carter.fanning
New member
Where are the interview Notes for volunteer staff positions stored on Egnyte?
Interview Notes
- Thread starter carter.fanning
- Start date
Amanda Gibbs
SLEC Member
Is that part of the purview of SLEC? Not intending on being rude, just asking because it seems like that is a HR thing.
pmitchell361
SLEC Member
Yes, everything that involves the operations of the party falls under the purview of SLEC.
Jessi Cowart
At-Large Representative
Taking off my Staff/SLEC hat for a moment, I want to share with the group that I have 15 years experience working at an HR Outsourcing firm (plus many years of general employee management experience) so the following comments are based on my experience with employment law best practices and potential liabilities.
I agree that much, maybe even most, of the operations of the Party falls under the purview of SLEC, but I think there is a line when it comes to confidential HR matters.
I consider the interview notes on potential candidates, including reasons why we didn’t hire them, to be confidential HR information and not something that a “board of directors” would typically be privvy to for casual reading.
I know that @sberlin has 20+ years of HR experience as well, so I’m tagging her to weigh in with her thoughts on the matter as well.
I agree that much, maybe even most, of the operations of the Party falls under the purview of SLEC, but I think there is a line when it comes to confidential HR matters.
I consider the interview notes on potential candidates, including reasons why we didn’t hire them, to be confidential HR information and not something that a “board of directors” would typically be privvy to for casual reading.
I know that @sberlin has 20+ years of HR experience as well, so I’m tagging her to weigh in with her thoughts on the matter as well.
Last edited:
ericvansingel
New member
Hiring managers share notes.
They dont share notes with potential candidates, and the workforce at large. In order to have candid conversations and make the best hiring decisions a public display would pretty much make the notes worthless because they would be non substantive.
Add to the low barrier to entry to even be on SLEC and I think we can agree this is a bad idea. If we cant, thats fine but I have fundamental problem with this even being suggested as appropriate.
They dont share notes with potential candidates, and the workforce at large. In order to have candid conversations and make the best hiring decisions a public display would pretty much make the notes worthless because they would be non substantive.
Add to the low barrier to entry to even be on SLEC and I think we can agree this is a bad idea. If we cant, thats fine but I have fundamental problem with this even being suggested as appropriate.
carter.fanning
New member
Absolutely, there are very few limitations on the purview of SLEC, with the exceptions being listed in RONR or the Rules/Bylaws (and I think technically we could prohibit ourselves from doing something in the SLEC Bylaws, but we could undo that prohibition ourselves, so meh).
I agree with this statement, I normally would not want to see them, and certainly not as an attempt to second guess the hiring decision. My specific reason for wanting to see them is to exercise oversight of how staff has applied the Libertarian Party of Texas Operations Manual, Section 3.1.3., which is very solidly within the purview of this committee.
It is a great thing we are an executive committee, and not the general public. I assumed these documents were already available to this body on Egnyte, for the sake of transparency, but apparently that was quite the bold assumption. That said, you are well within your right to not release the information without an official motion being adopted by this body.
ericvansingel
New member
If the body votes to look at my notes from the last SLEC meeting am I obliged to share it?
See where I am going here?
Im not sure where the entitlement is coming from or why this is all the sudden really important. If anyone has questions about a hiring decision just ask it. This reeks of political theatre.
See where I am going here?
Im not sure where the entitlement is coming from or why this is all the sudden really important. If anyone has questions about a hiring decision just ask it. This reeks of political theatre.
carter.fanning
New member
If those notes were mandated by the policy manual, absolutely.
I would like to point out the reactions I got from everyone in this thread simply for asking where a file was on Egnyte. As a body, we absolutely have the ability, and I would argue obligation, to ensure the policy manual is followed. Call it entitlement, political theater, whatever… in reality it is our job.
Jessi Cowart
At-Large Representative
I apologize if my response came off in a way that wasn’t intended. My intent truly was to provide an HR point of view based on my experience.
That said, I do disagree with your read on the policy. While the policy says written notes will be submitted, it does not say for SLEC’s reference. My read on that is that the written notes are for the Chair/VC to reference when making the final decision.
carter.fanning
New member
The policy manual requires that “all members of the interview panel must submit interview notes for reference.” I would like to reference them to see if the interview panel reached a unanimous decision, as is required by the policy manual.
For the record, no offense was taken by your original post. You were quite kind, as usual.
sford
New member
I can see both Carter’s and Jessie’s POV on this. In any normal work environment, interview notes are only to be seen by a small group of people.
On the other side of this, there has been a history of people being appointed because of who they knew or what cliques they were in. I also know some qualified people have not even gotten an interview because they made the wrong person angry.
Because of these abuses of power (not saying this is currently happening), I had for years asked to see all the resumes of people who applied…and it wasn’t until Andrew became XD that resumes have been shared.
Personally, I would be happy to see the resumes of ALL applicants for positions, even if for some reason they aren’t granted an interview. I think this would provide a SLEC oversight in the event someone is appointed over a more qualified (at least on paper) candidate.
Saying that, I am happy to support resumes being made available to SLEC. If that doesn’t become a regular practice, then I will enthusiastically lend my voice and support to those asking for interview notes .
On the other side of this, there has been a history of people being appointed because of who they knew or what cliques they were in. I also know some qualified people have not even gotten an interview because they made the wrong person angry.
Because of these abuses of power (not saying this is currently happening), I had for years asked to see all the resumes of people who applied…and it wasn’t until Andrew became XD that resumes have been shared.
Personally, I would be happy to see the resumes of ALL applicants for positions, even if for some reason they aren’t granted an interview. I think this would provide a SLEC oversight in the event someone is appointed over a more qualified (at least on paper) candidate.
Saying that, I am happy to support resumes being made available to SLEC. If that doesn’t become a regular practice, then I will enthusiastically lend my voice and support to those asking for interview notes .
sberlin
Well-known member
Yup! I’ve been recruiting now for over 20 years and training recruiters for over half of that. Putting on my recruiter and corporate trainer hat:
It is extremely uncommon for a board of any variety to have access to specific interview notes. When it’s requested by someone on a board, it’s usually due to pending litigation or other investigation. Otherwise, the general best practice is that interview notes should be generally kept confidential otherwise it opens us up to litigation.
Ideally, you want your interviewers to be able to be as candid as possible. If it is open for potential release, we will lose valuable insight as whoever is reviewing them will write them with the public in mind.
This is included in HR information that I mentioned in an earlier SLEC conversation that has been archived.
I would vote unequivocally no to releasing interview notes.
That said – what can we do?
We can request more transparency in the process – who is interviewing and when? Who is on the interview panel? What are the JDs? What are the open positions? That kind of information would be valuable to avoid potential confusion.
However, requesting that level of detail will slow down the process. This isn’t necessarily a massive negative, but I like to ensure both sides are presented evenly. Depending on how the board goes with this process, I am happy to help walk anyone through some good tools to manage our hires.
It is extremely uncommon for a board of any variety to have access to specific interview notes. When it’s requested by someone on a board, it’s usually due to pending litigation or other investigation. Otherwise, the general best practice is that interview notes should be generally kept confidential otherwise it opens us up to litigation.
Ideally, you want your interviewers to be able to be as candid as possible. If it is open for potential release, we will lose valuable insight as whoever is reviewing them will write them with the public in mind.
This is included in HR information that I mentioned in an earlier SLEC conversation that has been archived.
I would vote unequivocally no to releasing interview notes.
That said – what can we do?
We can request more transparency in the process – who is interviewing and when? Who is on the interview panel? What are the JDs? What are the open positions? That kind of information would be valuable to avoid potential confusion.
However, requesting that level of detail will slow down the process. This isn’t necessarily a massive negative, but I like to ensure both sides are presented evenly. Depending on how the board goes with this process, I am happy to help walk anyone through some good tools to manage our hires.
Paul Darr
SLEC Member
Considering all of those who made the decision have access to this forum and could dispute if the decision was not unanimous, seeing that isn’t actually needed. From an HR perspective, distributing notes from a hiring decision is a bad idea, but I think something that might serve a purpose without creating a hostile work environment for our staff would be to announce who exactly is being interviewed prior to interviews going forward. Current policy is not clear enough in this regard.
Anastasia Wilford
Executive Director, SLEC Member
If that’s the purpose, perhaps it would be better to simply either ask who the interviewers were so you could ask them directly what their recommendation was. Or to simply ask if the interviewers came to a unanimous decision.
That is patently false. I’ll tell you now as I told SLEC for years, that the applications (and links to their resume if they provided one) are stored on Egnyte. As you can see here, and verify with timestamps of when they were uploaded, applications (and by extension resumes) have been available for SLEC for at least 8 years, which correct me if I’m wrong, if longer than Andrew has been Executive Director.
Attachments
Last edited:
Jessi Cowart
At-Large Representative
Ahh, I think I do see a problem here in the way the policy reads.
First, a bit of context – Historically, we haven’t exactly had people beating down the door for volunteer staff positions, and I think the verbiage in the Operations Manual reflects that.
Where it says that the interview panel must “unanimously agree to make an appointment,” I think that was written under the assumption that there is only one candidate applying for the position. In other words, all interviewers must agree to appoint this candidate to the position with the final approval from the Chair or VC.
I don’t think this verbiage “fits” in the scenario where we have multiple candidates. Let’s take the recent Events Director position as a real-life example. Now I obviously wasn’t the hiring manager for that role, and therefore I have not seen all of the interviewers’ written notes. But based on the informal conversations I’ve had as one of the interviewers, I believe the panel unanimously agreed that BOTH candidates were qualified and would support an appointment for either one. (In fact, I think Andrew had to press some interviewers to say which they preferred, lol.). However, I don’t think – nor would I expect – that all interviewers unanimously agreed on which candidate should get the offer. That decision ultimately goes to the Hiring Manager (and to the Chair or VC for final approval).
In the spirit of partnership and good faith governance, I can support additional transparency in the process (e.g. who the interviewers on the panel are, etc.), but I stand firm that the written interview notes themselves should remain confidential HR information.
First, a bit of context – Historically, we haven’t exactly had people beating down the door for volunteer staff positions, and I think the verbiage in the Operations Manual reflects that.
Where it says that the interview panel must “unanimously agree to make an appointment,” I think that was written under the assumption that there is only one candidate applying for the position. In other words, all interviewers must agree to appoint this candidate to the position with the final approval from the Chair or VC.
I don’t think this verbiage “fits” in the scenario where we have multiple candidates. Let’s take the recent Events Director position as a real-life example. Now I obviously wasn’t the hiring manager for that role, and therefore I have not seen all of the interviewers’ written notes. But based on the informal conversations I’ve had as one of the interviewers, I believe the panel unanimously agreed that BOTH candidates were qualified and would support an appointment for either one. (In fact, I think Andrew had to press some interviewers to say which they preferred, lol.). However, I don’t think – nor would I expect – that all interviewers unanimously agreed on which candidate should get the offer. That decision ultimately goes to the Hiring Manager (and to the Chair or VC for final approval).
In the spirit of partnership and good faith governance, I can support additional transparency in the process (e.g. who the interviewers on the panel are, etc.), but I stand firm that the written interview notes themselves should remain confidential HR information.
Attachments
Last edited:
Nathan Garza
Well-known member
I think it’s perfectly within reason to have SLEC aware of who was interviewed and was it unanimous. For example, “Interviewed: John Smith Votes: Kate Prather: No, Nathan Garza: Yes, Stephanie Berlin: Yes”
Jessi Cowart
At-Large Representative
Sorry, Nathan, I disagree with this as well.
I think it may be fair to say it was unanimous or 2-1 in favor of appointment or 1-2 against appointment, but specifying who voted which way is bad form.
I believe it was @sford who correctly stated at State Convention something along the lines of anonymous voting being “sacred.” I think this applies to staff appointments as well – especially when we often must continue working with a candidate in another capacity (such as a fellow SLEC rep, etc.).
I think it may be fair to say it was unanimous or 2-1 in favor of appointment or 1-2 against appointment, but specifying who voted which way is bad form.
I believe it was @sford who correctly stated at State Convention something along the lines of anonymous voting being “sacred.” I think this applies to staff appointments as well – especially when we often must continue working with a candidate in another capacity (such as a fellow SLEC rep, etc.).
Last edited:
sford
New member
Yes and no.
Applications are there, however, most that I saw (at a quick glance) are applications for departments. They don’t have the name of the position they are applying for in the file’s title.
There are also very few resumes that I saw in a quick glance.
So yes, the applications are there. However, transparency is still lacking in that the name of the position is not commonly listed in the file’s name. Resumes are lacking and it can easily be kept under the radar who is applying for what job and against who. That is unless someone goes digging through these applications.
I stand by my initial comment, resumes should be provided to SLEC as well as making it very clear which positions they applied for and the candidate pool. This of course also puts more responsibility on the applicate who should add a resume to their application.
Applications are there, however, most that I saw (at a quick glance) are applications for departments. They don’t have the name of the position they are applying for in the file’s title.
There are also very few resumes that I saw in a quick glance.
So yes, the applications are there. However, transparency is still lacking in that the name of the position is not commonly listed in the file’s name. Resumes are lacking and it can easily be kept under the radar who is applying for what job and against who. That is unless someone goes digging through these applications.
I stand by my initial comment, resumes should be provided to SLEC as well as making it very clear which positions they applied for and the candidate pool. This of course also puts more responsibility on the applicate who should add a resume to their application.