HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/1999, C6 - APPOINTED OFFICIALS' EVALUATION council M °°°-
j acEn6a Repoat lt,.N.R�
rfi
CITY O F SAN L U I S O B I S P O
FROM: Ann Slate,Director of Human Resources
SUBJECT: APPOINTED OFFICIALS' EVALUATION
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Approve modifications to the evaluation process for Appointed Officials as recommended by
Brunner Consulting.
DISCUSSION
Annually the City Council evaluates the performance of the City Administrative Officer (CAO)
and the City Attorney, the appointed officials. They have been following a process originally
adopted by the City Council in 1989 and updated in 1991. This year at the completion of the
performance evaluations, the Council asked Brunner Consulting, the consultants who developed
the current system and have assisted the Council with the evaluations for many years, to examine
the process and to develop some options for improvement.
The consultants prepared a draft of options for the Council's consideration (Attachment A),
affecting process and format. The Council provided feedback to the consultants who prepared a
composite document that includes a summary of the feedback as well as some recommendations
for implementation (Attachment B). Staff has reviewed the Brunner recommendations and the
Appointed Officials are in agreement with the proposed changes.
Current Process
The current process requires that in preparation for the evaluation, each Council member review
a number of documents including the previous year's performance appraisal document, self
evaluations from the appointed officials, and proposed goals for the coming year. A blank
evaluation form for the Council members to complete is also distributed upon which they are
asked to determine performance ratings. In addition, the consultants provide each council
member with consolidated department head feedback on the appointed officials' performance.
Council members then meet individually with the consultants to discuss performance factors.
The consultant develops a composite of the Council members' comments which is reviewed in
closed session with the entire Council. Based upon that review and Council feedback, the
composite document is finalized and presented to the appointed officials at a subsequent closed
session.
C6-1
Council Agenda Report=Appointed Officials' Evaluation Process
Page 2
Procedural Options
The consultant provided some alternative procedural steps as described on page 2 of Attachment
A. Those alternatives were suggested process steps that could be added to or substituted for the
current system. Only one council member requested a change in procedures but did not specify
which of the alternatives was desired. Therefore, the consultant is recommending no changes in
procedural steps to the current system.
CAO Performance Factor Options
The City Council with the current system uses the following four performance factors in
evaluating its appointed officials:
1. Leadership
2. Interpersonal/community relations
3. Judgment/problem solving
4. Communication
These factors are in addition to a rating on major goals/accomplishments. (A detailed
explanation of these factors appears on page 3 of Attachment A.)
The consultants, based upon the Council's feedback, are recommending `unbundling" and
revising the current performance factors. In addition to the existing performance factors listed
above, they recommend new CAO performance factors (they are more fully described on pages 3
and 4 of Attachment B):
1. Financial Management
2. Planning
3. Organization
City Attorney Performance Factor Options
The City Attorney is evaluated by the same performance factors as the CAO. In addition to
those, the consultants, based upon Council feedback recommend the inclusion of additional
performance factors. They are listed here and defined in greater detail on pages 4 and 5 of
Attachment B:
1. Legal
2. Organization.
Rating Scale Options
The current rating scale used by the Council in evaluating appointed officials is a five point
scale as follows: 5 = Exceptional, 4 = Highly competent, 3 = Competent, 2 = Needs
Improvement and 1 = Poor. The consultants in seeking Council feedback offered the Council
four examples of alternative scales(See Pages 6-7 of Attachment A).
C6-2
Council Agenda Report—Appointed.Officials'Evaluation Process
Page 3
Of the Council members who provided the consultant with feedback, each had a different .
selection of scales. Since the consultant did not receive a clear indication from the Council of
what scale they preferred, it is recommended that the Council continue to use the current rating
scale.
Currently, Council Members rate on a 1=5 scale (from low to high) utilizing up to one decimal
point if desired. The majority of the Council did not indicate a desire to change this scale.
Therefore, the consultant is not recommending a change at this time.
Weighting of.Performance Factors
The current system weighs equally all performance factor and goal categories (20% each). The
weighting is intended to reflect what the City Council truly wants to evaluate. In their feedback
to the consultants, no Council Member requested any other weighting approach. Therefore, the
consultants recommend that all performance factors plus overall goals to be equally weighted—
no change from the current system. Thus, if the Council accepts the additional performance
factors discussed above, each category will be now be weighted 11.11% for the CAO (based
upon 9 factor plus goal categories) and 12.50% for the City Attorney(based upon 8 categories).
Recommended for the CAO:
o Leadership
0 Interpersonal Relations
0 Community Relations .
0 Judgment/Problem Solving
0 Communication
e Financial Management
o Planning
0 Organization
o Goals
Recommended for the City Attorney:
o Leadership
0 Interpersonal Relations
o Community Relations .
o Judgment/Problem Solving
o Communication
o Legal
Organization
o Goals
If the Council amends the number of categories shown above for either the CAO or the City
Attorney,the weightings will need to be recalculated.
C6-3
Council Agenda Report—Appointed Officials' Evaluation Process
Page 4
Summary. of Recommendations
In summary, the consultants recommend that the Council reach agreement on the following
points:
1. Performance Factor-Options
Council feedback regarding the performance factors resulted in the consultants
"unbundling" the current factors and providing some new factors for consideration for
both the CAO and City Attorney.
2. Rating Scale Options
1. Most of the Council favored retaining a five-level rating scdle. However, each
member selected different wording for the levels. Therefore, in the absence of a
majority preference,no change to the rating scale is recommended.
2. No Council Members requested any change to the current process of equally
weighting the various performance factors/goals.
FISCAL IMTACT
None.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not approve the recommendations of the consultant and direct staff and the consultant
to work together to develop a different approach to evaluating appointed officials. This
is not recommended since the recommendations are based on Council feedback and no
comments were received by the consultant suggesting major change to the current
system.
2. Make no changes to the current system and continue to evaluate appointed officials with
the process endorsed by the Council in 1991. This is, not recommended since the
modificationsrecommended by the consultants offer some improvements to the existing
system and reflect the comments and concerns of the current Council.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Memorandum to the City Council from Brunner Consulting dated April 9, 1999
Attachment B: Memorandum to the City Council from Brunner Consulting dated June.25, 1999
C6-4
Attachment A
Brunner Consulting
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Members
City of San Luis Obispo
FROM: Sharon and Gary Brunner
SUBJECT: Draft of Performance Appraisal Options
DATE: April 9, 1999
During our March 11, 1999 meetings to review the composite performance appraisal
document for the appointed officials,the City Council requested that we develop some
alternative options for conducting future appraisals. We have prepared a draft of options
for the Council's consideration, including some affecting the process as well as the
format.
We would appreciate receiving individual Council Member's input regarding these draft
options at your earliest convenience,but no later than May 8t'. This will allow us to
review all Council Members' feedback before preparing a composite document for the
entire Council's discussion in an appropriate setting.
Please mail,fax,or e-mail your individual comments directly to Brunner Consulting at
our new address and numbers shown below:
Brunner Consulting
P. O. Box 2310
Newport, OR 97365
Telephone: (541) 574-0842
Fax: (541) 574-0879
E-mail: brunner0telenort.wm
After we receive each Council Member's input, we will develop and send a composite
document to the Personnel Director's attention for distribution to the Council. After the
Council has discussed and decided upon any desired changes to the performance
appraisal process and/or format, it will be advantageous to implement those changes in
the near future. This will provide the appointed officials ample time to perform under the
C6-5
changed process and/or format before their next performance evaluation in 2000. (The
consultants will be available if additional assistance is needed by the Council in finalizing
changes to the performance appraisal process and/or format.)
PROCESS OPTIONS
Current Process
In the current process, each year every Council Member receives a binder from the
Personnel Director that contains the previous year's performance appraisal document for
the appointed officials,a blank evaluation form on which to prepare comments/ratings for
the current year's performance appraisal, and self-evaluation forms/documents from the
appointed officials. In addition,the consultants provide every Council Member with
consolidated department head feedback on the appointed officials' performance.
Each Council Member then meets with the consultants to provide feedback on the
performance factors. The consultants consolidate this feedback into a draft document for
review with the entire Council. After discussions,the consultants finalize the
performance appraisal document. This document is then provided to the appointed
officials prior to their performance evaluation meeting with the City Council.
Alternative Processes
Described in this section are process steps that may be added to or substituted for the
current process. Please note that actual performance measurement factors are discussed
in a later section of the memorandum.
• Each Council Member completing a performance evaluation form and sending it to
either the Mayor, Personnel Director, or consultants for consolidation prior to or in
place of consultant interviews
• Requesting appointed official written response to the performance appraisal
document prior to the actual performance evaluation meeting
• Allowing for amendments to the performance appraisal document after the
performance evaluation meeting
• Re-examining performance appraisal timing to better coincide with goal-setting
processes,so that appointed officials' individual performance goals are better linked
with Council goals.
The consultants do not believe that including public opinion in the performance appraisal
process would be appropriate. A performance evaluation is not a popularity poll, and the
general public or specific public groups do not typically have the whole job or big-
picture view of the appointed positions' performance. It is the City Council's
responsibility to make these determinations.
2
C6-6
PERFORMANCE FACTOR OPTIONS
Current Factors
The City of San Luis Obispo currently evaluates the•following performance factors/goals
for its appointed officials:
• Leadership: Ability to effectively lead, direct, motivate,and inspire others; skill in
eliciting attention and respect from personnel;skill in maintaining.a team spirit and
cooperative efforts among staff, skill in developing subordinates to meet their
potential.
a Interpersonal/Community Relations Ability to deal with people; skill in maintaining
cooperative, friendly relations with the public and City employees; approachability;
skill in handling conflict-and confrontation; skill in inspiring confidence in others.
e Judmnent/Problem Solving: Ability to identify and resolve complex problems
through use of sound analytical methods and application of creative solutions;
thoroughness of analysis and degree of objectivity and foresight; skill in making
sound decisions and considering possible alternatives.
o Communication: Ability to communicate thoughts and ideas orally and in written
form, and have them understood by others; ability to carefully listen, observe,
understand, and.respond to what is communicated by others; skill in preparing written
documents in a thorough and professional manner, skill in well-prepared,well-
articulated,concise, and understandable public presentations.
• Maior Goals/Accomplishments: As defined by the individual and Council.
Alternative Factors for the CAO
Each of the current factors consolidates a number of sub-factors(as evidenced by the
definitions above). Currently, a Council Member must consider all of these sub-factors
in order to provide a rating(rating scales will be discussed in a later section)and
comments for a particular factor. If this is confusing or does not meet the Council's
needs,an optional approach would be to "unbundle"the sub-factors and allow a rating to
be assigned to each one. For example,the current"Leadership"factor"unbundled"
would allow separate ratings for:
Ability to effectively lead, direct,motivate and inspire others
Skill in eliciting attention and respect from personnel
Skill in maintaining a team spirit and cooperative efforts among staff
Y Skill.in developing subordinates.tomeet their potential
This would result in ratings for four areas related to"Leadership"instead of just one
consolidated factor. Such an approach would obviously mean that there would be
numerous factors to be rated(and commented upon)instead of the consolidated ones
currently utilized.
C6-7
Another type of "unbundling"would be to separate any of the current performance
factors that have combined headings such as"Interpersonal/Community Relations". In
this example, "Interpersonal Relations"could be separated from"Community Relations"
even though a number of the same skills apply to each.
More factors could also be added(besides simply"unbundling"the ones in the current
factor definitions), depending upon the Council's desires. The consultants have listed
several additional factors that could substitute for or be added to the current ones. In
considering these options, we would advise the Council to select/substitute ones that
provide them with a clear performance appraisal instrument. A lengthy list of
performance factors can be confusing;therefore it is best to keep the list as concise as
possible. Also,a shorter list is less likely to be redundant or overlapping.
Alternative CAO performance factors for the Council's consideration are listed below.
More specific statements are shown alternatively(indented)as sub-factors of the more
consolidated statements.
• Financial Management: Ability to effectively manage the City's budget and financial
commitments; ability to achieve and maintain a sound, long-range financial
condition; skill in accurately and concisely reporting the City's financial status.
• Does the CAO accurately report and project the financial condition of the City?
• Are management practices and polices designed to maintain a sound,long-range
financial position? .
• Does the CAO implement effective programs to limit liability and loss?
• Are short-and long-term goals established for asset management?
• Does the CAO develop creative solutions to financial issues?
• Planning: Ability to determine short-and long-term needs, recognize potential issues
and problems, and develop thoroughly researched information/alternatives for
Council consideration.
• Does the CAO anticipate needs and recognize potential issues and problems?
• Does the CAO propose effective solutions and provide alternatives?
• Does the CAO provide the Council with all information necessary to make
decisions?
• Organization: Ability to effectively and efficiently manage the City's organizational
structure/resources and its responsibilities; ability to obtain the best possible end
result for the finances invested; skill in ensuring that departments run smoothly and
that daily departmental activities are accomplished.
• Does the CAO effectively delegate work to appropriate staff/departments?
• Does the CAO effectively define/arrange work and efficiently apply resources?
• Does the CAO establish adequate controls to assure the organization's
effectiveness?
• Does the CAO obtain the best possible end result for the money spent?
a
C6-8
• Do the City's departments run smoothly?
• How well do the direct services provided by the City's departments meet the
needs of the community? (direct services listed below for individual ratings)
• Police
• Fire
• Emergency Medical
• Recreation
• .Parks
• Street Maintenance
• Water and Sewer
• Land Use
• .Animal Control
• Construction and Engineering
• Etc.
Alternative Factors for the City Attorney
The comments regarding the possible"unbundling"of the current performance factors
also apply to the City Attorney. Alternative City Attorney performance factors are
suggested below:
• Execution of Policy: Ability tb provide competent legal advice;-ability to effectively
interpret and execute City Council policy; skill in preparing appropriate legal
documents to reflect Council policies; skill in representing the City's interests in
court,negotiations,and other legal settings.
• Does the City Attorney understand and comply with the overall policy,
philosophy,and laws of the City?
• Does.the City Attorney effectively represent the City in litigation,administrative
hearings,and negotiations?
• Does the City Attorney accurately prepare ordinances,resolutions, contracts, and
other legal documents to reflect the Council's-policies?
• Does the City Attorney provide competent legal advice?
• Is the City Attorney proactive in helping to guide the Council and staff with
alternatives and innovative legal solutions?
• Does the City Attorney perform preventive as well as corrective legal
services?
• Does the City Attorney balance legal approaches and restrictions with reality
and service needs?
5
C6-9
RATING SCALE OPTIONS
Current Rating Scale
The City Council's current rating scale is defined below:
5 = Exceptional(exceeds standards on a consistent basis)
4 = Highly Competent(generally exceeds standards and requirements)
3 — Competent(expected performance level)
2 = Needs Improvement(does not consistently meet standards)
1 = Poor(consistently deficient in meeting most standards)
The City Council may select increments between 5 and 1 (to no more than one decimal
point)to reflect their rating. Currently, each of the four"Performance Factors"plus
"Major Goals" have been equally weighted and averaged in order to calculate an overall
rating.
Alternative Ratins Scales
Most commonly used are scales with four or five performance levels. The City of San
Luis Obispo utilizes the five levels(1-5) described above. Other examples are listed
below:
• Exceeded Expectations
• Fully Met Expectations
• Marginally Met Expectations
• Did Not Meet Expectations
• Excellent
• Good
• Acceptable
• Poor
• Unacceptable
• Outstanding
• Highly Effective
• Effective
• Needs Improvement
• Unsatisfactory
6
C6-10
rY'
.. y S W T {y'. t F+• &I w µ, w a 'S[t'r� xi is. L,
b4
Most-,'Often
Often ' :� , s' o Y •.1 t
' f ,�•r'�k. r M ��
o ...Sometimes
{
o Never k
,,,�Sirl '<•�;}uy to Gyr�%'Scm .�rr.„ inn .': '�..0 Y'aY•� ry.�iJ��
Any-ofthese other°optionstcan workeffechvely,as longrasclear defuuttons ar
develoP'e
mstsedfoitheterd "
_
i
Typically/<aniascendinp or descendtnQ 1�4 oil 5 rating,scale is�asstg d to the4selected '
5 yP) xJ btir...� - - D3 �r .L _ �.Y v .
terms-�However�the scale can begdgnedkto encom ass'an ;.ran e:ofrahn s that'the
a :-"y ,~,r r .P Y g L g. ,. a.
Council may,des>te Ittts\unadvisable to go beyohd i'[!l I01ratmglscale for�ease of, m
t�$`• ..R.9^ 1 "^w5t�1.�fi^�+, '`sS'. [ � . tF rI
administration t6 k i�J {3 F`R n .
i.r �T1h " L
'"•v.F,r r y y ter 1 yM1•rf}r � 1- y _ja'
c Ya�' y..s v_4'3ra�z a.a h,.ty}acy.r r1Ih w ?{"'a"L" rC.' ° ,l�ti y "-&� '�„Ph r
Rating choices canbe(hspidydd+a number of,.ways (depending upon the Council st'r a'
f>qu-iiPo. m -3.—s r C-Tf r s"_mY•",.r' a d p.
preference) s"uc)i as baz charts circled numbers` sliding scales etc�tir �r rig
7>i-'�yad0
h"LL''�1
Alternative Wei h
H�<
.sb ✓•�'�.ay`,.� n4}'k.'�i� s�'� i1�'r�':7ZPf�h,�p.. '"•�1���r'�' �„
Just as'important as,the rating'definitions,116 scale unhzed are4the resultant weightings of
�,tthedperformance factors 4C�rrently;tliepfactots of .Leadership , Interpersonal/
.._L=s 1+. c 3 3d»Cornmumty Relationst;ccv -S""r `'1a V
cJudgm
, " nd°`Major
Y r, Goal's'aaze4equallyweighted Ifl`ong 1i s ofspecfic factors azsubstituted fo`r a
e�eq g� lam- � _
cbMolidatedWrie (such asfa`re cuirentlyTused)Jtfie weightings can become skewed a
Some1W
eCfac
forman toK4ill'become more!important di&n ecau
bthers'li "se they can.lie
1.awarded more points"'.(due,tolon a subrfacfor lists).`Therefore, itis im"rtant that.tM
final°combmahon ofperformanceyfactors�rahngyscalp6A d weighting reflct what the
City Council truly WantS�tO evaluatet;� ' ` �nx� Frd,�
..�r r. ?
��
Tl 1
yr yah ° �5 ih Vit. r4-y df'> 4E t14'F^, °1d ? '
.. i W � s;,i rr„ v xS 15+�n Ydl s iC 8 gY i i '�4•F � �'hr L ti Y F,M .� y�
COUNGED FEEDBACK, DRA°FrT OPTIONS
•
The consWtantsae renoumeview � noCpti'oLn�s
in this
' document and.provide usrwithgfeedbackWedook forward,to.receiving the'Gounctl°s
input,and developing=a composrt�a doc�umentforgfue,dis__clissioiLWe appreciates ,;;a
redeiving,ttie.feedback�bytmail,ffix; ove mail�no later-than May�8� ^Thank you
-'Ir". ":s Yin i t r "i'1 su''^+'o ':x3.?,i.9 r f�y>5fi,,,''d t 1`h'y/
'{ld rl t r F "...s'1+1� x ,d
' ^! r :C 1'c tl•�"'.9y y}r � f�3-P .a`S s�('SF L} .,
ran i Y � Y Jt'{ if r2'.M4 t f +I 7-r✓\s�r J..�it 4�, _. y
.k r,F , k `�'.l a �,tt'� a •i 'r.'(F�+j. aa�. '. . r�.Y� sn s 1 '• ...
nZiNA � •5 sr+FrF k.u({ _
d fOr'k-t F .a P1.4 y
;phi r f`h ids, JiC�r Y
6 }. yr j f Y •! m° e �'."LR ,a
' ,{p• '.'!o h, C II -- he F `��Yd�r^l?i! x �'4 t i 'H r(�d�_
nZ'M 1rY t` tS .r r� 7rtr �f
t YNSh i X14 Iwj' I.�. { a Ss{'N6}✓ +r� _y. 5yv 1 ¢, R k
" c r { •�' �(hiT'�}i �M .�.+IS PaS x. 4• �'Sr2 Ir.�F� >�r�'1 �'4` '�i1,���K'p7■/�`�.n/ ` �^
� N �s
�.r ,r,r a R A u.d ,n I� � Ywyw„•R qo k 1
-t'e.+�C�:. . .. _ ...o��'..+•-.�3..'!e -__ "4t,ern-.x.R:rh i>a. i.9a .�a C ti,�N4',la -
Attachment B
Brunner Consulting
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Members
City of San Luis Obispo
FROM: Sharon and Gary Brunner
Brunner Consulting
SUBJECT: Composite Feedback of Appointed Officials' Performance Appraisal
Process and Factors
DATE` June 25, 1999
Brunner Consulting has now received all five Council Members' feedback
regarding the April draft document we prepared for your review. This
memorandum will provide the Council with a summary of the feedback provided
and recommendations for implementation.
PROCESS OPTIONS (Page 2 of April draft document)
In this section of our April memorandum, the consultants described the City's
current performance appraisal process and some alternative processes for
consideration. Only one of the five Council Members requested a change from
the current process, but did not specify which of the alternative processes were
desired. Based upon this feedback, it would seem appropriate to continue with
the current process.
CAO PERFORMANCE FACTOR OPTIONS (Pages 3-5 of April document)
In the"Performance Factor Options" section of the April document, we detailed
the City's current performance factors as well as alternative factors for the CAO
and City Attorney. All of the Council Members seemed to be interested in some
"unbundling' and revision of the performance factors.
1
C6-i2
Based upon the feedback, we have prepared the following composite revisions to
the current CAO performance factors for the Council's consideration. It should
be noted that the wording has been slightly changed for consistency.
Leadership:
• Effectively directs others
• Effectively motivates others
• Elicits respect from personnel
• Maintains cooperative efforts among staff
• Develops subordinates to meet their potential
Interpersonal Relations:
• Effectively deals with people one-on-one and in groups
• Maintains cooperative, friendly relations with City employees
• Is approachable to staff as needed
• Effectively handles conflict and confrontation with personnel
• Inspires confidence from personnel
Community Relations:
• Effectively deals with community
• Maintains cooperative, friendly relations with the community
• Is approachable to community as needed
• Effectively handles conflict and confrontation from community
• Inspires confidence from community
Judgment/Problem Solving:
• Identifies and resolves complex problems through use of sound analytical
methods
• Applies creative solutions to problems
• Analyzes situations with objectivity and foresight
• Considers possible alternatives
• Makes sound decisions
2
C6-13
Communication:
• Effectively communicates.thoughts and ideas orally and have them
understood by others
• Effectively communicates thoughts and ideas in written form and have them
understood by others
• Carefully listens to what is communicated by others
• Carefully responds to what is communicated by others
• Prepares written documents in a thorough and professional manner
• Makes well-prepared presentations
In addition, based upon Council feedback, we have.documented the following
new CAO performance factors for consideration:
Financial.Management
e Accurately reports and projects the financial condition of the City
e Designs management practices and policies to maintain a sound,.long-range
financial position
e implements effective programs to limit liability and lots
• Establishes short- and long-term goals for asset management
• Develops creative solutions to.financial issues
• Effectively implements Council budgetary goals
Planning:
• Effectively anticipates needs
• Recognizes potential issues and problems
• Proposes effective solutions and provides alternatives
• Provides the Council with all information necessary to make decisions
Organization:
• Effectively delegates work to appropriate staff/departments
• Effectively definestarranges work and efficiently applies resources
• Establishes adequate controls to assure the organization's effectiveness
• Obtains the best possible end result for the money spent
a Effectively meets the needs of the community through the following City
departments
• List all departments individually here to be rated
3
C6-14
CITY ATTORNEY PERFORMANCE FACTOR OPTIONS (Page 5 of April
document
Based upon Council feedback, the following current performance factors are
provided for consideration:
Leadership:
Same as those provided under CAO
Interpersonal Relations:
Same as those provided under CAO
Community Relations:
Same as those provided under CAO
Judgment/Problem Solving:
Same as those provided under CAO
Communication:
Same as those provided under CAO
Three Council Members desired alternative performance factors for the City
Attorney as well. Based upon their feedback, we have provided the following
new factors for consideration:
Legal:
• Understands and complies with the overall policy, procedures, and laws of the
City
• Effectively represents the City in litigation, administrative hearings, and
negotiations .
• Accurately prepares ordinances, resolutions, contracts, and other legal
documents to reflect the Council's directives
• Provides competent legal advice
• Proactively guides the Council, Commissions, and staff with alternatives and
innovative legal solutions
• Performs preventive as well as corrective legal services
• Balances legal approaches and restrictions with reality and service needs
• Keeps the Council abreast of legislative bills in Sacramento and Washington
D.C. that could affect the City's interests
4
C6-15
Organization:
• Effectively delegates work to appropriate staff or outside firms
• Effectively defines/arranges work and efficiently applies resources
• Establishes adequate controls to assure his office's or outside firms'
effectiveness
• Effectively holds down legal fees and costs
RATING SCALE OPTIONS (Pages 6-7 of April document)
In this section, the consultants provided the Council with the current five-level
rating scale (Exceptional, Highly Competent, Competent, Needs Improvement,
and Poor), as well as four examples of alternative scales.
Of the five Council Members, four provided us with their choices of wording.
However, it was interesting to note that each of the four had different selections.
We have presented them below:
• One Council Member desired no change to the current five-level rating scale.
• One Council Member desired a five-level scale of"Excellent, Good,
Acceptable, Poor, and Unacceptable".
• One Council Member desired a five-level scale of"Outstanding, Highly
Effective, Effective, Needs Improvement, and Unsatisfactory".
• One Council Member desired a four-level scale of"Exceeded Expectations,
Fully Met Expectations, Marginally Met Expectations, and Did Not Meet
Expectations".
As we mentioned in our April memorandum, any of these options can work
effectively once the Council reaches agreement on the number of levels and
wording they desire.
Currently, Council Members rate on a 1-5 scale (from low to high) utilizing up to
one decimal point if desired. The majority of the Council did not indicate a desire
to change this scale, however one Council Member recommended the following
numerical breakdown (example shows the current wording):
4.6— 5.5 = Exceptional
3.6—4.5 = Highly Competent
2.6 — 3.5 = Competent
1.6 —2.5 = Needs Improvement
0.5 — 1.5 = Poor
5
C6-16
It would appear, based upon Council feedback, that no such change is warranted
at this time. It should be noted that the current scale does not allow for lower
than a "1" or higher than a"5" rating.
Currently, Council Members select and inform the consultants of their numerical
rating. In the April draft document, the consultants noted that these rating
choices can be displayed a number of ways (depending upon the Council's
preference), such as bar charts, circled numbers, sliding scales, etc. Only one
Council Member requested a change from the current process by making a
"slash mark" on a bar to indicate the rating as follows:
0 / 5
Since none of the other Council Members desired a more visual representation of
the ratings, such a change does not appear to meet the Council's needs at this
time. It should be noted that any such change should clearly convey a rating up
to one decimal point.
Also, in the April document, the consultants discussed alternative weightings of
the factors and goals. Currently, all performance factor and goal categories are
weighted equally (20% each). (No longer are goals rated 50% of the total, per
prior Council direction.) Weighting should reflect what the City Council truly
wants to evaluate. In their feedback to the consultants, no Council Member
requested any other weighting approach. Therefore, the consultants conclude
that the Council desires all performance factors plus overall goals to be equally
weighted. Thus, if the Council decides to use all of the factors discussed in this
composite document, each category will be now be weighted 11.11% for the
CAO (based upon 9 factor plus goal categories) and 12.50% for the City Attorney
(based upon 8 categories).
Example for the CAO:
• Leadership
• Interpersonal Relations
• Community Relations
• Judgment/Problem Solving
• . Communication
• Financial Management
• Planning
• Organization
• Goals
6
C6-17
Example for the City Attorney:
• Leadership
• Interpersonal Relations
• Community Relations
• Judgment/Problem Solving
• Communication
• Legal
• Organization
• Goals
If the Council amends the number of categories shown above for either the CAO
or the City Attorney, the weightings will need to be recalculated. This approach,
of course, does not provide equal weighting to each item/question under each
category since there are not a uniform number of items/questions under each
category heading. For example, there are five items under"Leadership" but six
items under"Communication". If each item under these categories were equally
weighted, it would result in "Communication" receiving more weighting (and being
more important in rating) than "Leadership". Thus, every Council Member will
provide a rating for each item/question in each category, the consultants will then
calculate an overall rating for each category, and lastly the consultants will derive
a total rating based upon equal weighting for each category.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
The consultants recommend that, after reading and discussing this document,
the following points be covered by the City Council:
1. Performance Factor Options
Council feedback regarding the performance factors resulted in the
consultants "unbundling" the current factors and providing some new
factors for consideration for both the CAO and City Attorney. The Council
should review the listings of current and new factors, and reach
agreement on their content.
2. Ratinq Scale Options
a. Most of the Council favored retaining a five-level rating scale,
however each Member selected different wording for the levels.
The Council should reach agreement on the terms to be used.
b. No Council Members requested any change to the current process
of equally weighting the various performance factors/goals. Thus,
7
C6-18
even though each item/question under each performance category
will be rated by every Council Member, the consultants will need to
calculate an overall rating for each category in order to develop the
total rating. The Council should affirm that they desire to keep each
performance/goal category equally weighted. If not, the Council
needs to decide which categories are more important than others
(so that variable weighting can be assigned).
Brunner Consulting is pleased to be of service to San Luis Obispo's City Council.
We look forward to your decisions on these performance appraisal issues.
Thank you.
8
C6-19