Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Torrey solicited a first round of council comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted the inclusion of the job description and profile in the packet, which had been <br />reviewed by a subcommittee composed of himself, Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Meisner, and asked that <br />councilors with comments provide them later to Mr. Chouinard. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly saw advantages to both options but wanted to move ahead as quickly as was prudent. <br />He preferred the earlier time line offered to the council, Option A, saying it would be his preference <br />to involve the councilors-elect in every way possible with the exception of casting a final vote. He <br />anticipated, for example, that the councilors-elected could meet with the recruiter, review <br />resumes, etc. Mr. Kelly noted that using the earlier time year would still mean a new manager <br />would not be hired until the first of the year. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart agreed that the council needed to move forward as quickly as prudently possible but he <br />preferred the later time line to ensure that the councilors-elect were part of the process. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner noted his participation in the 1996 hiring process as a councilor-elect, and observed <br />that it had not been a position with decision-making authority. He said the subcommittee tasked <br />now to oversee the recruitment process met with the recruiter to discuss possible time lines. The <br />recruiter indicated that if the council opted for the earlier time line, he could not do the job he <br />wanted to do in an adequate or satisfactory way. Mr. Chouinard concurred that the recruiter <br />indicated the earlier time line would affect the quality and quantity of the candidates he could <br />secure. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner did not support an earlier time line, pointing out the difference in the two time lines in <br />terms of the hire date was two months, not a great delay. He expressed support for Option B. He <br />hoped to ask councilor-elect George Poling, who was present, his feeling about the time line. Mr. <br />Farr concurred. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked for the precedent for asking the question of Mr. Poling. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey indicated that he would follow precedent and disallow the question. Mr. Rayor <br />indicated he would ask Mr. Poling his opinion and share it when he had the floor. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor supported the earlier time line. She thought it would be better if the process could <br />begin even sooner. Ms. Taylor said that the manager pro tern was not able to hire and fire <br />permanent executive staff without council concurrence, and she did not think he would want to do <br />so if a new manager was joining the organization. She said that the approach taken in 1996 had <br />made her, as a councilor-elect at the time, feel included, even though she could not vote. There <br />were four new councilors at that time, and one-half of the council was to be new, a different <br />situation from now. She said that the people who were in office now were the ones who should <br />vote until they were out of office. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ indicated his concurrence with the remarks of Mr. Meisner. He said that there was no <br />other decision facing the council that was more important than the hiring of a new manager. He <br />thought it important that the people who would supervise the manager in the future should also be <br />responsible for hiring the manager. He preferred the extended time line reflected in Option B. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor shared Mr. Poling's view, with which he concurred, that Option B was preferable. That <br />would allow the complete participation of the councilor-elects while allowing the current council to <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 2002 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />