Laserfiche WebLink
misunderstandings about expectations. He said the Police Auditor’s position was established to provide trust <br />within the community and while the survey was not scientific, it would help the council understand the extent <br />to which that was happening. He said the feedback might be more reflective of the overall system, but could <br />also provide pertinent information about Ms. Beamud’s performance that the council should have. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said he did not want to support the amendment because it overlapped with programmatic <br />evaluation. He suggested that Mr. Poling withdraw his motion and councilors could indicate if they agreed <br />that the evaluation process would consider, but not be limited to, the performance criteria tool recommended <br />by the CRB, a self-evaluation from Ms. Beamud, the council’s experience of the auditor’s work over the past <br />year, a survey of Police Auditor employees, the job description to be developed, the complainant survey and <br />other inputs. He said the list was inclusive, not exclusive. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling withdrew his motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor determined that with the exception of Ms. Bettman, councilors were in agreement with Mr. <br />Zelenka’s suggestion. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman hoped that developing a job description for the Police Auditor was not an attempt to rewrite the <br />role and authorities granted to the auditor via the ordinance, which she felt constituted a definitive job <br />description. <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to include in the <br />evaluation the CRB’s evaluation form from employees of the Police Auditor. The <br />motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting yes. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka explained he voted against the motion because that item was included in the list of items he had <br />suggested and to which other councilors had agreed. He would support the main motion, augmented with <br />councilors’ concurrence on the other elements he had suggested. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said she did not support the motion because her expectation was that Ms. Holmes would develop <br />materials for the council based on what was already in the ordinance. She would support doing the same thing <br />for the City Manager. <br /> <br />The motion as amended passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Jon Ruiz <br />City Manager <br /> <br />(Recorded by Lynn Taylor) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 25, 2008 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br />