Laserfiche WebLink
<br />quarterly reports to make sure Brighton Agency was meeting the objectives that <br />were set by Council. He also reminded Council that funding for this project had <br />previously been approved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kraft reminded Council that the motion on the table described Brighton <br />Agency’s proposed scope of work only and if a review of the scope of work was <br />requested, then that would need to be a separate motion. He noted the he saw <br />this as a general list of what the PR firm would work on and if the Council did not <br />like the list, they have the option to change it. <br /> <br />Mr. Price stated that no scope of work should be accepted without a provision to <br />evaluate performance so Council could direct the City Manager to cease and desist <br />if it was not what they expected. Mr. Price asked Mr. Kraft if he accepted that. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft replied saying by a majority vote Council has the absolute authority to <br />review what they want and the absolute authority to stop spending money and <br />noted that Mr. Walker said he would provide Council with quarterly reviews. <br /> <br />Mr. Price asked Mr. Kraft to amend his motion to include quarterly reviews. <br /> <br />Mayor Welsch said the motion was on the scope of work and Mr. Kraft has <br />indicated he would like to leave it at that. <br /> <br /> Ms. Carr echoed Mr. Price’s suggestion that built into the scope of work should be <br />an evaluative tool that would keep the Council informed of the success of the <br />marketing efforts. She also questioned why there was a scope of work before the <br />focus groups and the Council have met to discuss a scope. <br /> <br /> Mr. Walker stated the scope of work that was before Council was broad enough <br />that it would accommodate all of the requests that would be received. He stated <br />that most of the scope of work listed was included in the Request for Proposal <br />(RFP) that was sent out to the Marketing and Public Relations firms, and that list <br />was developed out of the Council’s budget discussions. <br /> <br /> Ms. Carr moved to amend the original motion to include an evaluative tool within <br />Brighton Agency’s scope of work and was seconded by Mr. Price. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow noted that he was pleased with Ms. Sawyer’s answers to his questions at <br />last Council meeting until Mr. Walker said the provisions are so broad. Mr. Crow <br />said that meant Brighton could do anything, similar to what Council experienced <br />with the previous PR firm. He said the scope was too general and it would be of <br />value to him to have this evaluation tool. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br /> <br />