My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2013_0708
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
CC_Minutes_2013_0708
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2013 12:33:27 PM
Creation date
7/22/2013 1:37:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/8/2013
Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,July 8,2013 <br /> Page 14 <br /> Stakeholder Group had already completed the majority of that work through the <br /> survey pieces used to update the previous profile. <br /> At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bacon confirmed that all advertising had been <br /> done in-house; and was intended again this time. <br /> At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bacon advised that the five (5) final candidates <br /> from the 2006 search had been subject to psychological testing by a third party; <br /> with in-house and/or search firms typically using the same third party firms for <br /> those tests. Ms. Bacon recommended having those tests performed on this round <br /> as well, opining that they were very helpful in narrowing the candidate pool for <br /> the finalists to determine general characteristics and how a candidate would react <br /> in certain situations. <br /> In response to Mayor Roe, Ms. Bacon reviewed the typical timeframe for the can- <br /> didates to remain unidentified, with the intent to implement the best value process <br /> in keeping candidates unknown as long as possible to ensure a fair, consistent, <br /> and unprejudiced process. Ms. Bacon advised that this was at the discretion of the <br /> City Council; but during the 2006 search, the search firm didn't release names to <br /> her until the final ten (10) candidates were identified to allow further review and <br /> research for background vetting. Ms. Bacon noted that she could be aware of the <br /> identity of the first group of final candidates without the City Council being made <br /> aware of their identify if that was their direction; with the City Council asking <br /> during the 2006 search that they not be aware of identities until further along in <br /> the process. <br /> Councilmember Etten noted that the City Council and Stakeholder Group had al- <br /> ready completed the majority of the profile; and questioned if that product was <br /> complete and sufficient, or if further refinement was needed at the Subcommittee <br /> or City Council level for a final product. <br /> As a member of the Subcommittee, Councilmember Laliberte responded that the <br /> survey had been completed with some,but not all, results compiled. Now that the <br /> final firms had been interviewed and their role more clearly defined, Coun- <br /> cilmember Laliberte advised that the profile could be refined. Councilmember <br /> Laliberte advised that one question not asked of the finalists was whether the firm <br /> preferred to do their own version of the profile, or simply fill in the gaps of any <br /> outstanding questions they thought were necessary. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte suggested that the Stakeholder Group continue to be <br /> utilized throughout the process. <br /> Mayor Roe stated, from his perspective, that if the City Council moved forward <br /> with a search firm, they would probably seek additional input from the Stakehold- <br /> er Group in developing a final profile. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.