Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman asked to have a primer on the tracking system the auditor’s office used. She added her <br />commendation for Ms. Beamud’s good work and thanked her. She had been pleased with the feedback and <br />approved of the goals set for next year. She felt Ms. Beamud had skillfully navigated issues. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked Ms. Holmes how the City handled step increases. She noted that Ms. Beamud’s hire <br />date had been October, 2006. Ms. Holmes replied that the City tried to issue merit raises based on the hire <br />date but was behind. She indicated that Ms. Beamud would receive any pay increase retroactive to her one- <br />year anniversary. She said a one-step increase was typical of a ‘meets expectations’ rating. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor echoed the positive comments that had been expressed. He averred that Ms. Beamud had “really <br />stepped in” and taken charge. He had been impressed by her accessibility, noting he was able to call her and <br />get questions answered anytime. He observed that the CRB had not given Ms. Beamud any “bad marks.” <br />Regarding compensation, he supported adhering to the step system consistent with the rest of the City. He <br />acknowledged that it had been more than a year but said he was mollified by having the step increase be <br />retroactive. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she did not fill out an evaluation form because she did not know enough about the auditor’s <br />work to evaluate her. She requested quarterly reports. She wanted to know what complaints were submitted <br />and which ones the office refused to address. Ms. Beamud reiterated her commitment to provide reports at <br />regular intervals. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka acknowledged the “tough job” Ms. Beamud had undertaken. He had also found her to be <br />highly accessible; all of his questions had been answered as well. He had been impressed by the CRB’s <br />comments. He concurred with the request to have reports from the Police Auditor’s office every other <br />month. He believed that monthly reports would be too frequent and quarterly reports would be too few. He <br />recommended the council schedule a discussion on what it wanted to see in such a report. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz agreed with most of what had been said. She appreciated that Ms. Beamud undertook outreach to <br />the communities. She also liked that Ms. Beamud placed statistics from the office on the Web. She was <br />happy with her work, but she also wanted more reports on it. She supported granting a one-step merit <br />increase retroactive to October. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy ascertained from Ms. Beamud that she did not have any further questions or need for <br />direction. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka remarked that some concerns regarding Ms. Beamud’s “style” had been voiced. Ms. Beamud <br />responded that it was one thing she had tried to work on. She noted that in her search for a Deputy Police <br />Auditor she had been seeking someone to complement her. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked what the timeline was for that hiring process. Ms. Beamud replied that she had <br />interviewed applicants for the position one week earlier and made an offer. She said the background check <br />would begin on the following day. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman attributed Ms. Beamud’s style to having been raised on the east coast. She added her hope <br />that the motion would include language indicating that the second merit step increase would happen in <br />October, 2008. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />