The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/16/1991, C-6 - BY MOTION APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COUNCIL SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE PROCESS FOR EVALUATION OF APPOINTED OFFICIALS TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE CITY COUNCIL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IIIII�I�IIIWaI�I�II�k city MEETING DATE ►iu�u�► c� of san tins oBispo 7116191 fiffiffimffiftima COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:_ .FROM: Ann McPike, Personnel Directoror SUBJECT: The Process for Evaluation of Appointed Officials CAO RECOMMENDATION: By motion, approve the recommendations of the Council sub- committee on the process for Evaluation of Appointed Officials to be incorporated into the City Council Policies and Procedures Discussion The City Council annually evaluates the job performance of its three appointed officials, the City Administrative Officer, the City Attorney and the City-Clerk. Beginning in August of 19e9, the Council began following a structured process that involved a facilitator who assists the Council in developing a summary performance appraisal document of their evaluations and comments. This process for the most part has been extremely well-received by both the Council and their appointees. However, some problems arose with the most recent round of evaluations that led to the formation of a Council sub-committee charged with refining the process. Councilmen Reiss and Roalman, sub-committee members, met with the Personnel Director to discuss the problem areas and to develop recommendations for the Council to review and approve. This report will identify not only those areas of concern but also the subcommittee's suggestions on how to resolve them. Areas of Concern I ■ Council members need to receive evaluation materials in advance of their meeting with the facilitator and from all appointed officials simultaneously. ■ The Personnel Director needs to assume a "coordinator" role and take the lead in the collection and distribution of material, train the Councilmembers in the process and serve as liaison with the facilitator. ■ Information supplied to the Council prior to the evaluation should include last year's evaluation and rating sheets, and a self-evaluation by the appointed officials on the same rating form as used by Council. This information needs to get to Council well in advance of their meeting with the facilitator. ■ The timeline is too lengthy and needs to be compressed. Toward that and, the length of time between meeting with the facilitator and the development of the summary document and the actual evaluation meeting with the employee needs to be shortened to one or no later than two weeks with all �� I VIII{Il�pn�i�� MY of San Luis OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 three evaluations occurring on the same day. ■ The evaluations should become a part of the appointed officials ' personnel file. These concerns have been addressed and resolved in the following process. The Process 1) On or about the last week in March, the appointed officials will submit the following materials to the Personnel Director ■ Goals and objectives of the past 12 months ■ Proposed goals and objectives for the upcoming 12 months ■ A completed self-evaluation using the rating system on the Evaluation of Appointed Official Form 2) The Personnel Director will distribute to the City Council a packet of materials at least 10 days ,prior to the Council/Facilitator meeting which will include: ■ A staff report outlining the specific timeline and dates, a recap of the evaluation process and scheduled salary increases for other City employee groups ■ The items from #1 above ■ The previous year' s evaluation summary document and ratings ■ Blank evaluation forms ■ The Appointed Officials' employment contracts that spell out the full range of benefits The packet will include material for all three appointees. 3) The Councilmembers will review the packets and individually evaluate the appointees using the rating system on the rating form and writing out supporting examples. 4) Approximately ten days after receiving the packets, the Council as a group,the Personnel Director and the three appointed officials shall meet with the facilitator and review the evaluation process, including the performance factors, rating system and major goals. 5) Following the group meeting, the facilitator will meet with each Councilmember individually to discuss evaluations and ratings. 'u� p►�IIIlIII��I ►��I City o� San Luis OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 3 6) After meeting with all five Council members individually the facilitator will develop a summary document that incorporates a composite of the individual Council comments. The facilitator will meet again with the entire Council to review the summary document and refine it as the Council reaches consensus. 7) Approximately one week later. the City Council will meet to present their evaluations to the appointed officials. Prior to their evaluation interviews, the Council will meet with the Personnel Director who will review the managerial compensation plan and discuss the linkage between performance and pay. All three evaluations shall be conducted on the same day, each session lasting about 45 minutes. 8) The summary document and ratings, after a review by the appointed officials, will be forwarded to the Personnel Department for inclusion in the appointed officials ' personnel files. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Do not approve the recommendations of the Council sub-committee and direct staff and the sub-committee to meet again to develop a different approach to evaluating appointed officials. This is not recommended since the sub-committee felt that the existing process is very worthwhile and needed refinement only. 2 . Abandon the use of a structured process and return to the former practice of Council and appointee meeting to discuss performance without a facilitator. The sub-committee does not recommend this alternative. This is because of the difficulty in the past of providing the appointee with a balanced, strictly work- related perspective from five diverse viewpoints. The use of a facilitator has led to a successful process built upon consensus and agreed upon performance factors. C-(�3