 on. Dave, we're good to go. Right. We're all set. Thank you, Dave. Good morning. Today is Thursday, December 28th, 2023. Our last IEB subcommittee committee, IEB screening committee meeting of the year. And it is meeting number seven. And I'll get started by calling the meeting to order. And because we are conducting the meeting virtually, I'll do a roll call. Commissioner Hill. I am here. Good morning, Dave Muldrew. And we have our guest, Nina McCarrius, from the law firm of Anderson and Krieger. And Autumn Borelli, I keep doing that to you, Autumn. I'm sorry. Who is taking minutes for us today? And so we will get started. Item number two, we are going to postpone until the end of the meeting. So we'll put that aside for just a little bit. And, Nina, if you're ready, we'll move into item number three, review of the interview process. Just to set the stage a little bit, we have, I count 13 interviews set up, Dave. Annie is very helpful in that regard. She's been getting these on our schedules. 13 candidates, we've identified as interviewees thus far. We do have three additional resumes that came in in the past week or so. The posting is now been taken down, I understand. So I don't expect that we will receive any additional resumes. I think we'll cross that bridge when we get there in terms of how to review them, should we? But I think for now, we can move on to the next phase of this process and actually start the interviews. So we do have the three additional candidates that we have to review. And I do anticipate that we will consider moving into executive session to review those resumes later on in the meeting. But 13 so far, I think that is a good number to start in terms of screening these candidates for review by the full commission. So, Nina, I will turn it to you. Yeah, so Commissioner Skinner and Dave and Commissioner Hilders, the interviews are, like other aspects of this, somewhat flexible and up to this group. The interviews will happen in executive session since these are preliminary screening interviews. And so the names of the, an identity of the individuals being screened would not be revealed. The only legal requirement, again, is simply to come out of the interviews with at least two finals. So it could be more than two. To recommend for interview by the full commission, for, excuse me, for review by the full commission through interview or otherwise. And that's when those names become public. Of course, after going through the interviews, if you decide none of the candidates would make a good fit, you don't have to recommend any, you can keep going in the screening process. But if there are viable candidates you want to forward, that's how that would proceed. For each individual interview, my suggestion would be that you spend, you know, you schedule a little bit of time, maybe 10, 15 minutes at most, before the interview to make sure in executive session there aren't specific, applicant specific issues that you want to address in that interview, so that you can ask those questions. Otherwise, I think the, the set of questions or set of topics would be the general set that I believe Mr. Mulder already circulated in, before and was discussed in the last open session. And I think the only other piece to, to mention is that the interviews do happen in a scheduled meeting of the IB. So you'll see, I think we already started to receive a bunch of calendar invites. That's, you should open the meeting in, in open session, you can go into executive session just for the same reason that you've been going into executive session for screening. There should be someone there to take minutes. The minutes for an interview are obviously a little bit different than your typical because there's sort of only one topic and a little bit of a different feel than a deliberation that would typically happen. And then you would close out and, you know, the interview and move on. If you need to schedule multiple interviews on in the same meeting, that's entirely acceptable. I would suggest working with Dave Sousa or somebody else who's got the technical ability to make sure that the person being interviewed is invited in at the right time and, you know, and then once the interview is over, the next person can be invited in and so on. And that's the typical way that we've seen that done. Okay. I have a question for you, Mina, just on making public the names of the candidates, I understand there is no need to do that for purposes of the screening committee's work. However, we have chosen to review preliminarily all of the applicants blindly, anonymously. And so, as it stands right now, the committee doesn't even have the names of those candidates. At what point between now and the start of interviews on Tuesday, will we be able to tame the names, you know, and an unredacted copy of the resumes? So that's entirely up to you. If you recall that that part of the process was a decision of the this subcommittee made. It's not something you had to do. You don't have to reveal the names and that's more for the protection of the the identity of the people being interviewed, you know, that's that's part of the reason under the open meeting law. What I would suggest is prior to each interview, you can decide how much time in advance you need it. Somebody on the HR staff circulate the unredacted resumes to the members of the screening committee. Okay. Yes, Commissioner Hill. I had that very same question that you just asked. And now that we have an answer to it, I would recommend to the committee that once an interview has been set up by HR, that we should then receive a redacted unredacted resume for that person. The quicker, the better. Agree. And I was actually going to I was going to suggest that, but I was going to go a step further. We've identified the candidates, but for the three that we will be reviewing, hopefully an executive session later today, that we would like to move forward with interviews. And I think that those 13 candidates, I think that we can have HR through Annie circulate all 13 of those unredacted resumes to the committee. In other words, I don't see a reason why we couldn't get those now. The HR division again through Annie is in the process of scheduling those. So I would request and I've been in touch with Annie directly. And so I can make this request of her that she just send us the unredacted copies of those resumes at some point this week before prior to Tuesday's the beginning of Tuesday's interviews. Chief Muldrew, are you okay with that? I have no problem. I'm sure. Okay. Mina, do we need to make a motion for that? Or are we all set on consensus? No, that consensus direction is sufficient here. So as Mina pointed out, the interviews will happen in executive session. No need to identify the candidates we are interviewing publicly at this point. But I do think that when Mina correct me if I'm wrong, I think you said that if and when from the interview process that the screening committee is undertaking, we advance at least two names for the full commission to review. It's at that point that those candidates would need to be identified publicly. Correct. Okay. So we have, I'm sorry, Chief Muldrew, just one second. We have, I don't think, built into the timing of these interviews, sort of a time to give the candidates an overview of the process that the commission is undertaking for identifying the IEB director. So that is the screening committee. And then just really communicating the fact that the candidates will need to go through a public interview process. How do you suggest we tackle that during the interview? Just in terms of setting the stage and explaining to the candidate how this process will work and really just informing them that this is going to be a public process. And identify, engaging their interest in continuing on with that process or even beginning that process for these interviews. I think that can be shared during the interview itself, including as a question. If you're selected, I think usually a lot of interviews will end with a sort of the, first of all, you'll probably give them a chance to ask you any questions. But the way I've often seen interviews conclude, and Mr. Muldrew might have some additional, I will have more experience than any of us with it, would be to sort of explain the next steps. And I think that's a good time to explain, you know, just so it's clear, whether you do that at the beginning or at the end, it's clear because the commission is a public body under Massachusetts law. If the person's advanced as a finalist, their name would be made public. And to the extent that commission decides to hold interviews next, which is likely will and should, that interviews themselves will be in a public meeting. And you can ask for the level of comfort with that or any, you know, any reaction to that. Okay. It may actually just as a as a sort of helpful point to it, depending on the candidate, it may cause them to not only answer about their comfort with it, but may may cause them to share some of their experience in dealing with public processes and public meetings. So for instance, they may point out that, you know, they've had to speak at public meetings quite often and they're used to it, et cetera. So, okay, I'll give you some more. Chief Maltrew. Sorry to cut you off, Mina. Sorry. Chief Maltrew, I know you wanted to weigh in, perhaps on an earlier point, but on this point here that Mina just made, do you have anything to offer? Yes. Yes, Madam Chair, commissioners. I think the earlier we can get this, this first of all, I agree. I believe that when we meet with each of the candidates for an interview, we introduce ourselves and we also explain the interview process as we move forward. And then we can go into our questions. It's critical because I do believe with 13 folks, we may have one or two that self-select themselves out for whatever reason. And it's only fair before we start asking questions that they know exactly what the process is and what in the event they make it to that particular level, what's expected of them. So that would be, I have no problem saying that I would think that would be, that's fair and it's transparent. And they would certainly know that, okay, I'm interviewing. My name is going to be public and in the event I'm interviewed and make the final trip, I will be interviewed publicly. And I think that's fair. Chief Maltrew, I'm going to challenge your position just a little bit. I, you know, I'm on the, we're on the same page. I just think the order of that communication, I have a different opinion about. I think that the ending of the interview is better suited for that discussion when we are, as Meena said, talking about next steps and expectations around timing. I would hate to have a candidate freeze up or be preoccupied with thinking about, you know, sort of that public process and not give a good interview. And I don't know that, you know, I don't know how likely that will be. But I would prefer that the focus at the initial part of the interview be on the candidate themselves and eliciting, you know, whatever information they have to offer us in response to our questions. Without bogging the interview down or sort of setting the tone or starting off with process right from the beginning, because I think that that may detract from the performance of the candidate. I just, I want to just be mindful of that. Commissioner Hill? Yeah. Okay, sounds good. I have a different view. That's okay. Yeah. Yeah. Do you want to, do you want to say more about your interview? Well, yeah, I do because we're, it segues into something else, but we're talking about only having two people referred to the minimum. And the sooner we can identify those folks who are 100% on board through the entire process, this is my recommendation. The better we will be that we're going to have a finite number to, I have an issue with two. I think we should say three. I just tend to think issues come up that self select folks out. And the quicker we can get to that, albeit whether they're good or not, it's going to come to a, I'd rather have it happen now than go through a process and have someone say, you know, I'm sorry, but I just thought it wouldn't be this tough, but I can't do it and have someone just be a lot of it right before an interview. So that's really where I'm coming from. It's not a deal breaker. I have no problem doing it as you recommended, as commissioner recommends, but that's where I'm coming from. Okay. I just, I don't want, you know, I don't want, I want to be fair here. Just, I want to give the candidate an opportunity to fully consider that public process. And I don't know, I don't think that they will have the opportunity to do that going into the interview with that, with that information, right? I mean, I think it's, it's, it's, it's reasonable to allow after the interview, you know, them to consider because we may not invite them for a second interview, right? And so having that be a deterrent before we, we, we can, we fully consider the candidate, I don't think is the right way to go. And again, I do think that it, it's reasonable to afford that candidate some time to think about, I mean, hearing for the first time that the interview process will be public, that might not mean a whole lot to a candidate right from the beginning. So I think it, it would behoove us to allow that candidate some time to fully consider what that might mean. And to decide whether that's something they would like to continue on with, should they be invited to. So, okay, so, so good. I'm glad it's not a deal breaker for you. I think the way to go is definitely to have that conversation at the end of the meeting. One of the other questions that I had, first let me open it up to the two of you, Commissioner Hill and Chief Maltry, if you have any questions as to what Meena laid out in terms of the interview process. I know, I do not. Good to go. Okay, good to go. All right. Okay, so we're built in, I think we have built in the 15 minutes before and actually 15 minutes after the interview to, to have discussion about the candidate, any, any candidate specific inquiries that we might want to make beyond those core questions that have been developed by HR before, but then after to just really evaluate the candidate interview and their, and their qualifications for the IAB director role. I think Autumn, Autumn, I, I, I hope that you are looped into the, the interview schedule. If not, I will ensure that you are and if there are any conflicts, just please let us know right away so that we can arrange for substitute coverage for minute taking purposes. Dave Maltry, one of the things that you said to two finalists, I'm not going into this process and I'd love to hear from the two of you. I'm not going into this process with a, with a set number in mind in terms of how many finalists and you're going to advance forward, right? That's great. I understand that there's a minimum. Great. I see you both nodding. Dave Chalk chiming in. Good. I, I, the minimum is, is two, but you know, we could have four, five or six as far as I'm concerned. I'm not, I'm not, you know, predetermining the number aside from that minimum number. All right. Mina, anything else that we should address in this public session relative to the interview process? I don't think we need to know. I think that that's okay. Of course that. Okay. Commissioner Hill and Chief Muldrum, I'm going to turn it back to you. This is our, our last meeting before we start the interviews on Tuesday. So if there's anything else that we need clarified for the interviews now is the time. Mr. Skinner, let me actually just ask one personal question was just confirming that the plan has not changed that you don't expect to have council in the interview. Autumn will be there to take minutes, but that you don't need someone from our team. I think that's right. I think we had determined at the last meeting, Commissioner Hill, right, that we were, we would not, with agreement by Chief Muldrum, that we would not be needing council to attend these interviews. And I think, I think you are okay with that. Right. I'm absolutely okay with that. Yes, that's kind of standard. Okay. That's completely fine. I'll be a phone call away if you need me. Perfect. I know Dave has been through numerous interviews and I think if he sees us going down a road, he'll recognize it and throw up a red flag at us. Absolutely. And probably vice versa. So I think we'll, we'll get things correct. Okay. All right. Thank you, Attorney Macarius. Are we good to move into, go back to item number two, meeting minutes. Yeah. All right. We have meeting minutes from December 20th, 2023. Thank you, Autumn. Do I have a motion? Madam Chair, I move that the committee for the hiring of the Director of the Investigation and Enforcement Bureau approve the meeting minutes from the December 20th, 2023 meeting that are included in our packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Back in the motion. Thank you. Okay. I'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Chief Mildrew. Aye. And I am also an aye. Thank you. That covers the December 20th meeting minutes of the IAB Director Screening Committee. I mentioned earlier in the meeting, we also, sorry, I should say we also have executive session minutes to review and take a vote on an executive session. We anticipate doing that. I also mentioned the need for an executive session to review the three resumes that we received the last week for the IAB Director position. And so I will read into the record. The first of two declarations relative to executive session. The committee anticipates that it will meet an executive session in accordance with General Law Chapter 30A, Section 21A8, in conjunction with the initial screening process to consider specific applicants for Director of the Investigations and Enforcement Bureau as the chair has declared, and I do, that an open meeting will have a detrimental effect on obtaining qualified applicants for the position. The committee does not anticipate returning to the public session at the conclusion of the executive session. Do I have a motion? Madam Chair, I move that we move into executive sessions for the reasons stated by the chair and that we would not come back into a public session for the reasons stated by the chair. Thank you for the motion. Thank you. I'll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Chief Mildred? Aye. And I'm also an aye. That was item 4A on our agenda. 4B deals with the December 20th executive session meeting minutes, and I'll read this statement into the record, this declaration. The committee anticipates that it will meet an executive session in accordance with General Laws Chapter 38, Section 21A7, to review minutes from previous executive sessions as their discussion and an open meeting may frustrate the intended purpose for which the executive sessions were convened. The committee does not anticipate reconvening in public session at the conclusion of the executive session. Do I have a motion? Madam Chair, I move that we go into executive sessions for the reasons stated by the chair and that we will not come back into a public session. I can do the motion. Thank you. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Chief Mildred? Aye. And I am also an aye. Any other business that we have to take care of today before we conclude this public session? No? Okay. Thank you everyone. And just once again, this committee does not intend to return to the public session at the