My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 02/16/98 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
1998
>
CC Minutes - 02/16/98 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2010 10:28:32 AM
Creation date
8/16/2005 9:27:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/1/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Meisner asked if the "aggregate document" produced by the consultant and the "consultant's <br />final summary report" were the same thing. He said he was concerned about the shod notice <br />which was provided for scheduling of councilor interviews and that less than a day was provided <br />for completion of written councilor evaluation forms. Mr. Fart stated that any councilor wishing to <br />have additional time to complete forms could do so by planning to hand-carry the completed <br />forms to their scheduled interview. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner stated that he was disappointed that no division managers or line staff were to be <br />asked for input in the evaluation, as had been agreed to by the council. Mr. Tollenaar stated <br />there were three reasons for not including such input--validity, reliability, and cost effectiveness. <br />Mayor Torrey added that any changes the council could agree to make to the proposal would be <br />enacted. <br /> <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov said she believed input from division managers was wisely eliminated <br />because of the limited time available to receive and process such input. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he hoped the final cost of the consultant facilitating the process would be <br />reduced from the maximum amount proposed because the initial proposal had included <br />processing input from Division Managers. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, that the process for evaluating <br /> the City Manager proposed by council officers be accepted, with the change <br /> of the word "will" in Statement 8 to "may." <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey announced that any councilor wishing to amend the proposal could do so. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue commented that the evaluation of the City Manager was the responsibility of the City <br />Council, not employees. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that if employees were to be involved in the evaluation of the City Manager, the <br />opinions of professional staff as well as union representatives and department heads should be <br />included. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she believed the recommendation of the officers should be accepted <br />because the council had empowered them to make such a recommendation, and because the <br />council would incorporate the many inputs it regularly receives in performing its evaluation of the <br />manager. <br /> <br /> The motion was adopted unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />The meeting adjourned at 10 p.m. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br />James R. Johnson <br />City Manager Pro Tem <br /> <br />Minutes--Eugene City Council February 16, 1998 Page 9 <br /> 7:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.