Laserfiche WebLink
? <br /> Provision of an opportunity for public input on the criteria for evaluating the city <br />manager; <br />? <br /> Development of tools to solicit high volume and high quality feedback on perform- <br />ance from managerial and non-managerial staff. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman opined that it was appropriate to retain the existing criteria for evaluation until new criteria <br />had been developed. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor observed that the “world would not end” if the council used the old system for the current year. <br />He said the most important thing to him was what the new system the council would come up with would be. <br />He wanted it to be effective, useful, and to reflect what the council wished to accomplish. He did not <br />perceive anything in Ms. Bettman’s proposal that would preempt this. He was glad the council was <br />discussing a change in the evaluation process. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought the ideal time to discuss a new system was after an evaluation because that was the time <br />councilors were most cognizant of what did not work in the current process. Regarding compensation, she <br />was not sure whether the City of Eugene should be compared with other places. She believed in “that extra <br />paycheck we get.” She commented that there had not been any shortage of applicants when the job had been <br />open and that it cost more to live in some places. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said he would appreciate having the opportunity to have a subcommittee delve into the process <br />prior to the evaluation. He stated that in the absence of this, he would be happy to trust the council officers <br />in their work to try to bring it to a revised process. He felt that either way the council would be able to get <br />to a reasonably similar outcome for the present year. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka reiterated his preference to retain the current process for the current year while a council <br />subcommittee worked on revising it. He agreed that the best time to revise it would be just after completion. <br />He added his agreement that the COLA should be automatic and not part of the contract. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz offered a friendly amendment to include bullet points 5, 7, and 8 from the Sum- <br />mary of Recommendations, as follows: <br />5. The City Manager will provide a written self-evaluation. <br />7. Set a date certain work session for the City Manager to return to the council with an <br />articulated set of expectations and goals for the coming year that would be agreed <br />upon by all. <br />8. Conduct a market study and decide on compensation policy prior to the evaluation <br />work session. <br />Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz indicated that she planned to offer her services on the subcommittee. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said if the motion should fail because of the first sentence he would be willing to put the same <br />motion on indicating that the transitional process would be used in the current year. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Ortiz explained that the transitional process was less bulky <br />and involved less finger-pointing. Mr. Pryor concurred. He said it focused more on the subjective elements <br />of having an evaluation that was based on conversation and discussion rather than just numbers. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 16, 2007 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />