm, it was still unavailable.
This is not transparency. This is not best practice.
Part Two: A Performative Process
The way Joe Moss is handling this Executive Transition Committee feels entirely performative. If the goal of the board was to use a collaborative and transparent process to find the best recruiting agency—and ultimately, our next County Administrator—the process should have involved inviting multiple firms to present to the board. But that didn’t happen. Instead, commissioners Moss and Rhodea allegedly interviewed several agencies behind closed doors and narrowed it down to one, without giving the board much say in the matter. This became clear when Commissioner Belknap asked for Moss’s second choice, and Moss deflected by talking more about his first pick.
After the meetings, I addressed these concerns with Moss directly. Before the second meeting, I also requested the list of agencies they had considered. Moss promised to email it over, but 36 hours later, I’ve received nothing. When I pressed him on why other firms weren’t discussed publicly, he claimed that "legal reasons" prevented them from discussing the rejected agencies—a poor excuse. This is a clear example of Moss justifying his failure to put out a proper request for proposal (RFP), something we would do for any other contracted county service.
If we were truly following best practices, the process would have looked something like this:
Utilize the county’s HR department and Purchasing to issue the RFPs.
Make all recruiting firms publicly available before the meeting so the community can weigh in.
Discuss all options during the meeting and narrow them down.
(Optional) Invite the final 2 or 3 candidates to present their proposals to the board.
Discuss the reasons for the final decision in a public forum.
Vote.
This is how transparency works. All decisions, and the reasoning behind them, should be accessible to the public. Would this approach take more time? A little, but not much more than the performative show we saw today. A couple of additional presentations and a thoughtful discussion would add maybe an hour to the process—an hour well worth it, especially given the current lack of trust in our county’s leadership. See this article for more on the lack of trust.
The Problem with Recessing Meetings
Another transparency issue is how the committee has recessed all three of its meetings instead of properly closing them. This tactic conveniently prevents the public from commenting after the committee has done any actual work. If they had properly adjourned each meeting, there would have been five additional opportunities for public input. Instead, they accepted public comments only after turning off the recording, which makes it seem like they’re open to feedback while ensuring those comments don’t become part of the public record. Public comments on record hold the board accountable. It ensures they can’t ignore community concerns and claim ignorance later on.
For example, after the first meeting, I asked them to provide evidence of the municipal or governmental experience of their chosen recruitment firm. They nodded and said they’d address it in the next meeting—but they didn’t. Had the meeting been opened and closed properly, I could have raised this during public comment, and the firm might have been able to answer. Or, at the very least, it would have reminded the board to ask.
Intentionality Matters
This kind of intentionality is what I plan to bring to the board. No more performative nonsense. When we say we’re committed to transparency, it should mean something. It should be reflected in our processes, our decisions, and our communication with the public. The people of Ottawa County deserve nothing less.
These are just my perspectives through the lens of transparency. For more information feel free to watch the meetings 1, 2 or 3, or take a look at this article or look at what other commissioners and candidates have said about this. Thank you for reading!
