Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Kelly opined it would be appropriate to utilize an ad hoc committee to assist the council in <br />the recruitment/selection process. He said he would give deference to that committee to shape <br />recommendations for the council’s review, which he suggested be completed within a six-week <br />period due to critical timelines. Mr. Kelly opined that a professional recruiter would not be <br />necessary for this process, pointing out that the position was well-defined and the Police <br />Commission and/or Human Resources staff, with their expertise, could certainly assist with <br />applicable marketing of the position. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling pointed out that Mr. Kelly’s motion adds the Police Commission chair to the ad hoc <br />committee which gives a slight advantage to the commission. He said while he respected the <br />opinions of the commission chair, he was concerned about a possible imbalance on the <br />committee. <br /> <br />Mr. Pape? reinforced Mr. Kelly’s comments with regard to the critical timeline that needs to be <br />recognized in order for the auditor to be in place by July 1, 2006. He asked if the Human <br />Resources staff could be utilized to develop the components of a recruitment and selection <br />process. City Manager Taylor replied that staff stood ready to assist in whatever manner the City <br />Council deemed appropriate. He said the City could be successful in its search through the <br />utilization of a professional recruiter, or, through Human Resources staff; however, he pointed <br />out that due to budgetary capacity, his preference would be to utilize in-house staff. Mr. Pape? <br />concurred. Mr. Pape? then spoke to Mr. Poling’s concerns, and asked that progress reports be <br />provided to the council on a regular basis. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman voiced support for the motion; however, she said her preference would have been <br />for the tasks to be delegated to the ARRT, as it had already begun much of the preparatory work. <br />Ms. Bettman referred to Mr. Poling’s concerns and stressed that the Police Commission and its <br />chair were adamant that the success of the model was predicated on the creditability of the <br />auditor; therefore, impartiality would be paramount to the success of the program. She added that <br />the expertise the chair of the commission possesses could only move the process along in an <br />expedient manner and she stressed that the council ultimately would make the final decisions. In <br />conclusion, Ms. Bettman said that the amount of money allocated for a professional recruiter <br />should be minimized and suggested that such an individual could take on the candidate search <br />and present the applicants to Human Resources staff who could then do the screening process to <br />ascertain minimum requirements. Additionally, she suggested that the community be included in <br />the screening process prior to a presentation of a final list of candidates to the council. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor voiced opposition to the inclusion of a professional recruiter for any part of the <br />process. She then said she was unwilling to cede the authority of the council and that it should be <br />involved in the screening of the applications. Ms. Taylor said that if the ad hoc committee’s role <br />was limited to the components listed in the motion, she could support it, with the understanding <br />that the council would make all final decisions, including the hire of the auditor. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon voiced preference for a professional recruiter. She opined that part of the reason <br />voters determined there was a need for a police auditor was due to a breakdown in process in the <br />Human Resources division. However, Ms. Solomon noted that she would not make a final <br />decision on that component prior to discussions that would ensue at the ad hoc committee level. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />