Laserfiche WebLink
In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Chouinard stated that a market survey was conducted every <br />year for the position. He noted that most of the comparables did not feature salary ranges for city managers. <br />He said the organization treated the city manager differently from other employees of the organization. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked why the council officers were suggesting a change in rating to three levels. Mr. Pryor <br />replied that it came from a desire to change it from a more cumbersome rating process. He said it looked <br />like a way to simplify it. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka preferred the one through five rating scale because he felt it provided a better gradation in <br />rating and would be more useful. He said he liked “360” evaluations. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor remarked that as part of being a credentialed city manager he had to undergo a “360” <br />evaluation every three years. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein stated that it was also proposed that the process be changed so that the councilors would rate the <br />categories and not each one of the indicators. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka thought the proposed transition represented a substantial change to the process. He said if the <br />council was going to change the whole evaluation process then it should do so. He added that he reviewed <br />Ms. Bettman’s proposed motion and liked it, with the exception of the inclusion of the handbook. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz suggested that the council form a subcommittee of four to work on the evaluation process. She <br />thought a transition year was important. She reiterated her discomfort with the past two evaluations. She <br />wanted to look at compensation separately from City Manager Taylor himself. She averred that the City <br />needed to look at how people in other places were paid for the same type of work. She stressed the <br />importance of offering attractive wages and benefits to get qualified employees who were passionate about <br />their work. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor did not know why the rating should be changed from a one-to-five to a one-to-three scale. She <br />said when she did not know how to answer a portion of the evaluation she simply indicated that she did not <br />know the answer. She commented that the council did not have any access to what goes on inside of the <br />City’s departments. She indicated that she would favor eliminating the things in the process that do not <br />pertain directly to the council’s evaluation of the manager. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said he would not feel comfortable serving on a subcommittee given that he was a “new guy,” but <br />he would favor convening a subcommittee to review the evaluation process. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved that the council maintain the current <br />evaluation procedures for this evaluation cycle incorporating the recommendations for a <br />work session on the compensation, the self-evaluation, and the explicit goals and expecta- <br />tions for this evaluation cycle; and select a council subcommittee to recommend to the full <br />council a draft framework for an improved city manager’s performance evaluation that can <br />be implemented for the 2008 evaluation. The framework will consider the League of Ore- <br />gon Cities “Handbook for Evaluation of the City Administrator” and incorporate at a mini- <br />mum, the following: <br />? <br /> Provision of an opportunity for input of managerial and non-managerial staff on <br />criteria for evaluating the city manager; <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 16, 2007 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />