Greenbelt is currently accepting applications for the 21-member Reparations Commission, with a deadline of Sunday, July 31. On July 20, the Greenbelt City Council met to work out an interview process. While a clear and final approach was not reached, the solid beginnings of a plan were achieved by meeting’s end. Two of the main debates centered on individual versus group interviews and standard versus more relaxed questions. As the number of applicants and eventual members will likely exceed those for the city’s other advisory boards, council was focused on the most appropriate and efficient way to evaluate them all in a timely fashion to allow the commission to begin its work as soon as possible.
The last council motion set out the committee composition as: four members each from Greenbelt East, West and Center and nine members from the business and faith-based sectors of the city.
During most of the meeting, Mayor Emmett Jordan and Council member Rodney Roberts favored the traditional approach of individual interviews, lasting roughly 15 to 20 minutes, with more natural, open-ended questions as the most effective and thorough method.
Council members Kristen Weaver, Judith Davis, Colin Byrd and Ric Gordon gravitated more toward a small-group approach, maybe three applicants at a time in blocks of roughly 20 to 30 minutes. This would allow more interviews to be accomplished more efficiently and allow council to see how the applicants conduct themselves in a social situation, a crucial issue as the committee process will require a collaborative spirit.
Most of council agreed that the interviews should be done over a combination of Saturdays and weeknights, as opposed to the normal board interviews being done before the start of a council meeting.
A general consensus was that an opening statement, lasting no more than two minutes, be allowed each person, which would encapsulate their reasons for applying and their intentions. It was agreed that this should not be a prepared statement, but should be delivered at the interview for a more revealing presentation.
Byrd and most of council were open to virtual interviews, mindful of Covid and other health concerns.
Equity and thoroughness are major concerns regarding the questions asked of each applicant, to avoid any sense of favoritism and to achieve the best understanding of each. Weaver said that even a standard question can reveal much individual information, such as background, personal experience and skills. Byrd wanted the option to ask questions tailored to the applicant and not bound to specific queries on such a serious and sensitive subject as the committee will be deliberating. Jordan asked council to draft some potential questions to be evaluated at a later meeting.
The prospect of extending the application deadline was broached but sidelined for the moment as council preferred to see how many applications are received. So far, 11 have been submitted. Council wanted at least 25 to choose from to get the best pool of candidates. Jordan suggested a plan in which applications received by July 31 will begin the interview process, with the application deadline extended, perhaps to the end of August, and the process halted once 21 members are chosen. Council concurred.
An area of nearly total agreement was to have public viewing be virtual in order to create a comfortable environment for the applicants to share themselves. Council was clear on making these interviews transparent and open to the public.
At the meeting’s close, Davis laid out a possible interview process, based on the evening’s feedback: groups of three, a brief opening statement by each applicant, three standard questions, some clarifying questions from council and any questions from the applicant for council.
In order to get the interview process going, Jordan suggested a general agreement on procedure by council without a vote by July 31, with a start on interviews at that time. Council would make the public aware at a later meeting of their deliberations on the interview procedure.