CC Minutes - 02/08/05 PS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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