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 12 <br />Councilmember Johnson suggested that it should be an annual meeting with the <br />City Council, similar to that for Advisory Commissions. <br />Councilmember Roe suggested that the City Manager provide a written report to <br />the City Council. <br />Mayor Klausing questioned if the performance review would be similar to an em- <br />ployee or supervisor review, with the City Manager reporting back to the City <br />Council. <br />Councilmember Roe concurred that this would be one way to approach the <br />evaluation. <br />Councilmember Pust suggested that the terms for judging performance should be <br />included in the contract. <br />Councilmember Roe noted the variety of professional services under contract, and <br />how to stipulate specific criteria to use. <br />Councilmember Pust suggested that the criteria would be within the contract it- <br />self, not in this policy, but allowing both parties to know the terms for evaluation. <br />Mayor Klausing questioned Councilmember Johnson's intent if the City Council <br />be involved in only the City's attorneys or all consulting contractors would be in- <br />volved in such an evaluation. <br />Councilmember Johnson opined that, with multi-year contracts, as long as the <br />City Council had input into the review process, and received input from the City <br />Manager, an annual review would not need to occur in front of the City Council. <br />Councilmember Johnson suggested that, in the situation of a negative court case <br />or situation, the firm provide an explanation to the City Council, and identify how <br />the firm used it as a learning experience in a formal report to the City Manager, <br />and then provided to the City Council. Councilmember Johnson opined that it <br />was his desire that the review process would be a great experience for both par- <br />ties; however, further opined that there needed to be a process to avoid issues per- <br />colating long-term. Councilmember Johnson suggested that the City Council pro- <br />vide input to the City Manager of issues to be raised at the review. <br />Councilmember Roe noted that there was always the expectation of good service, <br />but that in any contract, those expectations needed to be addressed in the contract, <br />particularly when best value contracts were used to reflect those values. <br />Councilmember Pust noted that the review process should not be considered in an <br />adversarial way, but allowing for an opportunity on a regular basis to receive <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.