Laserfiche WebLink
Auditor. She said it was essential to obtain that information in order for the council to conduct its evaluation <br />of the Police Auditor and program. She was interested in seeing a draft survey instrument to obtain customer <br />feedback. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman cautioned that complainants’ feedback would be based on their entire experience, including <br />things over which the auditor had no control that could influence their perceptions of the system. She said a <br />survey instrument should identify which aspects of the system were being evaluated. She said if the council <br />wanted a formal job description for the Police Auditor, it should also have one for the City Manager. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor liked the idea of obtaining customer feedback, but pointed out that the information would be self- <br />directed as people could choose whether or not to respond and that would have an influence on the overall <br />results. He said the information would be useful, but should be considered in that context. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt the performance criteria for <br />the Police Auditor as recommended by the Civilian Review Board. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said there were certain organizational performance expectations that each City employee had to meet <br />in addition to specific job duties. She asked if there were customer feedback mechanisms for all the services <br />provided by the City. Assistant City Manager Angel Jones replied that a feedback mechanism existed for most <br />of the services provided directly to the public. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said she was interested in feedback that simply indicated whether a person’s experience with the <br />Police Auditor’s office had been positive or negative with respect to courteous and helpful treatment, not <br />necessarily their attitude about the final outcome, as that was not something Ms. Beamud could control. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka clarified that he would support a customer survey to determine how people felt about the police <br />auditor system, but it should not be included in an evaluation of Ms. Beamud’s job performance. He asked <br />how difficult it would be to develop position descriptions for the Police Auditor and City Manager, and how <br />useful that would be to the council. Ms. Holmes said she could develop position descriptions from the <br />information in the recruitment brochures. She said the value to the council could be removing the extraneous <br />information from the recruitment materials and streamlining job requirements into a more useful format; that <br />could be done if the council felt that would be helpful to their evaluation efforts. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked if the intent of the motion was to make elements A through F the only criteria upon which the <br />Police Auditor’s performance would be evaluated, or could other elements be added at a later point in the <br />process. Ms. Holmes said the motion would establish the format of the evaluation document, but not limit the <br />council’s ability to add comments. She noted the council had also discussed obtaining feedback from <br />interested community groups as part of the evaluation process. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said his concern was to avoid limiting the scope of the council’s evaluation of the position and <br />program structure. He said the evaluation did not address at this point some of the duties described in the <br />ordinance. He also recognized that there were ongoing discussions and negotiations about the auditor’s <br />involvement in some aspects of the investigative process. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor commented that councilors would have to conduct their evaluations based on the criteria to which <br />the council had agreed. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2008 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />