Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Fart favored conducting a climate survey but was concerned about opening the evaluation of <br />the organization's chief executive officer to employees "on the street." He believed that many <br />such employees would have difficulty evaluating the manager. Mr. Fart suggested that the <br />climate survey would indicate the morale of the organization and be a valuable tool. <br /> <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov had no problem with staff involvement but preferred conducting a climate <br />survey. She said that the manager worked for the council, and the council has asked her to <br />make unpopular decisions. She did not want the survey to turn into a "popularity contest." She <br />believed it was natural that morale would go down in an organization that has gone through the <br />level of change this organization has experienced. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said there were <br />standard survey instruments available in the marketplace that could be used. She said that how <br />the data was assessed was key for her. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that a climate survey might be acceptable, but he believed that there was some <br />element of conflict given that the manager had already planned to conduct the survey. He said <br />that it would be awkward for line staff to fill out a survey for the City Manager for use by the <br />council. Mr. Meisner did not want the evaluation of the manager filtered by the manager. <br /> <br />Ms. Elmer said that the climate survey was likely to be conducted by an outside party. She <br />suggested that outside party could contract with the council. Ms. Elmer believed the data would <br />be valuable to both the organization and council. <br /> <br />Regarding Mr. Fart comments regarding the ability of line staff to evaluate the manager, Mr. <br />Meisner pointed out that the evaluation team that went to Berkeley to make a site visit when Ms. <br />Elmer was hired as manager made a point of seeking out street-level workers in her department <br />for an evaluation of her work. He asked why it was irrelevant to ask the City's street level <br />employees the same questions. Mr. Fart thought the circumstances were different. He said that, <br />whereas the people who work on the street are fully equipped to comment on how the City <br />Manager's decisions have filtered down to their level, they were not really equipped to comment <br />on how the manager performed on a day-to-day basis. He believed the climate survey would <br />give the council valuable information. He did not want to ask line staff if they agreed with the <br />manager's decisions. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar said that the council did not need to decide if it wanted the climate survey at this <br />point. He was not prepared to decide about the survey now. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar suggested another question for the council: What will the outcome of this <br />evaluation be? He believed there were three potential outcomes. The council could decide that, <br />given the information available to the council, the manager was doing a good job and the council <br />stood behind her. The council could decide the manager's performance needed improvement, <br />with specific directions and a specific time frame for improvement. The council could decide that <br />the situation was not working out and fire the manager. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee agreed that the issue of the survey could be postponed. He suggested that as soon as a <br />consultant was selected, the council consider the issue again. Mr. Torrey said that the council <br />officers could indicate to the consultant that the council was very concerned about the need for <br />employee involvement at some level. He said that the consultant may have a recommendation <br />about the topic. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1998 Page 5 <br />6:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />