Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />D. CONSENT CALENDAR <br />A. Approval of City Council Minutes of the June 23, 2008, City Council Meeting; June 24, <br />2008, Joint Elected Officials Meeting; July 28, 2008, Work Session <br />B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda <br />C. Authorization to Execute Employment Agreement with Interim Police Auditor <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the items on the Consent <br />Calendar. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz pulled Item C. <br /> <br />The Consent Calendar, with the exception of Item C, was approved, 8:0. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor and Ms. Bettman accepted a friendly amendment from Ms. Ortiz to add <br />provisions regarding a car allowance and Ms. Reynolds’ right to return to the <br />position of deputy police auditor to the employment agreement. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon questioned how Ms. Reynolds would be able to return to her previous position when the City <br />was advertising for a deputy police auditor. Mr. Ruiz commented that the police auditor was autonomous <br />and reported to the council; she had to ability to hire and manage staff in accordance with the City charter. <br /> <br />Alana Holmes, Human Resources (HR), said that Ms. Reynolds was working with HR staff to hire interim <br />help to backfill the deputy position while she was acting as the interim police auditor. She said the hiring <br />would be for a finite period until a decision was made on hiring a police auditor. She would follow-up to <br />determine if that was clear in the advertisement. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon felt it would be more efficient for someone else in the City organization to be loaned to the <br />police auditor’s office, instead of hiring someone new and then potentially letting them go. Ms. Holmes said <br />Ms. Reynolds had been hired fairly recently and the pool of applicants from that recruitment would be <br />surveyed to determine interest in a short-term temporary position. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said he was troubled that the council was not notified that the deputy auditor position was being <br />filled on an interim basis. He felt that filling the deputy position could signal other potential applicants that <br />the person in the interim auditor position was likely to become the permanent auditor. He felt the council <br />should have had that discussion. He was also concerned about hiring a short-term, temporary auditor <br />because of the confidentiality issues that had recently been raised. <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz said Ms. Reynolds would be available at the regular meeting to respond to questions. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling commented that there were two separate issues: one related to approving the contract verbally <br />offered to Ms. Reynolds for the interim police auditor position and the other related to her authority to <br />advertise for a deputy auditor without consulting the council and was that acceptable to the council. He felt <br />the latter issue should be addressed at a different time and the council should take action to formalize the <br />contract. He said as long as the advertisement was clear that the position was temporary he was satisfied, <br />but the council did need to have that discussion. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor agreed with Mr. Poling’s remarks. He said the subject of the police auditor’s authority was an <br />ideal topic for a process session as it could be complicated for eight people to provide direct supervision to <br />an employee. <br /> <br /> <br />