My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-06-10 Council Study Session
Public Access
>
City Council Minutes
>
2013
>
2013-06-10 Council Study Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/25/2013 12:22:08 PM
Creation date
6/25/2013 12:22:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Meeting
Supplemental fields
Minutes - Date
6/10/2013
TYPE
STUDY
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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 />UNIVERSITY CITY COUNCIL <br />STUDY SESSION <br />5th floor of City Hall <br />6801 Delmar <br />June 10, 2013 <br />5:30 p.m. <br /> <br />th <br />The City Council Study Session was held in the Council Chamber, 5 floor of City Hall, on June <br />10, 2013. Mayor Shelley Welsch called the Study Session to order at 6:06 p.m. In addition to <br />the Mayor, the following members of the Council were present: <br /> <br />Ms. Paulette Carr <br />Mr. Steve Kraft arrived at 6:20 p.m. <br />Mr. Arthur Sharpe, Jr. <br /> Mr. Michael Glickert <br /> Mr. Terry Crow <br /> Mr. Byron Price arrived at 6:10 p.m. <br /> <br />Also in attendance was City Manager Lehman Walker. <br /> <br />Mayor Welsch opened the Study Session by asking if there were any changes to the Council’s <br />agenda for the evening. <br /> <br />City Manager Mr. Walker asked the first item under City Manager’s Report be removed. <br /> <br />Mayor Welsch turned the session over to the Council evaluation subcommittee, Ms. Carr, Mr. <br />Crow and Mr. Glickert. <br /> <br />Ms. Carr noted the subcommittee had two separate meetings. They collected evaluation forms <br />from different cities and looked at approaches from different cities. At the first meeting, the <br />subcommittee decided on the evaluation form they would like to use. At the second meeting the <br />subcommittee worked on the individual questions for the forms. They modeled the City <br />Manager’s evaluation form on the one received from the city of San Carlos, California and the <br />City Clerk’s evaluation form was modeled after the form from the city of Winter Park in Florida. <br /> <br />Ms. Carr stated the subcommittee decided to use a scale of 0 to 6, skewing towards more <br />positive and provided for no knowledge about an area. She said both employees were divided <br />into different evaluation areas. The City Manager’s form started with “Assisting the Council with <br />its policy making role” and the City Clerk’s form started with “The City Council support, <br />communications and interactions”. Ms. Carr stated the end of the form provided for essay-form <br />answers as “list three strong points”. She said when looking at the approaches, Dover was the <br />easiest to follow - they had their employee fill out the same form in order to compare gaps. The <br />form also asked the City Manager and the City Clerk to fill out their goals for the next year, the <br />next five years; areas and skill sets they would like to further develop; and what steps the <br />Council could take to provide the resources to address the needs. <br /> <br />Mr. Glickert said after looking at the forms, he felt both forms needed some tweaking. Starting <br />with the City Clerk, he mentioned some redundancy in the first area under the first section, City <br />Council Support question number 6 and Section three had the same question. He said the <br />question was probably more germane to City Council Support. Mr. Glickert next went to Boards <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.