Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Taylor thought the questioning process was artificial. She opined that the same questions were not <br />appropriate for every person. She wondered if some questions could be improvised and whether the <br />process could be made more informal. She commented that the person ended up being judged by the <br />quality of the interview. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly averred that being articulate in an interview demonstrated how articulate a person would be in <br />their capacity as an appointed member of a group. He supported printing the schedule of interviews up <br />front. He advocated for building in "overflow" for the interviews. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly alleged that some votes were not counted correctly in the last round of appointees. He also <br />commented that councilors should make a commitment to attend all of the interviews. <br /> <br />Regarding the interview questions, Mr. Kelly noted that the council inevitably changed the questions prior <br />to interviews. He suggested the questions be provided in advance to the council. He felt two or three of <br />the same questions should be asked of every interviewee and then the council should be able to reserve the <br />right to ask other questions. <br /> <br />Ms. Walston pointed out, for new members, that some committees required an application, a supplemental <br />questionnaire, and the interview. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thought there was much redundancy between the supplemental questionnaire and the interview <br />questions. He suggested that a single distinct application be created for the "weightier" groups, such as <br />the Human Rights Commission, Planning Commission, and Budget Committee. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz thought a little redundancy in the line of questioning was acceptable. However, she also felt <br />that to fully engage the community, it was important to occasionally overlook a small lack of expertise or <br />a lack of articulateness. She liked the idea of formulating applications that pertained to the particular <br />groups. She asked, though, if there was a legal rationale for having the same questions. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling commented that he had sat on hundreds of interview panels and all of them were obligated to <br />ask the same questions of every applicant. He was also curious as to whether there was a legal rationale <br />for doing so in this situation. <br /> <br />Ms. Utecht surmised that there would be less exposure with volunteers because they did not receive a <br />financial benefit as a result of being selected. She commented that one would have to be careful to ensure <br />the same objectives were addressed. She said that the selection of an applicant based on a question asked <br />only of that person could be problematic. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling advocated for asking the same questions for all applicants. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said the only instance in which he would want to ask an individual a unique question would be <br />to respond to a unique response on an application or supplemental questionnaire. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling recommended the application process begin earlier. He said the current process resulted in a <br />time crunch for the Budget Committee, which started the month after the interview process was com- <br />pleted. He also felt a procedure should be created to fill unexpected vacancies, such as a matrix of second <br />choices. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman wanted a standardized process for vacancies as well. She appreciated Mr. Ortiz' comments <br /> <br />MINUTES-- Eugene City Council February 8, 2005 Page 8 <br /> Process Session <br /> <br /> <br />