Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

about doing it this year. He said if the CRB agreed to change, that was great. Mayor Piercy determined from Ms. Holmes that she envisioned an evaluation process similar to that used for the City Manager and it was possible to make the shifts requested by councilors Clark, Pryor, and Zelenka. Ms. Holmes said she would structure the appropriate tool for the council’s use. Mayor Piercy said it was important to have a shared understanding between the council and auditor of expectations. Mr. Poling also liked the evaluation process used for the City Manager but he hesitated to ask the CRB to redo its evaluations. He said the system might be flawed but was not totally bad, so he thought the council should proceed as planned this year and make changes next year. Mr. Brown thought the expectations system was okay because one could add one’s own comments. He suggested that the council proceed with the existing system and those that were interested could use the numerical approach as well. The system could be changed next year. Mr. Brown asked who would be on the citizen panel. Ms. Holmes suggested it could include the Police Chief, representatives of the Eugene Police Employees Association, and a member of the Police Commission. Mr. Clark found the four-part metric important to pre-tie to compensation. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt the current performance criteria for the Police Auditor with a self-evaluation to be completed by the Police Auditor, and include the community panel evaluation and to move forward with goal setting to parallel the ity manager process. Ms. Taylor supported keeping the current format for this year. She did not think there was enough time for a community panel and suggested a work session be scheduled. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend the motion by deleting all text past “Police Auditor.” Mr. Pryor said while he had preferences, in the interest of time, he would choose getting the performance evaluation done with the expectation that the council would revise the process next time. Ms. Ortiz supported the initial motion and suggested a letter be sent to interested parties to request input rather than attempting to convene a representative meeting in a short time. Ms. Holmes suggested that the City could employ Survey Monkey to solicit input in a timely way. Mr. Clark did not support the amendment and asked the council to consider the original motion because he had attempted to split the difference. His intent was to get broad-based community input. Roll call vote on the amendment: the vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Brown voting yes; Mr. Clark, Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Pryor voting no. Mayor Piercy cast a vote against the motion and it failed on final vote of 5:4. Mr. Zelenka moved to amend the motion to include the four-point scale. The motion died for lack of a MINUTES—City Council April 14, 2010 Page 8