Report of the Executive Director Search Team
December 16, 2006
Page 1
Bernard R. Berson, P.E., L.S., P.P
8 Elm Court
Perrineville, NJ08535-1103
Tel: (732) 786-8094
Fax: (732) 786-0222
Email:
Website: bbpelsonline.com
December 16, 2006
Robert S. Miller III, P.E., F.NSPE
President, NSPE
MSA
5033 Rouse Dr.
Virginia Beach, VA 23462-3708
Re:Report of the Executive Director Search Team
Dear President Miller:
Subsequent to your direction to me on October 2, 2006 to serve as Chairman of the Executive Director Search Team (EDST), I began a recruitment process for team members who would be representative of different sectors of the Society. By October 9, 2006, the team had been assembled. The people who agreed to serve in the critical task of seeking our next Executive Director were:
- Bradley Aldrich, PE, Chairman of the Implementation Task Force, and formerly Member of the Future Directions Task Force
- Kathryn Gray, P.E, F.NSPE, F.NSPE, Immediate Past President
- Michael Hardy, P.E., Director, Western & Pacific Region
- Edward Racila, P.E., F.NSPE, Director, Membership at large
- Trish Smith, CAE, Executive Director Texas Society of Professional Engineers
- Nancy Schroff, CAE, NSPE Director of Human Resources (Staff Liaison and Advisor).
The team was in agreement that the minimum requirements for the position would include a proven track record of association management, and that the successful candidate would be a Certified Association Executive, as recognized by the Association of Association Executives (ASAE). If an applicant had a P.E. license, it would be considered an additional benefit.
On October 13, 2006, Ms. Shroff placed advertisements on the websites of ASAE, CEO Update, Washington Post, and on the NSPE Job Board. The ad was also published on October 19 in the print version of CEO Update. A total of 29 resumes were submitted. All were transmitted electronically to team members on October 27 and October 30.
Team members were furnished with grading sheets covering the categories of knowledge, skill and experience. Team members independently scored all 29 candidates, and submitted their scores to Ms. Schroff, who compiled them and sent the compilation back to team members.
A telephone conference was held on November 1, 2006. All team members participated. During the conference, participants verified their scoring data, following which the 7 independent scores were totaled, and the candidates were ranked by score. Initially it was thought that 7 candidates would be selected for interviews, but it was noted that the scores of candidates 7, 8 and 9 were in a tight cluster, resulting in the decision to interview 9 candidates.
Ms. Shroff, who arranged a tight schedule for conducting them, notified candidates selected for interviews. The team assembled at the Hampton Inn in Alexandria on November 14, 2006.
On November 15, 2006, the team conducted five interviews of 90-minute duration, with 15-minute breaks between them. The team worked form 8;00 AM to 6:30 PM. The candidates were all given a nearly identical introduction by the chairman, and then the members asked questions that were scripted so that the candidates were all on a level playing field. Seven of the questions were created from the principles articulated in the publication Seven Measures of Success – What Remarkable Associations Do That Others Don’t, published by ASAE and the Center for Association Leadership. Generally there was about a 15-minute period near the end of each interview for interaction.
On November 16, 2006, the team conducted 4 interviews following the same pattern. The interviews commended at 6:45 AM, and ran to 2:30 PM. The team then met from 2:30 pm to 4:00 PM to select the short list for another round of interviews. Three candidates were selected for the short list. The team also decided to ask the returning candidates to make a presentation on a topic to be given to them in advance, as though they were presenting to the Board of directors. That would be followed by questions tailored for each of them as individuals, unlike the first round.
Team members were instructed to create lists of strengths and areas of concern for each of the three candidates based upon their interviews and upon written answers to other questions that had been sent to them before the first set of interviews. They did so, and sent them in to Ms. Schroff, who compiled them into spreadsheet format by topic. This phase was accomplished by November 26, 2006.
Also, on November 20, 2006, Ms. Schroff and Mr. Berson had a telephone conference with Jim DeLizia, the consultant engaged to aid NSPE to move forward into the state-centric/member-centric mode of operation. Mr. DeLizia reviewed or progress to that point, and helped us to develop the topic to be sent to each candidate for the mock proposal exercise. It was decided to ask for a presentation about setting a membership growth target, and describing how to seek it over a time span set by the presenter. Ms. Schroff collected historical membership data and various membership recruitment materials that she sent to each candidate with instructions about preparation of the desired presentation.
On December 10, 2005, the EDST convened at the Embassy Sites hotel in Alexandria. We met in the afternoon to discuss the procedures to be followed the next day. We developed questions from the strengths and concerns lists for each candidate and orchestrated a sequence of questioning by various members of the group. We also reviewed references obtained by Ms. Schroff for the three candidates. The team also spent time coming up with some recommendations regarding the engagement of the successful candidate. They are at the bottom of this report.
Interviews were held on December 11, 2006. President Miller was in attendance as an observer, and was also asked to participate in questions at his discretion. The interviews were each 2 hours long, with 15-minute breaks. We interviewed form 7:45 AM to 2:15 PM. After the interviews were completed, the EDST deliberated intensely until reaching a final determination as to the best candidate. That was Lawrence A. Jacobson, the incumbent Executive Director of MathCounts.
Following the selection, the following activity associated with making an official offer and negotiating the terms of engagement were handed off to President Miller.
It should be noted that the EDST was aided and guided by the tireless efforts of ms. Schroff. Her many years of experience and attention to detail allowed the work of the team to proceed very smoothly.
RECOMMENDATIONS
- The EDST recommends that the agreement indicating terms of engagement should not be based upon the existing NSPE template, but that a competent labor attorney outside of NSPE should construct it. It was also recommended that the beginning point for the agreement construction should be one or more models available from ASAE
- The EDST recommends that the employment agreement should make provisions for certain goals and objectives, with metrics for success to be reviewed on an annual basis. It is recognized that the goals may be modified, expanded or reduced from year to year, and may need to be managed by annual contract amendments.
Respectfully submitted,
Bernard R. Berson, PE, LS, FNSPE
Chairman, EDST