Laserfiche WebLink
each was assured that the sources of any specific comments made in the interview would not be <br />revealed. Participants were asked to address the manager's ability to 1) articulate her vision for <br />the organization; 2) handle complex issues and make judgment calls; 3) involve the community <br />and to gauge community reaction; 4) work with intergovernmental partners; and 5) understand <br />and respond to the needs of the City organization. They were also asked to call out what they <br />value as qualities in a city manager and indicate what requirements they see for the City <br />Manager (Ms. Elmer) to be successful in her position. In summarizing the perspectives, Mr. <br />Corey said he tried diligently to not distort their messages. (Please refer to the performance <br />evaluation documents for more detail.) <br /> <br />The council took a 15-minute break. <br /> <br />City Manager's Self-Evaluation <br /> <br />Ms. Elmer presented her self evaluation, which included two parts: 1) accomplishments over the <br />last year; and 2) areas for improvement. <br /> <br />Ms. Elmer reviewed accomplishments and progress over the last year in the following areas: <br />financial stability; public safety; planning and development; parks acquisition; the Library; and <br />youth. She prefaced her remarks on areas for improvement by providing the following context: <br />"pre-existing polarization"; an active media presence; recent rapid growth; a politically active <br />citizenry; the City Charter provision that prohibits the council from influencing the manager in <br />making personnel decisions; a close-knit, mature organization faced with difficult changes; and <br />her short tenure with the organization. <br /> <br />Ms. Elmer identified the following three major areas for changes in the coming year: leadership <br />and communication with the organization; communication with the council; and leadership in the <br />community. <br /> <br />Council Comments/Criteria <br /> <br />Councilors reflected on the evaluation process. Ms. Nathanson reminded the council that this <br />type of thorough evaluation was desired by both the council and the City Manager and that the <br />City of Eugene has a history of doing these types of sessions publicly and the community has <br />that expectation. Mr. Tollenaar expressed disappointment that the media had neglected to report <br />on the City Manager's self-evaluation. Mr. Meisner said he will place his decision in the present <br />context, given the last month. <br /> <br />Councilors mentioned the following criteria that will be used in evaluating the manager's <br />performance: results attributable to the City Manager; management style; timing issue--consider <br />if additional time is likely to improve the situation; the manager's ability to "fix" relationships and if <br />that is a good use of resources; the manager's ability to develop a realistic vision for the City, <br />with benchmarks and time lines attached to a budget; what is best for the community and not <br />what is good for the organization, the manager, or the council; what is best for the public; ability <br />to gain staff support; consistency; and length of tenure. <br /> <br />The council acknowledged the large amount of public input about the manager's evaluation and <br />the difficulty of the process. <br /> <br />Minutes--Eugene City Council March 16, 1998 Page 4 <br /> 5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />