Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to adjust the Police Auditor’s salary to Step 4 <br />of her salary range and to make that step retroactive to her anniversary date and that the Po- <br />lice Auditor’s salary should be increased to Step 5 after the next anniversary date in Octo- <br />ber, 2008, independent of an evaluation. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark agreed with much of what had been said around the table. He had some discomfort, however, <br />with providing an automatic step increase without an evaluation. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked why they were skipping Steps 1 and 2. Mr. Zelenka clarified that Ms. Beamud had <br />started at Step 3. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz hoped the evaluation process would be completed in a timely fashion. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment that would commit to an evaluation process for <br />Ms. Beamud prior to October 16, 2008, and grant the step-increase after that process. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not accept the friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion to include the language <br />from his previously offered friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon found the notion of approving a raise without an evaluation process troubling. She under- <br />scored that the council controlled the schedule and could direct staff to set a date and stick to it. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought an automatic step-increase was justified because the council was conducting the <br />evaluation process so late that the auditor was half-way to the next evaluation. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor agreed that October was coming up soon. She thought evaluations did get pushed out because <br />of how busy the schedule tended to be. She averred that the council should try to do the evaluation sooner, <br />adding that she would not support the amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark stressed that his motion had nothing to do with Ms. Beamud or the job she was doing; it was <br />about fiscal prudence. He pointed out that they would not do this for another employee, such as the City <br />Manager. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor observed that there were two competing interests – insuring that the Police Auditor received her <br />merit increases on her anniversary date and that merit increases should be tied to performance evaluation. <br />He said for this reason the two could not be done six months apart. He was amenable to engaging in another <br />evaluation process in October. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka was also amenable to the amendment. He had no problem with conducting an evaluation in six <br />months. He urged his colleagues and staff to “stick to [their] guns” and make it happen on time. <br /> <br />Ms. Holmes reminded the council that there was a commitment made at the March 10 work session that she <br />and Ms. Beamud would meet with the CRB to flesh out some recommendations to bring back to the council <br />for the next evaluation process. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />