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 19 <br /> Councilmember Etten questioned if this allowed for those applicants in the firms' <br /> networks to be included in the search process; opining that the firms had that one- <br /> on-one personal connection outside the in-house advertising process. <br /> Councilmember McGehee opined that there was no need for the on-boarding <br /> component of either proposal; and also questioned the validity of a psychological <br /> review. <br /> Mayor Roe suggested having that psychological review for someone at that level <br /> of employment and interaction with staff and the community. <br /> Regarding the on-boarding component, Councilmember Etten noted that one firm <br /> had it as a separate component, while the other firm wrapped it into background, <br /> goals, etc. making it difficult to distinguish the actual cost of on-boarding. <br /> Regarding the employment contract process, Mayor Roe noted that one firm had <br /> lumped that in with negotiation of a compensation package and other components <br /> as well, making that actual cost hard to distinguish. <br /> Mayor Roe focused tonight's decision-making on whether to go with either firm <br /> with a revised scope and final price back to the City Council for approval or to <br /> continue discussion to a future meeting. <br /> Councilmember Etten stated that he remained unsure of which piece to remove <br /> from either proposal considering the other responsibilities Ms. Bacon currently <br /> had on her plate and what else the City Council wanted to add to that load. <br /> Mayor Roe noted one potential cost savings in developing the profile would be <br /> the lack of interest by the Roseville City Council in seeking broad community in- <br /> put into the position profile. Mayor Roe clarified that the City was essentially <br /> seeing the firm to develop a profile; and perform initial screening and basic back- <br /> ground review for the first cut of candidates; with the interview process still pend- <br /> ing,. <br /> Councilmember McGehee opined that the firm didn't need to be involved in the <br /> interview process; with the City Council taking time to perform them, while rec- <br /> ognizing that a third person would provide greater transparency. <br /> Mayor Roe suggested there may be certain aspects that the firm would be request- <br /> ed to perform; and asked Ms. Bacon if she was comfortable with that scenario. <br /> Ms. Bacon responded that she was comfortable with that process; and had all the <br /> questions available from the panels and offered review of them with the full body <br /> for further refinement as indicated. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.