Laserfiche WebLink
evaluations and indicated her support for a public session. She suggested that a facilitator, if <br />selected, could conduct individual interviews with councilors. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar indicated tentative support for the motion but said he would like the professional <br />advice of the facilitator on the subject. Mr. Meisner said that the motion would help determine <br />the facilitator's role. He did not want a consultant to decide if the council prepared individual <br />written evaluations. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that it was difficult to discuss the motion out of context with other decisions <br />related to the evaluation, such as whether a facilitator would be hired. She was concerned about <br />the cost of the process and the possibility that there would be several layers to the process. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner did not favor individual consultant interviews with councilors because of the time it <br />would add to the process, and said he would accept a friendly amendment that written <br />evaluations would be done in lieu of individual interviews. Ms. Swanson Gribskov indicated her <br />opposition to such an amendment. She suggested that the council address the questions <br />sequentially and discuss the kind of process it really preferred. She said that she would like <br />some help in the process from a professional. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said that he wanted to fill out a written evaluation. He believed it should be based upon <br />the council's previous evaluation of the manager. He thought interviews by a facilitator would be <br />essential to the process, and the written evaluations would assist the facilitator with the interview <br />process. <br /> <br /> Roll call; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> 2, Do we want to use a facilitator for the evaluation? <br /> <br />Mr. Farr spoke in favor of a trained facilitator to help the council get through many details in a <br />short time. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar said that the decision about the manager's tenure was the most important that the <br />council had the opportunity to make. In this case, he favored the use of a third-party facilitator to <br />implement the evaluation process. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that she would follow the recommendation of Mr. Farr and Mr. Tollenaar, but <br />wanted more influence over the choice of facilitator and the cost of the facilitator. She said that <br />the organization often seemed to use professional consultants without oversight by the council as <br />to cost and choice of the facilitator. Mr. Meisner concurred, adding that there was a difference <br />between a process facilitator and a trained professional evaluation specialist. If the council <br />decided on the latter, it should be clear about that fact. He added that it might take more time <br />than the council envisioned to hire such an individual. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee stressed the need for council control of the process. He said that the council should <br />decide on the questions and the process created. The process should satisfy all eight councilors <br />and the mayor. He said that the council should be responsible for contracting for the service, <br />and indicated a desire for more discussion of that process if the council chose a facilitator. Mr. <br />Farr agreed. He said that the council could hire a consultant directly. Mr. Farr suggested that the <br />council employ a Request for Proposals process using the City's current list of contractors and <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1998 Page 2 <br />6:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />