Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Attorney Glenn Klein commented that that he was not certain how the recommended evaluation form <br />would be revised based on the language of Mr. Clark’s amendment. He said if the amendment was passed, <br />more discussion by the council would be required to clarify the specific revisions. He said Mr. Clark’s <br />concern that the main motion as stated would exclude items in the ordinance from the council’s evaluation <br />could be addressed by specifying that the council was adopting the CRB-recommended forms, not the criteria. <br />That would allow the council to discuss the items in the ordinance within the context of the evaluation forms. <br />Mr. Clark changed his motion to a friendly amendment to the main motion by insert- <br />ing the word “tool” following “performance criteria.” Ms. Bettman accepted the <br />friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman restated her motion as amended: I move to adopt the recommended per- <br />formance criteria tool for the Police Auditor as recommended by the CRB. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to amend the motion by adding the phrase: <br />including the institution of a process requesting feedback from complainants. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling felt that a process could be developed that would obtain information from complainants about <br />specific aspects of the Police Auditor’s performance and not the entire process. He felt the more information <br />the council had, the better it would be able to fairly evaluate Ms. Beamud’s performance. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked if Mr. Poling’s intent was to add the survey as a formal part of the evaluation. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said he wanted to assure that there was a process for obtaining information from complainants and <br />providing it to the council to be considered during the evaluation. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka cautioned that it was inappropriate to use a complainant feedback survey in the context of an <br />evaluation because it would include feedback from people who were angry about the entire process. He said <br />the survey process was unscientific and tainted by self-selection and the outcome of the process. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said she would prefer to amend the motion to assure the evaluation process was not limited to the <br />forms. Her concern with Mr. Poling’s amendment was that complainants could not be required to provide <br />feedback and if only a few responded, she was not certain how that would help the council provide further <br />direction to Ms. Beamud, although she would want to see it. She did not want the council to begin micro- <br />managing its employees. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asserted that the feedback form was not a formal survey and should not be part of a formal <br />evaluation process. She said the Police Auditor provided quarterly reports to the council, which would include <br />complainant feedback, and she would not support the amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said his concern was with being informative, rather than directive. He agreed there were other <br />elements that the council needed to consider in its evaluation, but it should be explicit about what those were <br />so Ms. Beamud would clearly understand the council’s expectations. He felt the survey could inform the <br />evaluation, but should not be a formal part of it. He thought the council needed further discussion to develop a <br />comprehensive and thoughtful evaluation process. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said the council’s job was to provide clarity to Ms. Beamud in terms of expectations and feedback. <br />He agreed that the council should create a more thorough job description for the Police Auditor to avoid future <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2008 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />