Laserfiche WebLink
<br />M I N U T E S <br /> <br /> <br />Eugene City Council <br />Work Session <br />McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall <br /> <br /> May 16, 2007 <br /> Noon <br /> <br />COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer <br />Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. <br /> <br />Council President Andrea Ortiz called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She explained that <br />Mayor Kitty Piercy was out of town. Councilor Jennifer Solomon participated by speakerphone. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />A. WORK SESSION: <br />City Manager Evaluation Process <br /> <br />Executive Director of the Human Resource and Risk Services Department Lauren Chouinard stated that the <br />council officers met to discuss the City Manager evaluation process and had made recommendations. He <br />reviewed the Summary of Recommendations contained in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). He explained <br />that the council officers recommended using the coming year as a transition year while a more effective type <br />of a valuation based on the goals and expectations of the council was devised. He said the suggestion had <br />been made that the council should, for the present year, use the current form but with a change in the rating <br />scale from a 1 through 5 rating to a three-point rating scale consisting of ‘does not meet expectations,’ <br />‘meets expectations,’ or ‘exceeds expectations.’ He underscored that the elements themselves were the same <br />as those in the last evaluation. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz noted that she wished to discuss the cost of living allowance (COLA). She said it had been used <br />as part of the manager’s compensation for the previous year. She expressed discomfort with its inclusion in <br />the contract. <br /> <br />City Manager Dennis Taylor expressed appreciation to the council for taking the evaluation seriously. He <br />said this was an expectation of the International City Manager Association (ICMA). He felt the process that <br />had been used over the past four years had many useful components but it had become “stale” because it <br />had “been a while” since the council embraced it. He noted that the present council had inherited the current <br />evaluation process. He averred that a good performance evaluation should arise from mutually determined <br />goals. He thought the council could collaborate with him to arrive at a set of goals for the performance <br />period that would be one of the bases for evaluation. He said the other area for consideration would be an <br />emphasis on some of the things for which the City Manager had overall responsibility, such as human <br />resource management. He listed the areas that were not explicitly included in the evaluation: labor relations <br />– how many grievances were filed and employee morale - budget and finance issues, diversity, communica- <br />tion, strategic planning, work planning, problem solving, conceptual skills, and council support. He felt that <br />the current performance appraisal was akin to having nine different raters with nine different rulers. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 16, 2007 Page 1 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />