My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2009_0810
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2009
>
CC_Minutes_2009_0810
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/19/2009 9:21:13 AM
Creation date
8/19/2009 9:21:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/10/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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, August 10, 2009 <br />Page 11 <br />visions for the City Manager having hiring approval subject to City Council ap- <br />proval. <br />Councilmember Roe spoke in support of this provision, as originally provided in <br />his proposed policy draft, dated April 1, 2009, and identified as "Attachment D" <br />to the Request for Council Action dated August 10, 2009. Councilmember Roe's <br />rationale in including the language was based on the Civil Attorney dealing al- <br />most exclusively with staff on a daily basis, but also based on a relationship with <br />the City Council, whether providing advice corporately at formal meetings, or <br />providing advice to individual members outside the meeting format. However, <br />Councilmember Roe noted that his original language was "should" not "shall." <br />Councilmember Pust expressed confusion in attempting to track terminology <br />changes in the new "Attachment A," and those items included in her proposed <br />policy identified as "Attachment C" and that of Councilmember Roe, previously <br />identified as "Attachment D." <br />City Manager Malinen advised that he had taken excerpts of both Councilmember <br />Pust's and Roe's language and created "Attachment A" as a hybrid document, in- <br />cluding the good concepts and language in both of their drafts, as well as subse- <br />quent City Council discussions. City Manager Malinen clarified that there was no <br />need for Council action at tonight's meeting, allowing for further refinement and <br />review. <br />Councilmember Roe asked that "Attachment A," page 1, line 34, include lan- <br />guage for specificity of when performance reviews may happen to clarify the <br />City's intent, not that a review happen at the end of a contract period, with lan- <br />guage similar to that proposed in his draft (Attachment D), line 42. <br />Councilmember Pust noted that her original version (Attachment C) suggested <br />mid-term reviews for a three year contract, (page 1, under "Policy" section); and <br />that the language was substantially different than either Councilmember Roe's <br />version or the City Manager's hybrid version. <br />Councilmember Roe suggested mid-term or annual reviews, at a minimum. <br />Councilmembers Roe, Johnson and Pust spoke in support of annual reviews. <br />City Manager Malinen indicated that he would change page 1, line 34 of "At- <br />tachment A" to read "Multi-year contracts shall include a [an annual) perform- <br />ance review..." <br />Further discussion included defining what a performance review should consist <br />of. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.