Inspector General committee narrows applicant pool to four finalists for Palm Beach County post

The Palm Beach County Inspector General Committee voted to advance four finalists for interviews as it moves toward selecting the next inspector general.

Paul Matteoto, the county recruitment selection manager, told the committee the job posting (Jan. 9–30) drew 13 applications and that his initial review found 12 met the ordinance's stated minimum qualifications. "We received 13 applications, 12 of which I deemed as qualified against those minimum qualifications," Matteoto said, and noted the posting requested a cover letter, minimum salary expectations and a resume. He also said fewer applicants this cycle held preferred certifications such as certified inspector general credentials and CPAs than in past recruitments.

The committee debated how to narrow the list of candidates for interviews, weighing a traditional one‑at‑a‑time interview approach against a round‑robin format used in prior county hires. David Khan, the county HR director, explained the county's round‑robin approach was designed to reduce the perception that later interviewees could gain an advantage by observing earlier sessions.

After discussion and a motion to use a committee vote to cull the list, the body approved a paper‑screening process and voted to remove several applicants that the committee determined did not meet its preferred criteria. The committee then moved and approved a final set of four finalists to advance for HR verification and interviews: Kalinthia Dillard, Matthew Dove, Jim Kurdar and Anthony Zirkle Zakel. A committee member asked HR to conduct criminal background checks, confirm educational credentials and verify any certifications before interviews.

The committee scheduled the interviews for March 5 at 2:30 p.m. and agreed to a round‑robin format with suggested time controls: roughly three minutes per response and an opportunity for limited follow‑up questions. Committee members also asked HR to administratively set deadlines for candidates to complete background‑check authorizations and to collect personal and professional references.

The committee's discussion emphasized two competing evaluation priorities: adherence to the ordinance's minimum qualifications and the advertised "preferred" certifications versus a broader assessment of candidates' professional experience and fit for the inspector‑general role. Committee members noted that some preferred credentials were less common in this applicant pool and debated how heavily those preferences should weigh in deciding who to interview.

The committee will receive HR's background‑check results and verification materials in advance of the March 5 interviews, after which the committee will notify the county attorney of its selection per the ordinance and the county attorney will notify the Board of County Commissioners as required.