My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_1988_1107
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
198x
>
1988
>
CC_Minutes_1988_1107
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:01:41 AM
Creation date
2/2/2005 7:07:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/7/1988
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
<br />~ <br />, . . <br /> <br />Roseville City Council - page two - November 3, 1988 <br /> <br />INTEGRITY: Under Andre, true professionalism was the rule <br />of the city staff. Employees did not accept gratuities and <br />political patronage was non-existent. His demands were <br />supported 100% and appreciated by the council members. <br /> <br />JAMES F. ANDRE IS THE PERSONIFICATION OF INTEGRITY! <br /> <br />PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: I participated in twelve (1975 through <br />1986) annual reviews of James F. Andre's employment, <br />conducting eleven of these. The STANTON PLAN was used for <br />the review not only of the city manager but of all <br />supervisory employees. This plan had been adopted as a <br />vehicle for performance revieu by the city council prior to <br />my joining the council. <br /> <br />In our reviews, the council and manager reviewed the results <br />against goals for the previous year. We then established <br />goals for the upcoming year. These were goals for the city <br />or its government which ,vere to be accomplished under the <br />leadership of James Andre. <br /> <br />Then the council (alone) reviewed a list of responsibilities <br />and characteristics of the manager, individually scoring <br />these, thus giving us the appropriate category in which the <br />manager ranked. <br /> <br />It should be noted that there was a possibility for change <br />on the council every two years. During this period of time <br />there were five different council make-ups with many new <br />faces. <br /> <br />HOWEVER, IN ALL TWELVE REVIEWS THE ACCUMULATED AND AVERAGED <br />SCORE OF EACH COUNCIL CONSISTENTLY GAVE JAMES F. ANDRE HIGH <br />MARKS. HE ALWAYS RANKED "OUTSTANDING". <br /> <br />There was only one criticism of Jim Andre: his lack of "glad <br />handing". This was the subject of a philosophical <br />difference on the council. However, as a whole the council <br />agreed that his ability to carry out the day-to-day affairs <br />of the city was the more important responsibility. <br /> <br />CONSERVATISM: James Andre prepared our annual budgets whicn <br />were then reviewed, modified and adopted by the various city <br />councils. ANY CHARGES OF CONSERVATISH SHOULD BE LEVELED AT <br />THE TRANSITIONAL COUNCILS WHICH ADOPTED THOSE BUDGETS DURING <br />JAMES ANDRE'S TENURE. <br /> <br />Maximizing the return on the city's assets and providing <br />effective city services were jucged by the council to be the <br />most important areas of Andre's performance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.