Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman said that the council should be clear if it was voting to appoint or interview an individual. <br />She was okay with either approach as long as the outcome was clear. She also agreed about incorporating <br />the supplemental questions into the application and about the value of follow-up questions. She <br />determined from Ms. Walston that staff found that working with the current members of boards and <br />commissions was a good way to solicit new members. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Kelly that profiles were not necessary. He determined from Ms. Walston that <br />the supplemental questions could be included in the application without a large cost. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon indicated acceptance of follow-up questions but wanted to ensure that they were held until <br />the end of the interview and asked if time allowed. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 agreed with Mr. Kelly about the need for greater clarity about the number of votes required to <br />interview/appointment a candidate. With regard to the profile, he also agreed with Mr. Kelly, and <br />suggested it would be more useful for the council to have an informational sheet outlining the responsibili- <br />ties of the position to be filled. <br /> <br />Councilors discussed the number of votes needed to interview a candidate as opposed to the number of <br />votes needed to either reappoint or appoint a candidate outright. Ms. Walston recalled that in the past <br />years, the council agreed to interview all candidates receiving three votes. She suggested the council <br />consider setting a threshold of four votes to reappoint candidates. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon suggested that five votes be required for an appointment. Mr. Pryor suggested that all <br />candidates receiving at least three votes be interviewed as he questioned how the council could knowingly <br />appoint a candidate without conducting such an interview. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman also questioned how the council could get to know a candidate without an interview. She <br />asked how fair it was to appoint a candidate with five votes to those who reapplied. Ms. Bettman <br />acknowledged the time commitment but pointed out that citizens were also committing their time. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor did not presume that someone would automatically be appointed unless they were known to <br />the council. She suggested that the threshold for an interview be four votes. She added that the interview <br />process had improved since she first took her seat on the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Pryor about the need to interview all candidates, even those receiving five <br />votes, saying it took more time, but the positions involved were important. He liked the idea of employing <br />a different process for the reappointment process in which a candidate reapplying for a position would be <br />reappointed with five votes. He did not support raising the number of votes for those to be interviewed <br />from three to four as he thought that directly connected to the issue of diversifying the applicant pool. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman pointed out that the schedule proposed by Ms. Walston would mean the council would be <br />interviewing candidates during the budget season. <br /> <br />Councilors broke into three groups consisting of Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor (Group 1); Mr. <br />Kelly, Mayor Piercy, and Mr. Poling (Group 2); and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Pap6 (Group 3). <br />Ms. Utecht asked the three groups to discuss what the outcome of a completely successful boards and <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2005 Page 6 <br /> Process Session <br /> <br /> <br />