Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Clark worried that a simple selection of individuals by council members might result in an imbalanced <br />community panel. <br />Mr. Zelenka restated his support of Ms. Ortiz’s suggestion to use a hybrid approach to the selection of <br />community panel members. <br />Ms. Taylor asked who would be responsible for determining the authority of the groups and categories <br />recommended by staff. Mr. Zelenka replied that the council members and the Mayor would make such <br />determinations. <br />Ms. Ortiz noted that she had drafted a preliminary list of individuals based on previous City hiring processes <br />and while the previous panels appeared unbalanced to her, she did not intend for the selection of individuals <br />using the groups recommended by staff to be an immutable list. She suggested that the council and Mayor <br />should feel free to add individual names to the lists if their participation in the community panel appeared <br />warranted. <br />Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Ms. Taylor’s previously stated substitute motion. <br />The motion failed, 2:6 (Ms. Taylor and Mr. Clark voting in favor). <br />Ms. Piercy reminded council members that the panel selection strategy in the previous hiring process had <br />been to allow groups to select and send their own representatives to serve on the community panel. <br />Mr. Zelenka, responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Ortiz, wanted to offer a friendly amendment <br />to Ms. Ortiz’s original motion whereby the council would review the recommended groups and their selected <br />representatives and then determine any gaps that might be filled by selections of individuals by the <br />councilors and the Mayor. <br />Ms. Ortiz maintained that proceeding in the manner stated by Mr. Zelenka might make the panel selection <br />process much more complicated. <br />Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Clark, amended her previous motion and moved to <br />have each council member and the Mayor submit two names and then add any <br />supplemental groups suggested by council members to use as a template in the <br />selection of community panel members in the police auditor candidate interview <br />process. The motion passed, 7:1 (Ms. Taylor voting in opposition). <br />Ms. Holmes noted that she would need to have the names of any additional organizations or groups by the <br />end of the day and the names of any individuals by Friday, February 13, in order to have them included in <br />the community panel selection process. <br />Ms. Holmes noted staff’s recommendation that the McNutt room be used for the internal stakeholder panel <br />and the City Council Chamber be used for the community stakeholder panel. Ms. Piercy confirmed there <br />were no objections to staff’s recommendation. <br />Ms. Holmes noted staff’s recommendation that City tours offered to the police auditor candidates as part of <br />the interview process be conducted by division managers and/or executive managers who were not otherwise <br />part of the interview process. Ms. Ortiz suggested that the tours be conducted with a community member as <br />well as a division manager. Ms. Piercy confirmed for Ms. Holmes that there were no council objections to <br />Ms. Ortiz’s suggestions. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2009 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />