Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-05-31 Council Appointed Officer Committee Summary Minutes Council Appointed Officers Committee FINAL MINUTES Page 1 of 18 Special Meeting May 31, 2017 Chairperson Scharff called the meeting to order at 2:02 P.M. in the Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Filseth, Holman, Scharff (Chair) Absent: Fine Oral Communications None. Agenda Items 1. Discussion Regarding Council Appointed Officers (CAO) Performance Evaluation Process Debra Figone, Consultant for MRG thanked the Council Appointed Officer’s Committee (Committee). She noted that her purpose was to facilitate the Council Appointed Officer’s (CAO) evaluations, perform an overview of the 2017 process, get the Committee’s feedback and to keep the process moving. There was a Council Packet (Packet) and a Working Agenda that she used as a guide; a schedule was included. The Schedule focused on the consultant meetings with the City Council (Council) or the Committee. She wanted to explain the evaluation process and had two sample documents she was going to use. The evaluation process was about having a great conversation with each of the CAO’s; this could be done by a walk in the room or by being prepared. Her process prepared the Council by engaging others and the Council in key elements. The first was called the Input Stage, likened to the yellow matrix she used in the past, which involved three pieces. The first piece was a self-assessment from each of the CAO’s, the second was input from the Direct Reports (the City Manager’s was Executive Leadership Team (ELT) and the City Attorney and the City Clerk’s input came from their direct reports; the City Auditor was not participating in this process this year.) The third piece of input was from the Council, FINAL MINUTES Page 2 of 18 Special Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Final Minutes 05/31/17 which happened through the online survey. Each Council Member was able to do their own individual rating by using key traits. The survey provided an opportunity for comment and gave the Council an opportunity to establish goals for the next year. She handled the input by taking the results of the online survey and developed a starting point for an evaluation. After the Council recess there was a Draft Evaluation; this included the Self- Assessment and the Direct Report summary. The three pieces of input were the online survey, the Direct Report summaries and the Self-Assessment from each of the CAO’s. After which there was a Preliminary Draft Evaluation, which went into the first Closed Session conversation among the Council only. The Council then discussed this and reacted to it; based on their feedback, she drafted a final Performance Evaluation. A copy of this was to go to the Council and the CAO’s; this positioned the conversation for each of the CAO’s. The CAO’s were to schedule an individual discussion with the full Council; the Council gave feedback on where each individual was headed. This process was dependent on each individual CAO and what was in play. There were three comments on other elements in the process, in particular where the Committee played a big role last year. The first comment was the Committee had the first vet on CAO compensation; after vetting, a recommendation was made to the Council. Once the evaluation discussion between each of the CAO’s and the full Council was complete, compensation recommendations to the Council were made. Another role the Committee had, assuming there was a need for another debrief, was discussion of changes for the next year. Any Motions that came out of the Committee needed to be flagged during the debrief and then brought to the Council. The final piece was having compensation decisions completed in a timely way so they were implemented into payroll and approved in a public meeting. This was the overview; she directed the Committee’s attention to the Schedule: 1) on May 10, 2017 she met with each of the CAO’s to check in about the process; and 2) there was a Committee meeting today, May 31, 2017. She expressed concern about some of these meetings getting on the calendar because there was a layer of process that ensured input and she wanted to make sure people were prepared during the final evaluation. She had success last year by holding a one-on-one meeting with each individual Council Member to help them understand their individual expectation; it was the same briefing as the Committee but more tailored. Each Council Member was offered the opportunity to meet; the date set out for that was June 14 or 15, 2017; she planned on meeting with each of the new Council Members. This meeting with all the Council Members was not mandatory. The critical part was that the online survey was going to launch June 21, 2017. The Council was going to receive a Packet, including the Self- Assessment from each CAO. This was the procedure so each Council Member could consider the online survey and the Direct Report summary. The Direct Report process was already underway. FINAL MINUTES Page 3 of 18 Special Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Final Minutes 05/31/17 Council Member Holman inquired if when the CAO’s did their own evaluation, were the Direct Report comments available this gave the CAO’s an opportunity to respond. Ms. Figone explained that the CAO’s received a summary of the Direct Reports that were put together by her so they were able look at it and respond to it as they were doing their Self-Assessment. The reason for this was there might be information that related to their goals or that they should be prepared to discuss with the full Council; the Council received the Direct Reports when they did the survey. Council Member Holman questioned whether there was a good reason to do the in-person and the online survey because the process used to be that there were one-on-one discussions. Ms. Figone answered that, based on the Council’s feedback last year, there was a trial run this year where the ELT Members did an online survey and she interviewed each of them. The response rate was very good. She was not doing interviews for the Attorney Staff, but if they needed or asked for one, she would do an interview. Council Member Holman stated that the interview was not offered. Ms. Figone said yes and that she has not seen a need for it. It was possible to proactively offer it next time, which could be done. There was already outreach from an employee, and it was very flexible. Council Member Holman noted that Direct Reports were not being done for the City Auditor. Ms. Figone noted that if she found anything to be unclear in the feedback, she would call the employee. Ms. Figone continued with the Schedule and said June 21, 2017 was when the Online Survey was launched. Some Council Members asked for more time. Mayor Scharff remarked that was a necessity. FINAL MINUTES Page 4 of 18 Special Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Final Minutes 05/31/17 Ms. Figone confirmed that the goal was to get 100 percent participation and she did not want to rely on the Council Members completing the survey while they were on vacation. Council Member Holman inquired why June 21, 2017 was chosen, as opposed to June 19, 2017. Ms. Figone was not sure. Council Member Holman remarked that this gave people 10 days, instead of eight and asked if the online survey was done. Ms. Figone stated that the online survey was done. Council Member Holman wanted to know what was being held up. Ms. Figone relayed that the she was getting the Self Assessments from the CAO’s on June 12, 2017; the Packet was going to be sent to the full Council on June 15, 2017. She did not have any reason for picking that date and they could be earlier if the Committee wanted. Council Member Holman reiterated that people were going to need more time, so why not give them more time. Mayor Scharff stated that the Council will receive the Packet on June 19, 2017 and the Council online survey was going to be opened for eight days; he wanted to know if the Schedule should have said June 19, 2017. Ms. Figone wanted to get the information to the City Clerk so the Council could have it by June 15, 2017. Council Member Holman commented that June 15, 2017 was a Thursday. Mayor Scharff retorted that nothing was scheduled on June 15, 2017; June 14 and 15, 2017 was the orientation to meet with the individual Council Members. Ms. Figone said yes. Mayor Scharff said the online survey was open for eight days but it could be open earlier. FINAL MINUTES Page 5 of 18 Special Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Final Minutes 05/31/17 Ms. Figone agreed it could be opened earlier but thought that the CAO evaluations might get mixed up with the Council Packet information. She offered to open the survey on June 19, 2017. Council Member Filseth noted that the June 21-28, 2017 was not eight days. Mayor Scharff had the same thoughts. Ms. Figone suggested opening the survey sooner rather than later. Once the survey closed then she did the drafting, picked a date and tried to give Council a week with the Draft Preliminary Evaluations. She noted some aggressiveness with the first Closed Session on August 16 and 17, 2017 because the Council was just getting back from their break. The Clerk was trying to get these dates on the calendar. The process was: a discussion without any of the CAO’s present, then discussion with each individual; two on one night and two on a third night. This was the time when the Preliminary Draft was discussed, Council gave feedback and then Staff modified the Evaluation. She suggested that if the Council was not too worn out after the meeting on August 17, 2017, to discuss the Committee’s role in compensation. There were three new Council Members that had not gone through CAO Evaluations yet. She or the Mayor needed to remind the Council about the next steps for the Committee meetings and how the Council asked the Committee to screen the compensation data to make a recommendation to the Council. She wanted to make sure the Council was still endorsing that role and if there were any issues; it paved the way for the Committee work. She opened the discussion. Mayor Scharff thought the process was good and asked the other Committee Members. Ms. Figone saw consensus and reiterated that this discussion would take place at the end of the meeting on August 17, 2017. The preliminary review was going to be turned around and in two weeks the Council was going to have the conversations with each of the CAO’s; she wanted to target August 29 and 30, 2017 for those meetings. In between June 16 and 29, 2017 she was turning around the evaluations and meeting with each of the CAO’s to share the document and to coach them on how to best prepare. This was designed to meet the needs of the CAO’s so they came prepared for their evaluation and everyone had a good conversation. August 29 and 30, 2017 ended the evaluation process, the documents were finalized and then prepared for signature. After which, Staff was to meet with the Committee about compensation; the target date for this was September 6, 2017. A FINAL MINUTES Page 6 of 18 Special Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Final Minutes 05/31/17 goal last year was to shrink this process as much as possible. The first meeting was envisioned as Staff bringing data from Municipal Research Group (MRG); they did the City’s benchmarking in the past. MRG updated the survey population used in the past. She felt the Council would have a good idea of what was going on within the organization by this time and will have had Closed Session conversations about the organization before then. The Committee was going to be the vetting ground for the Council and were going to be fresh from the performance reviews. There was one Committee Meeting anticipated at this time but they could have as many meetings as they needed. Once the Committee was ready to make a recommendation to the Council, the Council was going to see all the same data the Committee saw. Historical research was asked for last year; there were a lot of things that could happen in that setting. She was planning on going into a Closed Session on September 13 or 14, 2017 with the full Council to facilitate the delivery of the Committee’s recommendation. After these Closed Session meetings, a decision needed to be confirmed about who was going to deliver the information to each CAO; last year the Council decided it was the Mayor and the Committee Chair. By November 6, 2017, Human Resources (HR) was able to implement these decisions into payroll. She anticipated an Open Session on September 20, 2017 to debrief with the Committee. Council Member Filseth stated that if the process was completed by September 14, 2017, why did the decision take two months. Ms. Figone relayed that November 6, 2017 was an HR date. Rumi Portillo, Director of Human Resources explained the two months were due to Staff coordination and payroll; a Resolution needed to be adopted and there were contract amendments that needed to be completed. Mayor Scharff commented on the November 6, 2017 date and noted that he recently signed all of the contract amendments for the previous year. Ms. Portillo noted that the execution of the documents was an oversight. Mayor Scharff declared that step was forgotten. Ms. Portillo agreed. All of the implementation and signatures were made and each CAO’s contract was overlooked. Mayor Scharff restated that the all contracts should be signed by November 6, 2017. FINAL MINUTES Page 7 of 18 Special Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Final Minutes 05/31/17 Ms. Portillo said yes. Mayor Scharff wanted a reminder, just in case the contracts did not come through this time. Ms. Portillo promised a reminder and ensured the Committee they would be signed. Council Member Holman asked, since the contracts were passed last year, was it okay for the current Mayor sign the contracts. Jessica Brettle, Assistant City Clerk interjected that since the full Council approved the contracts, the Mayor was able sign them. There was turnover when a document was approved in December and the new Mayor signed in January. Mayor Scharff commented that it was a formality. Council Member Holman knew it probably did not make a difference. Mayor Scharff inquired when the Staff received their raises. Council Member Holman clarified which Staff were being discussed. Mayor Scharff remarked he was asking about all City Staff, except the four CAO’s. Ms. Portillo explained that as soon as an adoption happened, HR processed the following pay period. Mayor Scharff explained that he was asking about the rest of the Staff. The CAO’s had a process, James Keene, City Manager was evaluating his Direct Reports and HR inserted their numbers for Management Professionals. Ms. Portillo replied that their cycle was different. The Management Professional’s cycle was just starting; their evaluation month was July. After this, there was a vetting process because Management Professionals had a bifurcated process: evaluation and then compensation. The compensation process occurred in August and the feedback happened in September. FINAL MINUTES Page 8 of 18 Special Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Final Minutes 05/31/17 Mayor Scharff reiterated that the compensation was assigned in August and the feedback was given in September. Ms. Portillo stated that compensation did not get applied until October. Mayor Scharff confirmed that the Management Professionals were not told. Ms. Portillo said yes, not until appraisals were given; the compensation was heard and then there was feedback. Mayor Scharff observed that compensation was given roughly the same time as CAO’s. Ms. Portillo clarified that Management Professionals received compensation sooner. Mayor Scharff thought the two should align and commented that the unionized employee evaluations were based on steps. Ms. Portillo agreed but said unionized employees were driven by anniversary date. Mayor Scharff understood unionized employees were driven by a separate process. He thought the CAO compensation was connected to the Fiscal Year (FY) and they were paid July first, retroactively. Ms. Figone interjected that the Mayor was talking about the retroactive portion of compensation. Mayor Scharff said yes. Management Professionals had retroactive pay from July to October; they were paid at the old rate and then received a big check in October. Ms. Portillo said yes. Mayor Scharff admitted he was unaware of that and recalled that the unionized employees had a policy. Council Member Filseth added retroactive pay. FINAL MINUTES Page 9 of 18 Special Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Final Minutes 05/31/17 Mayor Scharff thought there was no retroactive pay for unionized employees. Ms. Portillo clarified retroactive pay with union employees dealt with bargaining and a union contract. There was a firm policy of no retroactive pay. Council Member Filseth thought this was a timing thing. Mr. Portillo added that there might be an evaluation that was overdue or a processing period when HR went back to the anniversary date. There was not an absolute “no” retroactive pay rule, there was just none around bargaining. Mayor Scharff recognized this but recalled that when there were issues with unions, the comparison was made that the CAO’s received retroactive pay. He was going to ask to align the CAO process with the July first dates so there was no retroactive pay. This was a wider issue because the whole organization would be aligned this way. Ms. Portillo understood but said the process would need to be started two months before the FY. Council Member Filseth thought this was a good point. Ms. Portillo looked into different practices and ways this was implemented. Some organizations began in the spring so it was done with the start of the new FY, but the consequence was the evaluation was prospective. Other organizations wanted the entire review period to be finished first, causing the process to be completed in the fall; there was no way to avoid the back pay issue. Additionally, she saw other agencies begin the evaluation process after the FY but this caused the increase to begin in January. Council Member Holman requested to have this information laid out. Ms. Portillo agreed. Council Member Holman thought another way of looking at things was to have the evaluation period go from April to April. FINAL MINUTES Page 10 of 18 Special Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Final Minutes 05/31/17 Mayor Scharff concurred because by starting the FY the evaluation at that time, the pay periods would be aligned. Ms. Portillo commented that pay increases was easier when it did not involve back pay. Council Member Holman suggested a recommendation from the Committee. Mayor Scharff wanted to speak with Ms. Portillo first and wanted to insist that things move in that direction if it was just the CAO’s that were different. It was a larger conversation then just the Committee; he encouraged a conversation with the City Manager. Council Member Holman admitted that this was a much larger conversation then jus the CAO evaluation. Ms. Figone inquired what the ultimate goal was. Council Member Filseth answered that it was to avoid retroactive pay. Mayor Scharff agreed and said it was a better organizational practice. This was a decision for the City Manager, not the City Council. Ms. Figone wanted to know if it mattered what the evaluation period was in order to assess progress. She wanted to know which of those pieces the Committee wanted to align because the Council had goals and the big items did not fall within the FY, it was a budget alignment. Mayor Scharff questioned whether it had an impact and said there were organizational advantages to doing things the way they were done. Council Member Filseth said there were other ways to do things. It was possible to put the raise cycle from September to September and have one year where things were adjusted to a three month shift; the review and compensation cycles could be brought into alignment. There was probably a reason the compensation cycle had to map the fiscal cycle, but it was not obvious. Mayor Scharff suggested that the back pay was the weird part. Another possibility was a Cost Saving Measure and not doing back pay; until then, things could align and there would be a shift in the cycles. FINAL MINUTES Page 11 of 18 Special Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Final Minutes 05/31/17 Council Member Holman inquired about how many Management Professionals there were. Ms. Figone thought about 60. Ms. Portillo said there were about 120 Management Professionals. Council Member Holman did not think the number was high. Council Member Filseth questioned whether that covered the 120 that were in the Utilities Department. Ms. Portillo said no because the unionized management was not included; that included Utilities, Police and Fire. Council Member Filseth noted that was a quarter of the General Fund. Ms. Portillo mentioned that she could find out for the Committee. She was going to research the history tracing back to the City, including other practices and options. Mayor Scharff wanted Ms. Portillo to speak with the City Manager, ask him if he was happy with the way things were organized, what the options were and if he thought there was room for change. Ms. Figone stated this was not germane to the present discussion but wandered into the debriefing. Council Member Holman clarified that the City Manager should know the disadvantages and concerns that were brought up at this Committee. Ms. Figone conveyed that she was going to target this discussion for the Committee debrief in September, 2017. Mayor Scharff said there needed to be a doodle for all the dates mentioned. Ms. Brettle said she was making note of everything that the Clerk needed to do would discuss this with her. FINAL MINUTES Page 12 of 18 Special Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Final Minutes 05/31/17 Ms. Portillo commented that there was a poll out right now and the responses were slow. Mayor Scharff inquired if the poll was initiated. Ms. Portillo said yes; there were three responses. Ms. Brettle said she was sure the City Clerk was following the poll but would follow up with her. Ms. Figone thought the Clerk was trying to see if people were available. She was worried that the dates could be put on the calendar but might not be noticed. Ms. Portillo saw that all of the August, 2017 dates were on the doodle. Mayor Scharff remarked that if all the dates were on the doodle it was probably overwhelming. Ms. Portillo read off the doodle dates: August, 15-17, 29-31, 2017. Ms. Figone hoped that the doodle did not convey choice. Mayor Scharff said yes because doodles usually conveyed choice. Ms. Brettle said she would discuss that with the City Clerk. Ms. Figone thought this could be treated like a Committee Meeting where there was a mandatory “ask” for attendance. Ms. Brettle agreed and wanted to ensure attendance. Mayor Scharff wanted to confirm whether people had something scheduled for that day. Ms. Figone mentioned a quorum and thought all Council Members should be in attendance. Mayor Scharff agreed except there were things like anniversaries. FINAL MINUTES Page 13 of 18 Special Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Final Minutes 05/31/17 Ms. Figone confirmed that the poll would be checked on. Ms. Brettle agreed and promised solidify the dates. Ms. Figone commented that there was nothing more about the schedule to discuss but wanted to highlight two items in each of the surveys; she wanted to start with the Council Survey. The online survey was the same format as the CAO’s. The key improvement in the online survey was under the heading “Vison and Strategies,” which was one of the traits for positive performance. There was no question for the Council to give their impression on items A-E, under “Vision and Strategies”. She did not think this was valuable. There was, however, an option to say whether something was a strength, it needed improvement or it met expectations. This was confusing for a lot of Council Members and it was not used. The new survey included the definition of “Vision and Strategy,” which was an indicator but Staff was not asking for any sort of indication. The Council was asked to rate Vision and Strategy and below that were “exceptional” through “poor.” This made things less overwhelming and the Council was able to comment on Vision and Strategy; the same outline was repeated for each of the indicators of positive traits. The back of the survey completed all of the indicators. Above Item 15 were the goals from the last year; the Council was also to be given the prior year’s review. The CAO’s were rated based on their established goals; comments were made and it was possible to identify the top three achievements, areas for improvement, the overall performance rating and then suggested goals. The Council had the City Manager’s Self- Assessment and his suggestions for goals and had the opportunity to write down anything they wanted to share. On a separate subject, there was a sample provided of the Direct Report or the ELT survey for each of the appointees. When the evaluation was done in 2015, the questions were designed to elicit challenges and concerns. As a result, the feedback was only challenges and concerns in the past. In 2017 there was an opportunity to add strengths and achievements, as well as identifying challenges, and opportunities for addressing those challenges. It was a simple, open-ended survey. Council Member Holman requested that the information be gone through one more time. Ms. Figone repeated that there was an online survey with six open-ended questions which identified three to five strengths for the organization; ELT and in the case of the City Attorney and the City Clerk, it was about their department to write Direct Reports. There was the ability to list three to five achievements, most important challenges, opportunities for addressing those FINAL MINUTES Page 14 of 18 Special Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Final Minutes 05/31/17 challenges and how the Council would like each CAO to ensure these issues were addressed; then anything else could be added. Council Member Holman thought the evaluation was too far in a certain direction. Ms. Figone requested clarification. Council Member Holman said, for example, there were changes in real time. Ms. Figone felt the traits were the same. Council Member Holman explained that in the Council evaluation there was discussion on strengths, weaknesses and things that needed to be improved upon. The survey seemed like it was all on the other side of the spectrum. She thought about challenges that were facing the City organization and remarked that the survey example she was looking at was the City Managers. Ms. Figone remarked that the survey for ELT that dealt with the organization because ELT were like the cooperate leaders; an ELT perspective was about an organization perspective. For the City Attorney the perspective was about the City Attorney’s Office and for the City Clerk it was about the City Clerk’s Office. She thought Council Member Holman was going to inquire about the Direct Reports and how they related to vision, strategy or leadership. The Direct Report process was an improvement over the one that was established two years ago because it brought in the positive view and the challenges. Mayor Scharff agreed and wanted to know why the Committee was not asking the same questions the Council was asking. Ms. Figone explained that when MRG came in 2015 and the feedback then was the employees were not in a position to rate those things. Mayor Scharff commented that ELT did. Ms. Figone said yes but she was told that it was not meaningful. Mayor Scharff stated that Ms. Figone did not agree with it. FINAL MINUTES Page 15 of 18 Special Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Final Minutes 05/31/17 Ms. Figone replied that she did not know that the exact same indicators posed in the same way for Council were meaningful for ELT. Mayor Scharff thought some of them would be and they could be modified. Ms. Figone said they might be. Mayor Scharff thought ELT would know the City Manager’s vision and strategy because they worked with him; ELT had a better window into his vision and strategy than he did as a Council Member. Ms. Figone suggested this might be something for consideration next time. Council Member Holman commented on item five of the sample and noted that the wording was not necessarily what the Council needed but it was what the organization needed; she thought it was a two-part question. Ms. Figone remarked that question was taken broadly and it was pretty clear to people in the interviews. For example, (she made some words up): in order to address the challenges that were raised, or to seek out the opportunities that could be sought, she needed support; she needed the Council to understand X, or there were resources the organization needed. It depended on the context and she was not getting any confusion. Mayor Scharff did not think today was the time to make Motions but wanted Staff to come back to the Committee with next year’s survey. He saw an ELT/City Manager relationship; ELT tracked well for him. Council Member Filseth suggested discussing this on August 16 and 17, 2017 because the Committee will be discussing the role of the CAO Committee. Mayor Scharff thought that was good. Ms. Figone asked for the information to be repeated. Council Member Filseth suggested having a recap on the role of the Committee after August 17, 2017. Ms. Figone said yes. FINAL MINUTES Page 16 of 18 Special Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Final Minutes 05/31/17 Mayor Scharff noted his interest in Ms. Figone’s answer to the question that in 2015 MRG raised issues being discussed. If there was anything that Ms. Figone thought was a best practice, he would like to hear it. Ms. Figone remarked that was a tumultuous time and the reviews were designed to replicate this process; she was not issuing blame but it was a transitory period. Her recommendation was Direct Reports every other year. It was a lot of information and she believed in letting things take root and not over surveying. There were different views about that and some Council Members were surprised about that. Mayor Scharff suggested agendizing these suggestions; he wanted to come up with a bunch of topics to place on the Agenda. Council Member Holman felt surprise when the Committee made a decision without it coming to the full Council in the past. Ms. Figone concurred. She thought, regarding the debrief in September, or at any point there were changes, those recommendations needed to go to the full Council. She was not clear on the process and she relied on Staff and the Council to be the process owners. Mayor Scharff reiterated that there be a discussion about all the topics on a future Agenda. Ms. Figone mentioned the two sample surveys and said they were the ones to be used. She appreciated the feedback and recapped: instead of June 21-28, 2017 for the survey, it was going to be opened on June 19, 2017; Council was to get their Packets that Thursday. Solidifying dates was underway and she was going to meet one-on-one with the Council Members that wanted that. Mayor Scharff inquired if there were any other comments. Ms. Figone wanted to know if she missed anything. Council Member Holman stated if there were changes to the evaluation documents or questions, she thought it was good to have the information ahead of time. FINAL MINUTES Page 17 of 18 Special Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Final Minutes 05/31/17 Ms. Figone replied that there was not a Launch Meeting last year and she was not planning one. Mayor Scharff took responsibility and insisted on a launch meeting. He did not want the Committee Members say the process was not talked about. Ms. Figone explained she did not want to overwhelm the Committee but she wanted to work the information in. Mayor Scharff thought about the doodle poll and suggested sending the At Places information to all Council Members with the updated dates. He wanted to inform Council about these dates; they were being put on the calendar and if someone was not going to be able to make the dates they needed to inform Staff. Ms. Figone commented that doodle sounded like a choice. Ms. Brettle agreed. Council Member Holman commented on the schedule and how the meeting today had an “x”. Ms. Figone replied that was a typo. Council Member Holman confirmed and stated the meeting was noticed. Ms. Figone said the At Places items had an internal purpose and it was brought into this meeting as a way to help focus discussion. Council Member Holman suggested that before these documents were sent out to the full Council, to add this to June 19th Packet, otherwise there may be questions. Ms. Figone said yes; the information evolved and she saw that these suggestions were important. Mayor Scharff noted that he put the “X” in the right place so Council Members did not think there was a closed meeting. Ms. Figone remarked that the information would look different before it was published. FINAL MINUTES Page 18 of 18 Special Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Final Minutes 05/31/17 Mayor Scharff inquired if there were any more comments. NO ACTION TAKEN ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 2:59 P.M.