Agenda Item 10AAGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
July 22, 2013
A Request for the City of Atlantic Beach Commission to:
1. Perform an official annual performance evaluation for employees who report
directly to the City Commission: City Manager; City Attorney; City Clerk.
2. Set annual goals and objectives for these positions based on the performance
review.
3. Review and update job description and contracts no less than every three
years.
Rationale:
Employees of the City of Atlantic Beach are reviewed annually by their supervisor
and City Manager. The City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk do not have the
same formal annual review and therefore do not have the same opportunity to have
their performance evaluated to identify opportunities for their personal
development.
Evaluations are a "best practice" that confirms the need for annual reviews of these
positions for the following reasons:
® Evaluations are an essential tool for promotion of effective decision - making
throughout the City organization
• Clarifies roles and responsibilities of the positions
® Clarifies expectations and assumptions concerning performance
• Improves communication between Commission and employees
• Acknowledges strengths and points to areas in need of improvement
® Provides feedback to City employees from various reviewers
® Contributes to the accountability of governance
® Commissioners align for direction of the city and define how the employees
can support that direction through planning.
® Core values, vision, and goals of the City are integrated into the management
of the city.
*Note - Information and examples are provided with all the Administrative Staff in
mind but referencing the City Manager position.
Recommendations:
A) City Commission performs an evaluation of the City Manager with input from
multiple- raters (citizens, employees, peers, etc.) within the next 3 to 6
months.
B) Included in the evaluation are specific dimensions for appraisal. The
following are recommendations cited by the International City /County
Management Association (ICMA):
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
1) Individual Characteristics
2) Professional Skills and Status
3) Relations with Elected Members
4) Reporting / Communication
5) Policy Execution
6) Citizen Relations
7) Employee Relations / Staffing
8) Supervision and Organizational Culture
9) Fiscal Management
10) Community and Intergovernmental Affairs
11) Narrative Evaluation
*Note - Additional sample evaluations are included in the appendices.
C) Following the evaluation, the City Commission set annual goals and objectives for
the City Manager, reflecting the vision, mission and strategic aims for the coming
year.
*Note - Evaluations for City Attorney and City Clerk follow similar format.
For a starting point, valuable information is included in the attached Appendices to
show the need for and the relevance of an open evaluation.
Submitted for consideration by:
Mark E. Beckenbach
City of Atlantic Beach Commissioner - Seat 3
*Note - My thanks to Retired - City of Atlantic Beach Employee - Karen Kempf and
Atlantic Beach Citizen - Bill Mayhew for their involvement in the organization of the
materials presented, and for their continued involvement in the betterment of the
governance of the City of Atlantic Beach.
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
Appendices
Handbook for Evaluating the City Manager; City of Dover, New
Hampshire
Includes:
• ICMA Recognized Practices for Effective Local Government
Management
(International City /County Management Association)
• "How are we Doing ?" - Evaluating the Performance of the Chief
Administrator
• Sample Evaluation
PUMA Best Practice Guidelines for Evaluation
About 360 Performance Assessment (MG Management Assessments,
LLC)
ICMA form - City Manager Performance Evaluation
Sample form - City Manager Evaluation with Future
City of Atlantic Beach Employee Evaluation
City of Atlantic Beach Employee Self - assessment
A HANDBOOK
FOR EVALUATING
THE CITY MANAGER
48,
f• 8 ;
I) Ir
first
AGI'sN1]A 1TE M i! 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
City of Dover, NH
AGENDA ITEM # I0A
AUGUST 12, 2013
CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Context for Performance Evaluation 2
Council and Manager Roles and Responsibilities 2
Council Goals and Priorities 2
Right to Know Law 2
The Performance Evaluation Process 4
Step 1: Defining clearly why you want to evaluate the performance of
your employee 5
Step 2 :Developing a time line and assigning responsibilities 5
Step 3: Developing criteria 5
Step 4: Refining criteria 6
Step 5: Selecting procedures to evaluate performance 7
Step 6: Performing the evaluation 8
Step 7: Discussing results with your employee and allowing for feedback 9
Step 8: Agree on follow -up steps 10
Step 9: Evaluating the process 10
Next Steps 11
Appendices
ICMA Recognized Practices for Effective Local Government Management 12
Article - "How are We Doing" — Evaluating the Performance of the Chief Administrator 16
Sample Evaluation Form 22
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
Introduction
This Handbook has been developed for use by Dover's City Council to help establish and conduct
an evaluation process for the City's chief executive officer and the Council's sole employee, the
City Manager.
An annual examination of the City Manager's performance is not only required by the City
Manager's employment agreement but also because it is important and healthy for an effective
council- manager relationship. Ultimately, the City Manager's performance evaluation is an
essential tool for promoting more effective decision - making throughout the City organization.
This Handbook first discusses the purpose for completing an evaluation of the Manager's
performance, and defines the context within which a performance evaluation takes place. It then
outlines a series of steps for an effective performance evaluation process and concludes with
other reference materials and a generic evaluation form.
The information presented has been adapted from materials developed by the Oregon League of
Cities and includes related resource materials assembled from various publications.
Purpose
Performance evaluation need not be painful for either the Council or it's most important and
only employee, the City Manager. It should be constructive, providing not only an
examination of past performance but guidance for future efforts by the City Manager.
The needs of any city often change over time and priorities are likely to shift with each
Council election. As with any employer /employee relationship, an employer has a
responsibility to clearly communicate to its employee exactly what it expects and wants. As
the employer, each new Council has an obligation to relate to their employee, the Manager,
their desire for him or her to focus on particular community needs, projects or priorities.
If conducted properly, a performance evaluation process will be positive and useful for both
the Council and Manager. It will:
allow Council members to become better acquainted with each other and the Manager;
improve communication between the Council and Manager;
provide important feedback to the Manager;
acknowledge strengths and point out weaknesses for the Manager;
bring problems into focus and reduce future misunderstanding and conflict; and
Help clarify roles and responsibilities of both the Council and Manager.
There is another purpose for completing the City Manager performance evaluation process.
An effective evaluation process can help the Council examine and improve upon its own
performance. A Council's success in achieving its goals is tied to the performance of its City
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
Manager. The City Manager can provide useful feedback and observations to the council
about such things as:
is the Council providing clear direction about its needs, goals, and priorities?
is the Council fulfilling its role as a policy- making body?
is the Council becoming too involved in day -to -day administration?
There are numerous methods and techniques that a city council may choose to follow in
evaluating their city manager. The process outlined in this Handbook is general in nature and
can be adapted to accommodate various needs or circumstances that may arise from time to
time. Although there is no "right" way to conduct an evaluation, there is a right way to
approach performance evaluations. The City Council's evaluation of the City Manager must
be approached as part of an on -going process which strives to allow for a more thoughtful
and effective decision - making body and more effective city management.
Context for Performance Evaluation
Council and Manager Roles and Responsibilities. A council and its manager depend on each
other. .. the council depends on its manager for a considerable amount of information, and the
manager depends on the council to make the best decisions it can after receiving and evaluating
that information. Given this dependency, the importance of respect, forthrightness and
confidence in the Council- Manager relationship can not be overemphasized.
The original concept behind the council- manager form of government was to separate the
policy- making functions, the domain of the elected council, from the administrative functions to
be directed by the manager. In reality, the separation of administrative and policy- making
functions is not so clear cut. Defining the difference between policy and administration may be
the greatest source of confusion and conflict between city councils and a manager.
Before any performance evaluation takes place, a council and its manager should define their
respective roles and reach agreement about them. Without a clear understanding of functions
and roles, performance evaluation is of little value. The areas of responsibility of the City
Council and City Manager are outlined in the City's Charter, Administrative Code and
ordinances. These documents should be consulted and provide the basis for further discussions
to clarify "what falls where."
Council Goals and Priorities. Goals are a necessary ingredient for success in an organization.
To be effective, any organization must have a clear picture of its purpose and what it hopes to
achieve, an understanding of what it must do to achieve its purpose, specific goals, and
objectives, and a valid method for evaluating its effectiveness in reaching them.
Setting goals has a direct relationship to the Manager's performance. Goals set clear direction
and let the Manager know what issues are important to pursue. The council goals, themselves,
should not be a part of appraising the Manager's performance. However, the City Manager's
professional capacity to take policy direction from the Council and implement the goals is an
important ingredient of evaluating the Manager's performance.
Right to Know Law. In New Hampshire, an evaluation completed by the City Council must occur
within the guidelines of the state's Right to Know law, RSA 91 -A. The Council and Manager
2
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
should review the law and decide whether or not to conduct the process in a public or a non-
public session.
The general intent of the Right to Know Law is to provide a statutory right of public access to
meetings conducted by a public decision- making body and records maintained by public
agencies. There are some specific exceptions when the public may be excluded from attending a
meeting involving the body or having access to certain records. One of the specific exemptions
relates to personnel related matters involving a public employee.
Regardless of whether the evaluation is conducted in a non - public or open session, the Right to
Know Law will dictate certain procedures for meeting notification, recording of minutes and
disclosure of decisions made. These procedures should be reviewed by the Council and Manager
and followed throughout the evaluation process.
3
The Performance Evaluation Process
A.
Defining
Council &
Manager roles
8
responsibilities
Step 9
Evaluate your
Process
Page 19
Step 8
Take final action
and
announce action
Page 18
Step 7
Discuss results
and allow
for feedback
Page 17
,�
PerformCance
Appraise
Step 1
Define why you want
to evaluate your
emplowee's
performance
Step 6
Perform the
evaluation
Page 16
Page 7
B.
Setting
Council
Goals
Step 2
Develop a timeline
and assign
responsibilities
Page 7
I
Step 3
Develop
Criteria
Page 8
Step 4
Refine
Criteria
Step 5
Select procedures to
evaluate performance
4
Page 13
Page 13
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
STEP 1: DEFINE CLEARLY WHY YOU WANT TO EVALUATE THE PERFORMANCE OF
YOUR EMPLOYEE
There are many reasons for a Council to evaluate the performance of its Manager. Frequently,
the Council wants to measure performance and determine salary, or define or improve, the
working relationship between the Manager and the Council. Whatever the particular reasons,
they should be honest, clear, and understood by the Council, the employee, and the public before
launching a performance evaluation process.
Following are examples of objectives that can be established prior to completing the appraisal
process:
To establish and maintain effective Council and City Manager relationships;
To allow the City Manager and Council to identify and understand their respective roles,
relationships, expectations of, and responsibilities, to each other; and
to allow the discussion of the City Manager's strengths and weaknesses as demonstrated
by past performance, away from the decision - making table, and the methods where
performance may be improved and crisis confrontations avoided.
STEP 2: DEVELOP A TIME LINE AND ASSIGN RESPONSIBILITIES
A Council which is committed to a good evaluation process will also commit the time necessary to
perform each task involved in the process. The entire council should be involved in every step.
The Council as a body employs the City Manager and is needed to provide guidance to the City
Manager.
A Council may decide to use the services of an outside facilitator to assist in, some or all, phases
of the process. Using an outside facilitator has advantages. For example, the facilitator has not
been involved in the council- manager relationship or the individual personalities which would
likely influence the process. It is also easier for an outside person to keep the process moving
along during periods when the Council can otherwise get bogged down.
If you choose not to use an outside facilitator, you should select a leader who will take
responsibility for facilitating the evaluation process. This leader could be the Mayor or a
designated Council member.
STEP 3: DEVELOP CRITERIA
Once the Council and Manager are comfortable with your respective roles and responsibilities,
have adopted goals which are supported by the Council, and are clear about why you're
conducting an evaluation, you're ready to move to the next step — selecting the criteria to
measure against. Criteria are like yard sticks — they establish standard dimensions by which
we can measure progress. Without these yardsticks, evaluations can turn into unfair,
unproductive free - for -alls.
Nowadays, employers of all types commonly identify the specific professional competencies
and skills employee's need to succeed in any given position. These competencies and skills
are used as the criteria for employment related evaluations beginning with an employee's initial
recruitment, ongoing training, and subsequent performance evaluations.
Examples of competencies that can be incorporated into an evaluation of the City Manager
may be found in the 18 practice areas recognized by International City /County Management
5
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
Association as essential for every local government manager. The professional competencies
for effective local government management are listed in Appendix A.
Aside from selecting criteria based on professional competencies, do not overlook the
Manager's ability to achieve Council goals. If a goal is purely a Council goal, such as Council
members being more visible in the community, it would not be fair to add that to the list since it
is not something the Manager can implement. However, the Council can look at whether or not
the Manager has the professional capacity to help the Council implement its goals.
In developing the criteria to be used for evaluating the City Manager's performance, both the
Council and Manager should discuss and agree upon the competencies, skills and expected
outcomes necessary for being an effective City Manager. The evaluation process will be
enhanced if both the entire Council and the Manager are involved from the start in
developing the criteria and agreeing on them. This is an important area where a facilitator may
add value to the evaluation process. A facilitator should be able to assist with identifying and
developing evaluation criteria that are specific to the circumstances found in this community.
STEP 4: REFINE CRITERIA
You are now ready to refine the criteria and develop specific questions you want to ask and
have answered during the evaluation. It is important to be specific about what you really mean
in each category. Again, it is best to refine the criteria with the entire Council and the Manager
to ensure categories are not misinterpreted or new performance goals inadvertently added
which were not previously defined.
After developing evaluation criteria, refining and expanding upon each is one of the most
critical steps in an effective performance appraisal system, and one of the most involved. For
each competency and /or responsibility you list, you must be able to answer two questions:
First, "What is the purpose, effect, or desired outcome of this
competency /responsibility ?"
Second, "How will I know, if and when, this purpose, effect, or desired outcome is being
achieved ?"
Answers to these questions achieve two important goals: (1) a clear statement of purpose
helps assure that individual Council members understand one another's values, ideas, and
concerns about the role and functions of the City Manager in city government; and (2) knowing
the data and performances that tell you that responsibility is, in fact, being achieved requires
that you look for tangible criteria to use in judging managerial performance.
Example:
CRITERIA: Policy Facilitation
What is the purpose, effect, or desired outcome of this responsibility?
To allow the council to function as efficiently and effectively as possible in its interaction
with administrative staff members, departments, and the overall guidance of city affairs. To
minimize delays, confusion, and conflict generated by incomplete staff work, favoritism,
6
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
lobbying, and unprofessional managerial performance. To assist the council in acting as a
single body ... etc.
How will I know, if and when, this purpose, effect, or desired outcome is being
achieved?
Availability and timeliness of information requested or needed by the council.
Preparedness for council meetings. Accuracy and thoroughness of information and reports.
Keeping councilors appraised of day -to -day events and information necessary for them to
carry out their functions. Impartial and professional interaction with each councilor,
regardless of opinions and recommendations ... etc.
Ultimately, performance appraisal addresses the actions taken by the City Manager to meet the
expectations of the Council and the requirements of the position. Performance is action.
Appraisal focuses on the effects of that action.
Focusing each criterion by addressing the two questions above will help you in objectively
identifying the actions and effects of the City Manager's performance while avoiding the traps
of trying to assess subjective characteristics that may not truly be bona fide job requirements.
STEP 5: SELECT PROCEDURES TO EVALUATE PERFORMANCE
After you have specific criteria by which you will evaluate your employee, review them until
both the Council and Manager are satisfied with the results.
The next step is deciding how you're going to perform the evaluation. The criteria you've
developed may help determine the best way to do it. There are three general approaches to
consider: written evaluations, oral evaluations, or a combination of both.
Written Evaluations. This technique allows each person to make all comments in writing. There
are several methods used for written evaluations. A combined essay and rating scale is
perhaps the most commonly used.
Essays. An essay is a written statement describing the employee's performance. It is most
effective when each answer responds to a specific question, topic or criterion. It is least
effective when each answer is generally stated and when its relation to criteria is vague
and unspecific.
Rating Scales. A rating scale consists of a set of statements about job performance. A
scale, either using numbers or adjectives, is used by evaluators to make their judgments.
Combination Essay and Rating Scales. A simple and effective way to perform the
evaluation is to develop a rating scale and leave room for additional comments under each
criterion. This allows for individuals to use specific examples of what the employee has
done. It also helps the Manager understand what the Council thinks more specifically
about his or her performance.
Oral Evaluation. Openly discussing the appraisal with the Manager is another technique. As
with written evaluations, conversation should center on the criteria you developed and should
be conducted by the Council as a group. An advantage of verbal evaluation is that it presents
7
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
an opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding about performance in face -to -face settings.
However, unlike written evaluations, verbal evaluations do not leave a written record and
sometimes lead to confusion at a later time about what was said.
Combination of Written and Oral. A combined written and oral evaluation is probably the most
effective method of performing the evaluation. This method allows each individual Council
member to evaluate the performance of the Manager in writing and follow up with face -to -face
discussion individually and /or preferably collectively as a group.
Whatever technique chosen, it is important to stick to the developed criteria. You are
evaluating the performance of an individual in a position. The evaluation is not a free - for -all
gripe session, nor is it an awards ceremony; it is important to express legitimate concerns and
recognize good performance as well as communicate future expectations.
STEP 6: PERFORM THE EVALUATION
The system for performing the evaluation you have just designed is now in place and ready to
use. Make sure you have a definitive schedule set up and a target date for completing the
evaluation.
If you have chosen to use a written evaluation technique, the forms should be distributed to
individual Council members, requesting that the forms be completed and returned according to
the established schedule.
Collecting accurate information according to the criteria you have developed is more difficult for
a Council than in an ordinary supervisor- subordinate situation because Council members are
not always in a position to observe the employee on a day -to -day basis.
It is certainly not appropriate for Council members to follow the Manager around for a week
with a pencil and pad in their hands. But there are several things Council- members can and
should do to help ensure that they have accurate information to perform a meaningful
evaluation.
The most important thing is to allow enough time to collect information about the
Manager's performance. An extended information - collection period will make the entire
process a little longer; however, it is well worth spending the additional time to have an
effective and productive evaluation. Council members cannot base their judgments on
the employee's performance in only 2 or 3 months. Allowing six months after you have
developed the criteria may be more appropriate.
Looking over minutes of past meetings may bring to mind projects that the Manager has
been responsible for and the outcome of those projects.
Individual Council members may want to make appointments with the Manager to
discuss his or her performance. This meeting is not intended to make judgments about
his or her performance. Its purpose is to seek information.
Remember, the primary responsibility for Councilors during this phase of the evaluation cycle is
to be alert and responsive to data about the Manager's performance. One of the most
common errors found in formal employee evaluation systems is, as one manager explained,
that they often reflect only the performance just prior to the evaluation session. To avoid this, it
8
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
is important for Councilors to document incidents and information throughout the performance
cycle that reflect the performances of the City Manager.
Note: It is as important to document outstanding performances as it is to document
performances that don't meet with your expectations.
It will be extremely helpful to both the Manager and the Council to use specific examples of
performance in the evaluation. Vague generalizations will not help the Manager understand
how he or she can improve performance. Specific examples help to illustrate positive and
negative comments and put everyone on the same wavelength.
In preparing for discussion of the evaluation results with the Manager, the facilitator of the
review session should compile the information from each Council member into one document
which reflects all the input. The facilitator should then share the results with the entire Council
before it is presented to the Manager. The purpose of sharing the results of the evaluation with
the Council is to provide each member with an understanding of the total results. The Council
should strive to reach consensus on the report so that each person can feel a part of the result
and be comfortable with it. This does not mean that any individual should try to push others
into changing their minds about how they filled out the evaluation. But this group discussion
will allow each council member to understand how the others feel and what differences need to
be resolved. There may be differences in the perceptions of individuals which need further
discussion and clarification.
Having one document from the whole council is very important. The entire performance
evaluation process has been a group process. It is not appropriate for each Council member to
independently pass judgment on the Manager without consensus of the entire Council. The
Council has authority and the Manager receives direction only when the Council acts as a
body.
STEP 7: DISCUSS RESULTS WITH EMPLOYEE AND ALLOW FOR FEEDBACK
Before you make a final decision about any action as a result of the evaluation, or make any final
statement as a Council about the Manager's performance, it is important to discuss the results of
the evaluation with the Manager first.
Several things should happen during this discussion. First, you may wish to let the Manager
evaluate him or herself. You can give the same rating form or set of questions to the Manager
and ask him or her to fill it out according to their own perception of how he or she has performed
in the position.
Discuss the areas where there are differences between the Manager and the Council about
strengths and weaknesses. There may be misunderstanding among Council members about the
Manager's actual performance. Likewise, the Manager may not have understood or may have
misinterpreted the Council directives. Try to reach agreement on the areas that need
improvement and what types of changes the Council would find acceptable.
A Council that is serious about evaluation should understand that its performance often affects
the Manager's performance. The Council should ask the Manager about how the Council's
performance has enhanced or hindered the Manager's performance.
9
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
STEP 8: AGREE ON FOLLOW -UP STEPS
One of the most important reasons for evaluating the performance of an employee is to
acknowledge the employee's strengths and point out areas that need to be improved. Any
recommendations or actions the Council takes should be tied to this reason and any others the
Council listed in Step 1 of this process.
Nobody is perfect — even the best evaluation will likely show a few things that need
improvement and attention. Also, change may be necessary on the part of the Council as well as
the Manager.
Remember that the evaluation process is intended to bring out positive change. Focus on future
improvement, not on past performance.
Agree on the areas that need improvement and the best course of action. The facilitator, if you
are using one, may be able to suggest ways to improve performance.
Set up a work program and schedule for workshops or any other methods which will help the
Manager and Council improve the identified areas. Stick to the schedule.
Effective performance should be acknowledged. Everyone needs positive reinforcement for good
work. The Council should decide how they would like to acknowledge strong performance. But,
at the very least, a public statement by the Council should be made supporting and
acknowledging the Manager's performance.
STEP 9: EVALUATING YOUR PROCESS
No process is ever complete without an evaluation of what it is you have done. Whether you
develop a questionnaire to evaluate the process or have a debriefing session, every individual
involved in the process should participate and make recommendations for future use. Here are
some questions to get you started:
What were the positive outcomes?
What were the negative outcomes?
Could negative outcomes have been avoided?
How could you improve the process next time?
What areas of the process do you and the Manager need to work on?
Were the criteria fair and objective?
What have you learned about yourself as an elected or appointed official?
How did the general public react?
Involve the Manager in this review. He or she may have some valuable
insights for the next time.
As a group, try to develop a list of ways you could improve what you have done.
10
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
Your Next Steps
Once you have completed this process, you will have done more than evaluate the
performance of your employee. You will have defined your roles and responsibilities, set
goals, opened up lines of communication, and made significant strides toward increasing
your own effectiveness as an elected body.
But don't stop here! Go back and refine your roles; you may have accomplished some of your
goals and need to set new ones. If you haven't accomplished them, set deadlines for their
accomplishment. It may be time to put another appraisal process together. There may be some
Council training and team development sessions needed as a result of reviewing the Council's
and Manager's accomplishments. Don't be discouraged if you felt a little uncomfortable or if the
process wasn't perfect the first time. This process takes practice and refinement, but it is worth it!
Continue the good work that you have started and watch how positive change can happen.
11
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST I2, 2013
Appendices
ICMA Recognized Practices for Effective Local Government Management
1. Staff Effectiveness: Promoting the development and performance of staff and employees
throughout the organization (requires knowledge of interpersonal relations; skill in motivation
techniques; ability to identify others' strengths and weaknesses). Practices that contribute to
this core content area are:
COACHING /MENTORING Providing direction, support, and feedback to enable others to
meet their full potential (requires knowledge of feedback techniques; ability to assess
performance and identify others' developmental needs)
TEAM LEADERSHIP Facilitating teamwork (requires knowledge of team relations; ability to
direct and coordinate group efforts; skill in leadership techniques)
EMPOWERMENT Creating a work environment that encourages responsibility and
decision making at all organizational levels (requires skill in sharing authority and removing
barriers to creativity)
DELEGATING Assigning responsibility to others (requires skill in defining expectations,
providing direction and support, and evaluating results)
2. Policy Facilitation: Helping elected officials and other community actors identify, work toward,
and achieve common goals and objectives (requires knowledge of group dynamics and political
behavior; skill in communication, facilitation, and consensus - building techniques; ability to
engage others in identifying issues and outcomes). Practices that contribute to this core
content area are:
FACILITATIVE LEADERSHIP Building cooperation and consensus among and within
diverse groups, helping them identify common goals and act effectively to achieve them;
recognizing interdependent relationships and multiple causes of community issues and
anticipating the consequences of policy decisions (requires knowledge of community actors
and their interrelationships)
FACILITATING COUNCIL EFFECTIVENESS Helping elected officials develop a policy
agenda that can be implemented effectively and that serves the best interests of the
community (requires knowledge of role /authority relationships between elected and
appointed officials; skill in responsibly following the lead of others when appropriate; ability
to communicate sound information and recommendations)
MEDIATION /NEGOTIATION Acting as a neutral party in the resolution of policy disputes
(requires knowledge of mediation /negotiation principles; skill in mediation /negotiation
techniques)
3. Functional and Operational Expertise and Planning (a component of Service Delivery
Management): Practices that contribute to this core content area are:
FUNCTIONAL /OPERATIONAL EXPERTISE Understanding the basic principles of service
delivery in functional areas- -e.g., public safety, community and economic development,
human and social services, administrative services, public works (requires knowledge of
service areas and delivery options)
12
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
OPERATIONAL PLANNING Anticipating future needs, organizing work operations, and
establishing timetables for work units or projects (requires knowledge of technological
advances and changing standards; skill in identifying and understanding trends; skill in
predicting the impact of service delivery decisions)
4. Citizen Service (a component of Service Delivery Management): Determining citizen needs
and providing responsive, equitable services to the community (requires skill in assessing
community needs and allocating resources; knowledge of information gathering techniques)
5. Quality Assurance (a component of Service Delivery Management): Maintaining a
consistently high level of quality in staff work, operational procedures, and service delivery
(requires knowledge of organizational processes; ability to facilitate organizational
improvements; ability to set performance/ productivity standards and objectives and measure
results)
6. Initiative, Risk Taking, Vision, Creativity, and Innovation (a component of Strategic
Leadership): Setting an example that urges the organization and the community toward
experimentation, change, creative problem solving, and prompt action (requires knowledge of
personal leadership style; skill in visioning, shifting perspectives, and identifying options; ability
to create an environment that encourages initiative and innovation). Practices that contribute to
this core content area are:
INITIATIVE AND RISK TAKING Demonstrating a personal orientation toward action and
accepting responsibility for the results; resisting the status quo and removing stumbling
blocks that delay progress toward goals and objectives
VISION Conceptualizing an ideal future state and communicating it to the organization and
the community
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION Developing new ideas or practices; applying existing
ideas and practices to new situations
7. Technological Literacy (a component of Strategic Leadership): Demonstrating an
understanding of information technology and ensuring that it is incorporated appropriately in
plans to improve service delivery, information sharing, organizational communication, and
citizen access (requires knowledge of technological options and their application)
8. Democratic Advocacy and Citizen Participation: Demonstrating a commitment to democratic
principles by respecting elected officials, community interest groups, and the decision making
process; educating citizens about local government; and acquiring knowledge of the social,
economic, and political history of the community (requires knowledge of democratic principles,
political processes, and local government law; skill in group dynamics, communication, and
facilitation; ability to appreciate and work with diverse individuals and groups and to follow the
community's lead in the democratic process). Practices that contribute to this core content area
are:
DEMOCRATIC ADVOCACY Fostering the values and integrity of representative
government and local democracy through action and example; ensuring the effective
participation of local government in the intergovernmental system (requires knowledge and
skill in intergovernmental relations)
13
AGENDA ITEM # IOA
AUGUST I2, 20I3
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Recognizing the right of citizens to influence local decisions and
promoting active citizen involvement in local governance
9. Diversity: Understanding and valuing the differences among individuals and fostering these
values throughout the organization and the community
10. Budgeting: Preparing and administering the budget (requires knowledge of budgeting
principles and practices, revenue sources, projection techniques, and financial control systems;
skill in communicating financial information)
11. Financial Analysis: Interpreting financial information to assess the short -term and long -term
fiscal condition of the community, determine the cost - effectiveness of programs, and compare
alternative strategies (requires knowledge of analytical techniques and skill in applying them)
12. Human Resources Management: Ensuring that the policies and procedures for employee
hiring, promotion, performance appraisal, and discipline are equitable, legal, and current;
ensuring that human resources are adequate to accomplish programmatic objectives (requires
knowledge of personnel practices and employee relations law; ability to project workforce
needs)
13. Strategic Planning: Positioning the organization and the community for events and
circumstances that are anticipated in the future (requires knowledge of long -range and
strategic planning techniques; skill in identifying trends that will affect the community; ability to
analyze and facilitate policy choices that will benefit the community in the long run)
14. Advocacy and Interpersonal Communication: Facilitating the flow of ideas, information, and
understanding between and among individuals; advocating effectively in the community interest
(requires knowledge of interpersonal and group communication principles; skill in listening,
speaking, and writing; ability to persuade without diminishing the views of others). Practices
that contribute to this core content area are:
ADVOCACY Communicating personal support for policies, programs, or ideals that serve
the best interests of the community
INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION Exchanging verbal and nonverbal messages with
others in a way that demonstrates respect for the individual and furthers organizational and
community objectives (requires ability to receive verbal and nonverbal cues; skill in
selecting the most effective communication method for each interchange)
15. Presentation Skills: Conveying ideas or information effectively to others (requires
knowledge of presentation techniques and options; ability to match presentation to audience)
16. Media Relations: Communicating information to the media in a way that increases public
understanding of local government issues and activities and builds a positive relationship with
the press (requires knowledge of media operations and objectives)
17. Integrity: Demonstrating fairness, honesty, and ethical and legal awareness in personal and
professional relationships and activities (requires knowledge of business and personal ethics;
14
AGENDA ITEM 41 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
ability to understand issues of ethics and integrity in specific situations). Practices that
contribute to this core content area are:
PERSONAL INTEGRITY Demonstrating accountability for personal actions; conducting
personal relationships and activities fairly and honestly
PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY Conducting professional relationships and activities fairly,
honestly, legally, and in conformance with the ICMA Code of Ethics (requires knowledge of
administrative ethics and specifically the ICMA Code of Ethics)
ORGANIZATIONAL INTEGRITY Fostering ethical behavior throughout the organization
through personal example, management practices, and training (requires knowledge of
administrative ethics; ability to instill accountability into operations; and ability to
communicate ethical standards and guidelines to others)
18. Personal Development: Demonstrating a commitment to a balanced life through ongoing
self - renewal and development in order to increase personal capacity (includes maintaining
personal health, living by core values; continuous learning and improvement; and creating
interdependent relationships and respect for differences).
15
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
500104
"How Are We Doing ?"
Evaluating the Performance of the
Chief Administrator
Margaret S. Carlson
icture a governing board meeting at a hectic
time of year. Perhaps it is budget season and
difficult funding decisions loom. Or the mem-
bers are still recovering from stinging criticism
over a hot community issue. Suddenly, someone says,
"Hey, didn't we say last year that we were going to evaluate
the manager around this time ?" Other members groan in-
wardly as they envision yet another series of meetings and
potential conflict with other board members. One member
says, "Everything seems to be going OK. Let's
just go ahead and decide on a salary increase
now. Is an evaluation really that important ?"
Yes.
Evaluating the performance of the chief
administrative officer — whether the title is
local government manager or health director
or school superintendent or social services
director —is critically important.
In recent years, jurisdictions increasingly
have recognized the importance of a useful
performance evaluation system to the overall
effectiveness of their organizations. They have taken steps to
improve their methods of evaluating line workers, supervi-
Avoid the
Pitfalls by
Using a
Systematic
Evaluation
Process
6 MARCH 1997
sors, and department heads. But one
important individual is frequently over-
looked at performance evaluation time:
the person who reports to the governing
board. Governing boards have a respon-
sibility to get on with that job. This arti-
cle is designed to show how to evaluate a
chief administrative officer who reports
to a governing board, for simplicity
called here the "manager ?'
Ironically, the reasons that a manager
may not receive a regular performance
evaluation are the very reasons that an
evaluation can be helpful:
• This individual is in a unique posi-
tion in the organization.
• He or she serves at the pleasure of the
board.
• He or she may frequently receive con-
flicting messages about priorities and
direction from board members.
It is vital for managers to get regular,
accurate feedback about whether they
are meeting the expectations of the
board, but it is unlikely that the organi-
zation will have a useful process in place
for administrators to get that informa-
tion in the absence of a well- conceived
performance evaluation system.
Conducting an effective evaluation is
hard work, but it doesn't have to be a
bad experience for the board or the
manager. With planning and a commit-
ment to open lines of communication,
chances are good that the experience
will result in a new level of cooperation
and understanding between manager
and board and, ultimately, a more effec-
tive working relationship.
Common Pitfalls
Both the board and the manager may ap-
proach an evaluation with reluctance.
Board members will be required to talk
openly and honestly about the positive
and negative aspects of a person's perfor-
mance—a difficult task for many people.
The manager must be able to receive this
feedback in a nondefensive manner, even
when it appears that the board is articu-
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT
lating specific performance expectations
for the first time, or that the board is fo-
cused on the manager's conduct in the
most recent crisis, rather than his or her
overall performance.
Here are some common problems
that boards and managers encounter
when they plan for and conduct perfor-
mance evaluations:
• The board evaluates the manager
only when there are serious perfor-
mance problems, or when all or some
of the board members already have
decided that they want to fire the
manager.
• The board realizes it is time to deter-
mine the manager's salary for the up-
coming year, and it schedules a per-
formance evaluation for the next
meeting without discussing the for-
mat or process of the evaluation.
• The discussion during the evalua-
tion is unfocused, with board mem-
bers disagreeing about what the
manager was expected to accom-
plish as well as whether the manager
met expectations.
• The board excludes the manager
from the evaluation discussion.
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
• The board evaluates only the man-
ager's interactions with and behavior
toward the board, even though mem-
bers recognize that this may represent
a relatively small portion of the man-
ager's responsibilities.
• The board borrows an evaluation
form from another jurisdiction or
from a consultant without assuring
that the form matches the needs of its
own board and manager.
Most of these pitfalls can be avoided
by planning and conducting a system-
atic process for evaluating the manager's
performance. A thorough evaluation
process, like the one suggested below,
contains several essential components
(see Figure 1).
A Suggested Evaluation
Process
Planning the Evaluation.
1. Agree on the purpose(s) of the evalua-
tion. Typically, boards identify one or
more of the following goals when de-
scribing the purpose of an evaluation:
• To give the manager feedback on his
Figure 1. Steps In Planning and Conducting an
Evaluation Process
Planning the Evaluation.
1. Agree on the purpose(s) of the evaluation.
2. Agree on what the board expects of the manager.
3. Agree on the frequency and timing of the evaluation.
4. Agree on who will be involved.
5. Agree on an evaluation form to be used.
Conducting the Evaluation.
1. Have individual board members complete the evaluation form before the
evaluation session.
2. Have the manager do a self - assessment.
3. Agree on a setting for the evaluation discussion.
4. Have the manager present during the evaluation.
5. Consider using a facilitator.
6. Allow sufficient time.
7. Include a portion during which the board evaluates its own performance.
8. Decide on the next steps, and critique the process.
7
or her performance and to identify
areas in which improvement may be
needed.
• To clarify and strengthen the rela-
tionship between the manager and
the board.
• To make a decision about the man-
ager's salary for the upcoming year.
These goals are not incompatible,
and it is possible to accomplish all of
these tasks at once. However, it is essen-
tial that board members and the man-
ager discuss and reach agreement on the
purpose of the evaluation before decid-
ing what the rest of the process will be.
For example, a board member who
thinks the main reason for doing an
evaluation is to make a decision about
compensation may think that a brief
consultation among board members —
minus the manager —is sufficient to en-
sure that no members have any major
concerns about the manager's perfor-
mance. This member also may ask for
input from a personnel specialist who
can provide information about man-
agers' salaries in comparable jurisdic-
tions. By contrast, a board member
whose main interest is improving com-
munication between the board and the
manager may suggest a process that in-
cludes a conversation between the board
and the manager, with the manager
present throughout the evaluation.
A board might question whether the
manager should be involved in planning
the evaluation process, as the evaluation
may be seen as the board's responsibil-
ity, with the manager as the recipient of
the evaluation. Yet most boards want to
conduct an evaluation that is helpful to
the manager and provides guidance for
his or her future actions. Because it can
be difficult for the board to anticipate
fully what the manager would —or
would not —find useful in an evalua-
tion, it is wise to consult with the man-
ager early in the planning process.
For instance, the board may feel that
the manager would be uncomfortable
hearing board members talk about his
or her performance at first hand and so
may design a process that "protects" the
manager from hearing any negative
feedback. Although the board's motives
may be good, such a design may not
meet the manager's needs if the manager
actually wants to be part of the discus-
sion, negative comments and all. Spend-
ing some time talking about the purpose
of an evaluation at the beginning of the
process will reduce the possibility of
misunderstandings and conflicting pri-
orities later on.
2. Agree on what the board expects of the
manager. A job is essentially a set of ex-
pectations. It is possible to assess
whether or not an individual holding
that job has met expectations. But an
evaluation can be useful only if an earlier
discussion has taken place in which the
board and manager have outlined expec-
tations for the manager's performance. A
board and manager may discuss expecta-
tions in conjunction with setting organi-
zational goals for the upcoming year,
perhaps as part of an annual retreat.
After setting goals, the board may
specify objectives for the manager that
define his or her role in meeting these
goals. These objectives, then, are the
board's expectations concerning the
manager. For example, a city council
may set a goal of working with agencies
and community groups to reduce drug -
related crimes in the city. The council
may list one or more objectives for the
manager related to this goal: identifying
groups and agencies that already are
working to reduce drug - related crime,
forming a partnership that includes
members of all relevant groups, or ex-
plaining new programs to the local
media. If the manager needs clarifica-
tion of the objectives or has some con-
cerns about his or her ability to meet the
board's expectations, these issues are
best discussed at the time these objec-
tives are set, rather than a year later,
when the board wants to know why its
expectations have not been met.
In addition to identifying what the
board wants the manager to achieve, a
board typically has an interest in how
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
the manager achieves these objectives; it
expects the manager to have certain
knowledge and to exhibit certain skills
while performing his or her duties. Ex-
pectations about the manager's knowl-
edge and skills also should be articulated
by the board. The board may expect the
manager, for example, to have oral and
written presentation skills that enable
him or her to present ideas clearly and
concisely to diverse groups. It also may
expect the manager to be able to allocate
resources in a way that ensures equitable
service delivery to citizens and to be able
to delegate work effectively and evaluate
the performance of his or her staff.
A board's expectations for the man-
ager often represent a mix of general
areas of knowledge and skills every man-
ager should possess, as well as specific
expectations based on the board's com-
position, the organization's history, or
special features-of the city or region.
Therefore, it may be helpful for the
board to use an existing list of manage-
rial expectations as input for its discus-
sion, then to customize these expecta-
tions to fit the needs of the jurisdiction.
Many professional organizations —like
ICMA —can supply such a list; or the
board and manager may contact other
communities in their area. Remember
that a list of expectations for the man-
ager that comes from a source outside
the board is intended to begin a discus-
sion of the board's expectations for the
manager, not to replace this discussion.
3. Agree on the frequency and timing of
the evaluation. The board and manager
should agree on how often evaluations
should be conducted (perhaps once a
year) and adhere to that schedule. The
timing of the evaluation also should be
considered. For instance, the board may
wish to have the evaluation cycle and
budget cycle coincide and to make deci-
sions about the manager's compensation
at such a time. Or, it may choose to con-
duct the evaluation before the budget
process gets under way if it feels that it
would not be able to give its full atten-
tion to the evaluation during the
8 MARCH 1997
months leading up to the adoption of
the budget.
The board should avoid scheduling
the evaluation just before or after an
election. If the evaluation is held too
soon after an election, new members
may not have had the time they need to
gather information about and form a
judgment of the manager's perfor-
mance. Likewise, it is not a good idea to
schedule an evaluation just before an
election if a change in the composition
of the board is expected.
4. Agree on who will be involved. All
members of the board and the manager
should participate in the evaluation
(more about the manager's presence at
the evaluation, below). The full board's
participation is necessary because all
members have relevant information
about the manager's performance. In
addition, during the planning process,
the board and manager should consider
whether there are other parties who
have an important perspective on the
manager's performance. A common
problem is for the board to focus en-
tirely on the manager's interactions with
the board, even though the manager
spends only a fraction of his or her time
in direct contact with the board.
Although both the board and man-
ager may feel that the perceptions of
staff, citizens, and others are important,
they may be concerned about how these
perceptions will be collected and shared.
It is not a good idea for board members
to go directly to staff and to poll em-
ployees on their views of the managers'
strengths and weaknesses. Such actions
would put board members in an inap-
propriate administrative role and may
put staff members — including the man -
ager—in an uncomfortable position. In-
stead, the manager might hold "upward
review sessions" with his or her staff in
order to receive feedback from subordi-
nates and to report general themes that
came out of these sessions as part of his
or her self - assessment.
The goal is not to make the manager
feel under attack; rather, it is to acknowl-
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT
edge that many people may have relevant
information about the manager's perfor-
mance and that the board should not be
expected to know everything about the
manager's work. If the board and man-
ager choose not to incorporate other
sources of information in the evaluation,
the board may want to consider omitting
performance criteria that it feels unable
to judge (such as the coaching and men -
toring of subordinates).
5. Agree on an evaluation form to be used.
Frequently, this is the first step that
boards consider when planning an eval-
uation, and they find it to be a difficult
task. However, if the board already has
discussed and agreed on what it expects
of the manager (see Step 2), agreeing on
an evaluation form becomes much eas-
ier. It is simply a matter of translating
expectations into performance criteria,
making sure that the criteria are clear
and measurable. For example, three ex-
pectations in the area of "knowledge and
skills necessary for local government
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
management" may look like Figure 2.
Following each criterion on the evalu-
ation form is a scale ranging from "does
not meet expectations" to "exceeds ex-
pectations," with an option of marking
"unable to rate' A board may choose to
assign numbers to this scale (say, 1
through 5, with 1 corresponding to
"does not meet expectations" and 5 cor-
responding to "exceeds expectations ").
But a numerical rating system is less use-
ful in an evaluation of the manager than
it is in an organization -wide evaluation
of all employees, where standardized
comparisons may have some value. In
fact, a potential problem with using a
numerical rating system is that it is easy
to focus on the number as the end in it-
self, rather than simply a shorthand way
to express the evaluation. Thus, a board
may discuss at length whether a man-
ager's performance on a given dimension
is a 3 or a 4, and perhaps conclude that it
is a 3.5, without fully exploring what
these numbers represent.
Samples of evaluation forms may be
Figure 2. Portion of Sample Evaluation Form
Presentation Skills. The ability to understand an audience and to present
an idea clearly and concisely, in an engaging way, to a group whose interests, ed-
ucation, culture, ethnicity, age, etc., represent a broad spectrum of community
interests and needs.
1 2 3 . 4 5
I I I I
Does Not Meets Exceeds Unable
Meet Expectations Expectations Expectations to Rate
Citizen Service. The ability to determine citizen needs, provide equitable ser-
vice, allocate resources, deliver services or products, and evaluate results.
1 2 3 4 5
I I I I
Does Not Meets Exceeds Unable
Meet Expectations Expectations Expectations to Rate
Delegating. The ability to assign work, clarify expectations, and define how
individual performance will be measured.
I 2 3 4 5
I I I I
Does Not Meets Exceeds Unable
Meet Expectations Expectations Expectations to Rate
9
obtained from ICMA (contact Anthony
Crowell by fax, 202/962 -3500) and other
professional organizations. Again, it is
essential for boards and managers to tai-
lor forms to meet their needs.
Conducting the Evaluation.
1. Have individual board members com-
plete the evaluation form prior to the
evaluation session. Setting aside some
time for individual reflection is impor-
tant preparation for the evaluation ses-
sion. It reinforces the message that this is
an important task, worthy of the board
members' attention. Making individual
assessments before beginning a group
discussion also increases the likelihood
that each member will form his or her
own opinion without being influenced
by the judgments or experiences of
other members.
This is not meant to imply that board
members cannot change their minds as
a result of group discussion; on the con-
trary, members frequently change their
views of a manager's performance as
they hear the perspectives of other
members and learn information that
was not available to them when making
their individual assessments.
2. Have the manager do a self- assess-
ment. Inviting the manager to assess
his or her own performance can add a
helpful —and unique — perspective to
the evaluation process. In most cases,
the manager can simply complete the
same evaluation form being used by
the board. For the manager, the com-
parison of the self - assessment with the
assessments of others provides an op-
portunity for insight into his or her
own overestimation or underestima-
tion of performance level as compared
with the expectations of the board. For
the board, hearing how the manager
rates his or her own performance
(and, more important, how he or she
arrived at that rating) can help mem-
bers gain some insight into whether
the board and manager are communi-
cating effectively.
As an example, board members might
10
rate the manager as not meeting expecta-
tions in a given area because a land use
study has not been completed. Upon dis-
cussion with the manager, however, the
board might learn that the study has
been completed but not yet been pre-
sented to the board. This distinction
would be important because it would
suggest different areas for improvement.
If the manager has not completed the
study, the discussion might have focused
on the importance of meeting deadlines.
Instead, the group could develop strate-
gies for improving communication so
that board members will receive infor-
mation in a timely manner.
3. Agree on a setting for the evaluation
discussion. The evaluation should be
conducted in a setting that is private and
comfortable, free from interruptions,
and considered neutral by all parties.
These are the same characteristics a
board may look for in a retreat setting
when it meets to develop a long -range
plan, discuss roles and responsibilities of
new board members, and the like. The
idea is to set aside a time and place to
address a single topic, away from the
pressure of a loaded agenda.
Boards frequently ask whether the
manager's evaluation is defined as an
open meeting. Because the board is con-
sidering the performance of the man -
ager—a public employee— during an
evaluation, such a meeting may be held
in executive session. According to the
North Carolina open- meetings statute,
for instance, a public body may hold an
executive session to "consider the quali-
fications, competence, performance,
character, fitness, conditions of appoint-
ment, or conditions of initial employ-
ment of a public officer or employee."
4. Have the manager present during the
evaluation. The above example, in which
the board learns important information
from the manager during the evalua-
tion, illustrates the benefit of having the
manager in the room, playing an active
role in the evaluation. A manager pre-
sent during the discussion can respond
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
to questions from the board, ask ques-
tions, and provide relevant information.
Frequently, a board's first impulse is
to exclude the manager from the evalua-
tion session. Some members may be re-
luctant to share negative feedback in the
manager's presence. Other members
may fear that the evaluation will turn
into an analysis of the manager's han-
dling of a single incident, with the man-
ager defending his or her actions. Still
others may want to shield the manager
from what they perceive to be unduly
harsh criticism from a few board mem-
bers. These are valid concerns.
However, many of the problems an-
ticipated by the board stem from a lack
of planning rather than from the man-
ager's presence at the evaluation; conse-
quently, many of these issues can be ad-
dressed in earlier phases of the planning
process. For example, a good evaluation
form will help ensure that the discussion
focuses on job- related behaviors rather
than personal traits and will look at the
previous year's performance rather than
that of the previous week.
Some boards choose to exclude the
manager from the evaluation session
and select one member to summarize
the board's discussion for the manager
after the evaluation has been completed.
Appointing a "designated spokesperson"
to communicate the board's evaluation
to the manager is often frustrating for
both parties. It is difficult for one person
to summarize a complex discussion in
an accurate and balanced way, and the
spokesperson may end up overempha-
sizing some points and underemphasiz-
ing or eliminating others. To a manager
who is seeking feedback and guidance,
this one -way communication usually
does not give a full picture of the board's
perceptions; consequently, the manager
may make future decisions that are not
consistent with the board's expectations.
Even with a careful planning process,
board members still may have concerns
about sharing negative feedback with
the manager. As described in the next
section, a skilled facilitator frequently
can diminish these concerns by helping
MARCH 1997
the group discuss these issues in a con-
structive way.
After the board has concluded its dis-
cussion of the manager's performance, it
may wish to excuse the manager while it
makes a decision about the manager's
compensation. The manager presum-
ably will receive any feedback and guid-
ance from the board before the salary
discussion, so his or her presence is not
necessary at this point. However, the
board should keep in mind that the ac-
tual setting of the manager's salary may
not be covered under a personnel excep-
tion to an open- meetings law, and for
this reason this determination should
take place in an open session.
5. Consider using a facilitator. A perfor-
mance evaluation is a complex task, par-
ticularly when an entire group is partici-
pating in the evaluation. Members may
have different views of the manager's
past performance or different expecta-
tions for the future. Board members also
may be reluctant to share negative feed-
back, or they may be concerned that
their feedback will be misinterpreted.
For all of these reasons, it often is
helpful to use a facilitator when conduct-
ing the evaluation. A facilitator can help
the group by monitoring the group's
process, while leaving all members free
to focus on the task of the evaluation. Fa-
cilitators often suggest that groups use a
set of ground rules to help them accom-
plish their work more effectively.
The board might look to local busi-
ness, civic, and academic leaders for rec-
ommendations for qualified facilitators;
or it might contact the Institute of Gov-
ernment at the University of North Car-
olina at Chapel Hill, or the state's associ-
ation of county commissioners, league
of municipalities, school board associa-
tion, or similar organizations for help in
this area.
6. Allow sufficient time. A useful tech-
nique for the actual evaluation is a
"round robin" format. Each member in
turn expresses his or her judgment of
the manager's performance on a given
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT
criterion, and the entire group then dis-
cusses any differences among individu-
als' ratings, with the goal of reaching
group consensus on the manager's per-
formance in this area before progressing
to the next performance criterion. Even
with a small board that is in general
agreement about the manager's perfor-
mance, this is a time - consuming pro-
cess. Therefore, setting aside a full day
for the evaluation session is a good idea.
Although this may seem like a lot of
time to devote to one issue, the conse-
quences of failing to reach agreement on
what the board expects of the manager
can ultimately require far more time and
energy. The group may wish to divide
the evaluation session into two half -
days, if that is more manageable (both in
terms of scheduling and energy levels).
7. Include a portion in which the board
evaluates its own performance. In theory,
it is possible for a board to specify ex-
pectations for the manager and then to
evaluate the degree to which a manager
has met these expectations. In practice,
however, meeting expectations is usually
a two -way street, and it is helpful for a
board to examine its own functioning
and how it contributes to—or hinders —
the manager's effectiveness. In one case,
a board set a number of high- priority
objectives for the manager to meet, after
which individual board members
brought new "high- priority" projects to
the manager throughout the year. In this
case, the board was partly responsible
for the manager's failure to meet the ex-
pectations initially set by the board.
8. Decide on the next steps, and critique
the process. The actual evaluation of the
manager's (and the board's) perfor-
mance may seem like the last step in the
evaluation process, but there still are a
number of decisions to be made before
the next evaluation cycle can begin. The
board may wish to have a separate ses-
sion to make a decision about the man-
ager's compensation. This is also a logi-
cal time to talk about expectations and
goals for the coming year, and the board
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
may wish to set a date in the near future
when it will set expectations and perfor-
mance measures in preparation for the
next evaluation.
An important final step: Before the
evaluation is concluded, all members
should assess the evaluation process it-
self. This self - critique helps the group
look at its own process and learn from
its experiences in working together. By
reflecting on the task just completed, the
group frequently identifies components
of the process that worked well and as-
pects that could have been more effec-
tive. For example, it may decide that it
did not clearly define the manager's role
in reaching board goals before the evalu-
ation and resolve to address this lack by
a specified date.
A Process, Not an Event
As the steps described here illustrate,
the evaluation of a chief administrative
officer is a process, not an event. Careful
planning and a commitment to com-
munication between the board and the
manager throughout the year will
greatly facilitate the actual evaluation
and increase the likelihood that it will
be a valuable experience for all involved.
One last word: Don't let the fear that
your board has not laid the proper
groundwork prevent you from getting
on with the job. You will probably see
some things that you would like to
change after the first evaluation (and
the second, and the third ... ). That is
what the self - critique is for. The impor-
tant thing is to begin the process. Mak-
ing the evaluation a regular part of the
board's work is the best way to ensure
its success.
Margaret S. Carlson is a faculty member
of the Institute of Government, The Uni-
versity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
Chapel Hill, N.C.
Reprinted by permission from Popular. Gov-
ernment published by the Institute of Govern-
ment, The University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill.
11
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
City Manager's Performance Evaluation
Sample Form
Monitoring the performance of the organization and the City Manager are a continual
process for the Mayor and Council. This is punctuated by the annual performance
appraisal. John Carver states, "Evaluating the CEO is an important board (Mayor and
Council) task. It seeks to ensure that board (Mayor and Council) values are truly in
place."
The following instrument allows each member of the Mayor and Council an opportunity
to evaluate the City Manager based on the following Job Dimensions:
✓ Staff Effectiveness
✓ Policy Facilitation
✓ Service Delivery Management
✓ Strategic Leadership
✓ Democratic Responsiveness
✓ Organizational Planning and Management
✓ Communication
✓ Integrity
✓ Interpersonal Characteristics and Skills
✓ Organizational Values
✓ Personal Development
✓ Self - Mastery
✓ Leadership
On each job dimension you are provided the opportunity to rate the relative importance of
the dimension from your individual perspective, as well as the performance of the City
Manager. Narrative comments are welcomed to provide specific examples, or additional
feedback to the City Manager.
The combined feedback from this multi -rater form and the City Manager's self - evaluation
will provide a framework for discussion during the annual performance evaluation
meeting.
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
Job Dimension: Staff Effectiveness:
Level of Importance: ❑ High
❑ MediumE Low
•
❑
❑
Expectations
❑
Expectations
No Basis for Rating
Exceeds Expectations
Meets Expectations
Almost Always Meets
Does Not Meet
Staff is professional and high quality performers; providing
reports and services that are timely and complete and contain
sound recommendations.
❑ No Basis for Rating
❑ Exceeds Expectations
❑ Meets Expectations
❑ Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
Demonstrates a commitment to deal with non - performers and
hold the organization accountable for results.
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
Job Dimension: Policy Facilitation
ILevel of Importance: ❑ High ❑ Medium❑ Low
n No Basis for Rating
❑ Exceeds Expectations
❑ Meets Expectations
n Almost Always Meets
Expectations
n Does Not Meet
Expectations
Presents policy - related information completely and
accurately.
❑ No Basis for Rating
❑ Exceeds Expectations
n Meets Expectations
n Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
Respects the role of elected officials in making policy
decisions
�] No Basis for Rating
❑ Exceeds Expectations
❑ Meets Expectations
n Almost Always Meets
Expectations
n Does Not Meet
Expectations
Ensures that policy decisions and initiatives are implemented.
Comments:
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
Job Dimension: Service Delivery Management
Level of Importance: ❑ High ❑ Medium❑ Low
C No Basis for Rating
n Exceeds Expectations
❑ Meets Expectations
❑ Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
Ensures prompt, courteous and accurate responses to requests
from citizens either directly or through the Governing Body.
Comments:
Job Dimension: Strategic Leadership
Level of Importance: ❑ High
❑ Medium ❑ Low
Comments:
No Basis for Rating
Anticipates and positions the organization to address an d
❑ Exceeds Expectations
respond to anticipated events and circumstances.
❑ Meets Expectations
❑ Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
• No Basis for Rating
Accepts responsibility for undesirable results
❑ Exceeds Expectations
❑ Meets Expectations
❑ Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
Comments:
�4 Hsi
Demonstrates an appreciation for the unique culture of the
community.
❑ No Basis for Rating
❑ Exceeds Expectations
❑ Meets Expectations
❑ Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
(1 No Basis for Rating
Respects and promotes active citizen participation in local
❑ Exceeds Expectations
governance.
❑ Meets Expectations
❑ Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
Job Dimension: Democratic Responsiveness
Level of Importance:
❑ High
❑ Medium ❑ Low
Comments:
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST I2, 2013
Level of Importance: ❑ High
Prepares clear, effective, understandable budget.
❑
❑
•
n
Expectations
❑
Expectations
•
❑
C
n
Expectations
❑
Expectations
No Basis for Rating
Exceeds Expectations
Meets Expectations
Almost Always Meets
Does Not Meet
No Basis for Rating
Exceeds Expectations
Meets Expectations
Almost Always Meets
Does Not Meet
Manages the allocation of financial resources.
NI No Basis for Rating
Exceeds Expectations
n Meets Expectations
❑ Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
Provides accurate assessment of the fiscal condition of the
community.
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST I2, 2013
Level of Importance: ❑ High
❑ Medium ❑ Low
Job Dimension: Organizational Planning and Management
Comments:
meter
a t
n No Basis for Rating
Demonstrates a capacity for effective written and oral
r Exceeds Expectations
communication.
NI Meets Expectations
• Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
Conveys information effectively and matches presentation
II No Basis for Rating
❑ Exceeds Expectations
styles to different audiences.
❑ Meets Expectations
(1 Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
Level of Importance: ❑ High ❑ Medium Low
Job Dimension: Communication
Comments:
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
ILevel of Importance:
❑ High
❑ Medium ❑ Low
❑ No Basis for Rating
[1 Exceeds Expectations
❑ Meets Expectations
❑ Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
Fosters ethical behaviors.
E No Basis for Rating
❑ Exceeds Expectations
❑ Meets Expectations
❑ Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
Demonstrates integrity in professional relationships.
❑ No Basis for Rating
❑ Exceeds Expectations
[1 Meets Expectations
Demonstrates accountability for personal actions.
• Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
AGENDA ITEM It 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
Job Dimension: Interpersonal Characteristics and Skills
Level of Importance: ❑ High ❑ Medium❑ Low
❑ No Basis for Rating
❑ Exceeds Expectations
n Meets Expectations
E Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
Demonstrates the ability to work in harmony with others,
minimizing conflict, fostering good will within the
organization, in external relationships, with the public and
other governmental representatives and interest groups..
Comments:
Job Dimension: Organizational Values
Level of Importance:
❑ High
❑ Medium ❑ Low
11.ate ...-..
a - s ga s "'^"ti,G4 .,.. ;* ,._ ,
. - , >
n No Basis for Rating
Demonstrates and models the organizations values, mission
❑ Exceeds Expectations
statement, goals and objectives.
❑ Meets Expectations
❑ Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
S/he "Walks the Talk!"
• No Basis for Rating
❑ Exceeds Expectations
n Meets Expectations
Fl Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
Comments:
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
Level of Importance:
R
❑ No Basis for Rating
Demonstrates a commitment to ongoing personal
❑ Exceeds Expectations
professional development through continued education and
❑ Meets Expectations
training.
❑ Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
Level of Importance:
❑ High
❑ Medium ❑ Low
Job Dimension: Personal Development
Comments:
AGENDA ITEM It 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
Job Dimension: Self- Mastery
Rater
Self - Mastery
No Basis for Rating
❑ Exceeds Expectations
❑ Meets Expectations
❑ Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
Demonstrates adaptability and a capability for coping with
stress.
No Basis for Rating
❑ Exceeds Expectations
❑ Meets Expectations
❑ Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
Respects the views of others and accepts feedback.
U No Basis for Rating
n Exceeds Expectations
❑ Meets Expectations
❑ Almost Always Meets
Expectations
❑ Does Not Meet
Expectations
Is able to control and manage emotions in conflicts and
interactions.
Comments:
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
PUMA
POLICY
BRIEF
BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES
FOR EVALUATION
A focus on results is a central element in recent public sector
reforms in OECD countries. Evaluation is important in a results -
oriented environment because it provides feedback on the
efficiency, effectiveness and performance of public policies and
can be critical to policy improvement and innovation. In essence,
it contributes to accountable governance.
The objective of evaluation is to improve decision - making at all
levels. Yet its actual use has often proved to be limited, especially
in relation to key policy decisions and budget reallocations.
These guidelines identify key issues and practices that OECD
Member countries should consider when seeking to improve the
use of evaluations. They focus on management of evaluation
activities in government and management of individual evaluations
rather than on methodological questions. It is not their role to
determine when evaluation is the most appropriate input to the
policy making and performance management process. That
decision will best be taken by the Member countries themselves.
PUMA Policy Brief No. 5
Public Management Service
May 1998
OECD
OWA
AGENDA ITEM # IOA
AUGUST 12, 2013
THE GUIDELINES
The Best Practice Guidelines for Evaluation are presented in three sections:
GETTING THE MOST FROM EVALUATIONS
This section defines evaluations, their objectives,
main actors, and benefits and costs.
1. Definition and Objectives
2. Identify Main Participants
3. Assess Benefits and Costs
ORGANISING THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
This section discusses practices in relation to improving
organisation and use of evaluations across the public
sector.
4. Foster Evaluation Culture
5. Manage Evaluation Activities Strategically
6. Enhance Credibility
BUILDING EFFECTIVE EVALUATIONS
This section discusses practices and priorities for
managing individual evaluations.
7. Ensure Links with Decision - Making Processes
8. Choose the Right Evaluator
9. Involve Stakeholders and Communicate
Findings Openly
PUMA Policy Brief - 5 E Best Practice Guidelines for Evaluation
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
Getting the most from evaluations
Definition and
objectives
➢ Evaluations are analytical assessments addressing results of public policies, organisations or
programmes, that emphasise reliability and usefulness of findings. Their role is to improve information
and reduce uncertainty; however, even evaluations based on rigorous methods rely significantly on
judgement. A distinction can be made between ex -ante evaluations (or policy reviews) and ex -post
evaluations. Many practices discussed in these Guidelines apply equally to both, even if their
objectives are different.
➢ The main objectives of evaluations are to improve decision - making, resource allocation and
accountability. This can be achieved through informing the public, informing key decision - making
processes and encouraging ongoing organisational learning.
➢ Evaluations must be part of a wider performance management framework. They can supplement
and improve it, but not replace it.
Identify main participants
➢ Successful evaluations are based on collaboration between key participants (evaluators, users and
stakeholders), under the leadership of a "commissioner ".
➢ Commissioners are organisations that commission evaluations. The commissioner plans the
evaluation, monitors its progress, receives the evaluation report, and makes decisions about further
action. Commissioners may be ministries or central government agencies (e.g., the Ministry of Finance
or independent evaluation and audit organisations). In some cases the commissioner may also be the
evaluator.
➢ Evaluators are those organisations or individuals collecting and analysing data and judging the value
of the evaluated subject.
➢ Users of evaluation may be policy- makers, the budget office, auditors, policy or prograrme managers
and staff, users of services, etc.
➢ Stakeholders are those individuals or organisations that have an interest in the policy or programme
being evaluated and the findings of the evaluation. Stakeholders and users are often the same actors.
Assess benefits and costs
➢ Benefits of evaluations should outweigh their costs and limitations. Both costs and benefits can be
affected by careful management of evaluations and by choosing the appropriate evaluators and
evaluation methods.
➢ The key value of evaluations is that they allow for in -depth study of performance and independent
assessment of effectiveness of other performance management instruments. Potential benefits are the
greatest for large policies or programmes.
➢ On the other hand, experience shows that evaluations have often been too costly and time - consuming
compared to their real use and effect. There is also a risk of evaluations being used to slow the process
of decision - making and justify inaction.
PUMA Policy Brief - 5 ® Best Practice Guidelines for Evaluation
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
Organising the evaluation framework
Foster evaluation culture
➢ Support for evaluations is demonstrated through willingness of politicians, policy managers and
central management agencies (e.g., Ministry of Finance), to make effective use of policy advice
generated in evaluations.
➢ Demand for evaluation needs to be generated, specified and articulated by internal and external
stakeholders. Evaluations without "ownership" by stakeholders are unlikely to have an effect.
Institutional barriers to evaluation such as internal resistance can be reduced through consultation,
aiming at creating mutual trust.
➢ The government can support an evaluation culture that encourages innovation and adaptation to a
changing environment. The basic message should be that to stay relevant, organisations need to
continue learning from feedback about results.
➢ Training and professional dialogue, competent evaluators, well - informed commissioners and
enlightened and enthusiastic users all contribute to an evaluation culture.
Manage evaluation activities strategically
➢ Organisation of evaluation should correspond to needs and priorities in different policy areas. It
may be appropriate to systematise and institutionalise evaluations in key policy areas where the costs
of collecting data is high and information limited. However, a more flexible approach will often
produce better results and prevent evaluations from becoming paperwork exercises. Special attention
should be given to evaluation of activities that cut across many organisations.
• Central government agencies play an important role in managing the evaluation process; however, the
actual evaluations can be decentralised to different actors at all levels of government.
• Development of evaluation skills in different organisations ensures the necessary range of evaluation
methods and perspectives (e.g., drawing from both internal and external evaluators), and that each
evaluation is designed in accordance with its unique set of issues related to objectives, focus,
credibility and intended use.
• Special funds for financing evaluations can serve as an important incentive for evaluating public
policies; however, they may also serve to encourage use of evaluation when other performance
management approaches may be more appropriate.
Enhance credibility
➢ Lack of credibility undermines the use of evaluation findings. Factors influencing credibility include
the competence and credibility of the evaluator, mutual trust between the evaluator and those
evaluated, consultation and involvement of stakeholders and processes for communicating findings.
➢ Professional and ethical standards, and methodological quality of evaluation (encompassing issues
such as relevant criteria, adequate data and evidence and reliable and clear findings) also have an effect
on the credibility of evaluation. Quality assurance and open and frank dialogue can improve credibility
by exposing and rectifying potential weaknesses in evaluations.
PUMA Policy Brief - 5 Best Practice Guidelines for Evaluation
AGENDA ITEM # 1 OA
AUGUST 12, 2W 3
Building effective evaluations
Ensure links with decision -ma ing
processes
➢ Evaluation information can be an important factor in policy formulation to improve the quality of
policy intervention and in the budget process to support priorities and savings. Relevant evaluations
address issues that are significant for political, budgetary, management and other strategic reasons.
➢ Objectives of evaluation determine location, methodology and use of evaluation. The proposed use of
evaluation should be clearly defined. Evaluations should be tailored to the characteristics of a policy
intervention and evaluation methods should match the objectives of the evaluation, taking constraints
such as costs and time into account. Building requirements for evaluations into policies from the start,
and defining their objectives clearly, will improve the usefulness of evaluation and facilitate planning.
➢ Planning improves the management and quality of evaluation. The commissioner is responsible for
planning evaluations, including defining objectives, criteria, data collection and methods. Timing is
important, but the decision - making cycle is often unpredictable and decisions are often taken before
evaluations have been finalised.
Choose the right evaluator
➢ Self evaluation by an organisation is appropriate when the main objectives are organisational learning
and improved implementation. However, the time and skills of staff may be insufficient, the range of
issues covered may be limited and the credibility of findings may also be questioned.
➢ Evaluation by central management agencies is appropriate when the objective is improving budget
priorities and when it is important that the evaluator has close links with decision - making processes.
➢ Evaluation by external evaluators (e.g., research bodies and management consultants) is appropriate
when the objective is to provide new perspectives on public policies or when there is a need for
specialised evaluation skills. However, these evaluators may have limited understanding of the
substance and the culture of the evaluated policy or organisation and offer theoretical evaluations.
➢ Independent evaluation is appropriate when the objectives are to improve accountability and
transparency. However, policy managers, or the administration in general, may be reluctant to accept
the findings and recommendations. Performance audits are often similar to evaluations. Their key
features include independence of the auditor and a focus on accountability rather than improvement.
Involve stakeholders and
communicate findings openly
➢ Stakeholders, including staff, can be appointed to evaluation commissions or involved through
steering or advisory groups. Participatory evaluation methods can be used to create consensus and
ownership for a change process. Dialogue with users and staff improves understanding and
responsiveness to their needs and priorities. Participation must be managed due to the costs, time
constraints and the risk of capture from such processes.
➢ Presenting evaluation findings openly increases credibility and creates pressure to act upon findings.
Public availability of reports and meetings are useful to present and stimulate dialogue on findings.
Judgements and recommendations based on clear criteria attract attention and promote subsequent
action. Judgements should focus on overcoming problems rather than on assigning blame.
PUMA Policy Brief - 5 IM Best Practice Guidelines for Evaluation
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
— About this Policy Brief ...
As a part of its work on Performance Management, the PUMA Secretariat has
studied evaluation in Member countries in order to identify key issues and
practices to improve the use of evaluations. These Guidelines draw on
experiences from Member countries. They address issues relevant for central
agencies responsible for evaluation strategies of government and for those
managing individual evaluations.
The Guidelines were reviewed and endorsed by both PUMA's Performance
Management Network and the Public Management Committee.
It must be emphasised that there is no single right way to organise and conduct
evaluations. The choice of methods will depend on several factors, including the
objectives of evaluations, the role of evaluations in a wider performance
management framework, and institutional and political considerations.
A background report Improving Evaluation Practices will be available in
September 1998. In preparing the report the Secretariat was assisted by a
Reference Group of senior officials and experts from Australia, Canada, Sweden,
the United States and the European Commission.
These Guidelines and the background report, along with other information about
PUMA's work in the area of public sector performance management and
evaluation, may be found on PUMA's Internet site at:
http:www.oecd.org /puma /mgmtres /pac /index.htm
For further information about the OECD's work in this area please contact:
Sigurdur Helgason - E -Mail: sigurdur.helgason @oecd.org - Fax: (33 -1) 45.24.87.96
360 Performance Evaluations
Our 360 performance evaluations feedback
system is a multi -rater feedback process that
provides management and leaders with an
opportunity to receive an accurate evaluation of
their job performance from the people around
them -- their boss, their peers, and the people
whose work they supervise. From this 360 degree
performance feedback, managers can compare
the opinions of others with their own perceptions,
positively identify their strengths, and pinpoint
the areas of their job performance that could he
improved.
This assessment process is concerned with a
manager's job performance in eight skill clusters
and 18 universal competencies, described as
follows:
• Communication
o Listens to others
a Processes information
o Communicates
effectively
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
360 Performance Management
Systems Dramatically Improves
Leadership Effectiveness
taliffitttkiT ftft#t
vIt.e
• Adaptability
o Adjusts to circumstances
O Thinks creatively
• Task Management
o Works efficiently
o Works competently
Development of Others
o Cultivates individual
talents
O Motivates successfully
• Leadership
o Instills trust with
employee
o Provides direction
o Delegates
responsibility
• Relationships
• Builds personal
relationships
o Facilitates team
success
• Production
o Take action
o Achieves results
• Personal Development
o Displays commitment
o Seeks improvement
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
City Manager Performance Evaluation
City of
Evaluation period: to
Governing Body Member's Name
Each member of the governing body should complete this evaluation form, sign it in the
space below, and return it to . The
deadline for submitting this performance evaluation is
Evaluations will be summarized and included on the agenda for discussion at the work
session on
Mayor's Signature
Date
Governing Body Member's Signature
Date Submitted
Page 1 of 7
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
INSTRUCTIONS
This evaluation form contains ten categories of evaluation criteria. Each category
contains a statement to describe a behavior standard in that category. For each
statement, use the following scale to indicate your rating of the city manager's
performance.
5 = Excellent (almost always exceeds the performance standard)
4 = Above average (generally exceeds the performance standard)
3 = Average (generally meets the performance standard)
2 = Below average (usually does not meet the performance standard)
1 = Poor (rarely meets the performance standard)
Any item left blank will be interpreted as a score of "3 = Average"
This evaluation form also contains a provision for entering narrative comments,
including an opportunity to enter responses to specific questions and an opportunity to
list any comments you believe appropriate and pertinent to the rating period. Please
write legibly.
Leave all pages of this evaluation form attached. Initial each page. Sign and date the
cover page. On the date space of the cover page, enter the date the evaluation form
was submitted. All evaluations presented prior to the deadline identified on the cover
page will be summarized into a performance evaluation to be presented by the
governing body to the city manager as part of the agenda for the meeting indicated on
the cover page.
PERFORMANCE CATEGORY SCORING
1. INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS
Diligent and thorough in the discharge of duties, "self- starter"
Exercises good judgment
Displays enthusiasm, cooperation, and will to adapt
Mental and physical stamina appropriate for the position
Exhibits composure, appearance and attitude appropriate for executive position
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal = 5 = score for this category
Page 2 of 7 Initials
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
2. PROFESSIONAL SKILLS AND STATUS
Maintains knowledge of current developments affecting the practice of local government
management
Demonstrates a capacity for innovation and creativity
Anticipates and analyzes problems to develop effective approaches for solving them
Willing to try new ideas proposed by governing body members and /or staff
Sets a professional example by handling affairs of the public office in a fair and impartial
manner
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal
= 5 = score for this category
3. RELATIONS WITH ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY
Carries out directives of the body as a whole as opposed to those of any one member or
minority group
Sets meeting agendas that reflect the guidance of the governing body and avoids
unnecessary involvement in administrative actions
Disseminates complete and accurate information equally to all members in a timely
manner
Assists by facilitating decision making without usurping authority
Responds well to requests, advice, and constructive criticism
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal
5 = score for this category
4. POLICY EXECUTION
Implements governing body actions in accordance with the intent of council
Supports the actions of the governing body after a decision has been reached, both
inside and outside the organization
Understands, supports, and enforces local government's laws, policies, and ordinances
Reviews ordinance and policy procedures periodically to suggest improvements to their
effectiveness
Offers workable alternatives to the governing body for changes in law or policy when an
existing policy or ordinance is no longer practical
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal
Page 3 of 7 Initials
T 5 = score for this category
AGENDA ITEM # I0A
AUGUST 12, 2013
5. REPORTING
Provides regular information and reports to the governing body concerning matters of
importance to the local government, using the city charter as guide
Responds in a timely manner to requests from the governing body for special reports
Takes the initiative to provide information, advice, and recommendations to the
governing body on matters that are non - routine and not administrative in nature
Reports produced by the manager are accurate, comprehensive, concise and written to
their intended audience
Produces and handles reports in a way to convey the message that affairs of the
organization are open to public scrutiny
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal
5 = score for this category
6. CITIZEN RELATIONS
Responsive to requests from citizens
Demonstrates a dedication to service to the community and its citizens
Maintains a nonpartisan approach in dealing with the news media
Meets with and listens to members of the community to discuss their concerns and
strives to understand their interests
Gives an appropriate effort to maintain citizen satisfaction with city services
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal _ 5 = score for this category
7. STAFFING
Recruits and retains competent personnel for staff positions
Applies an appropriate level of supervision to improve any areas of substandard
performance
Stays accurately informed and appropriately concerned about employee relations
Professionally manages the compensation and benefits plan
Promotes training and development opportunities for employees at all levels of the
organization
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal
Page 4 of 7 Initials
5 = score for this category
AGENDA ITEM # I0A
AUGUST 12, 2013
8. SUPERVISION
Encourages heads of departments to make decisions within their jurisdictions with
minimal city manager involvement, yet maintains general control of operations by
providing the right amount of communication to the staff
Instills confidence and promotes initiative in subordinates through supportive rather than
restrictive controls for their programs while still monitoring operations at the department
level
Develops and maintains a friendly and informal relationship with the staff and work force
in general, yet maintains the professional dignity of the city manager's office
Sustains or improves staff performance by evaluating the performance of staff members
at least annually, setting goals and objectives for them, periodically assessing their
progress, and providing appropriate feedback
Encourages teamwork, innovation, and effective problem - solving among the staff
members
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal
5 = score for this category
9. FISCAL MANAGEMENT
Prepares a balanced budget to provide services at a level directed by council
Makes the best possible use of available funds, conscious of the need to operate the
local government efficiently and effectively
Prepares a budget and budgetary recommendations in an intelligent and accessible
format
Ensures actions and decisions reflect an appropriate level of responsibility for financial
planning and accountability
Appropriately monitors and manages fiscal activities of the organization
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal = 5 = score for this category
Page 5 of 7 Initials
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
10. COMMUNITY
Shares responsibility for addressing the difficult issues facing the city
Avoids unnecessary controversy
Cooperates with neighboring communities and the county
Helps the council address future needs and develop adequate plans to address long
term trends
Cooperates with other regional, state and federal government agencies
Add the values from above and enter the subtotal + 5 = score for this category
NARRATIVE EVALUATION
What would you identify as the manager's strength(s), expressed in terms of the principle
results achieved during the rating period?
What performance area(s) would you identify as most critical for improvement?
Page 6 of 7 Initials
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
What constructive suggestions or assistance can you offer the manager to enhance
performance?
What other comments do you have for the manager; e.g., priorities, expectations, goals or
objectives for the new rating period?
Page 7 of 7 Initials
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST I2, 2013
LEADERSHIP
Rate the ability of the city manager to inspire, encourage and facilitate the activities of subordinates and peers to achieve City goals.
Consider the degree of ingenuity demonstrated in seeking proactive solutions and assuming responsibility for outcomes as well as
creativity, resourcefulness, and communicating in a manner that inspires confidence or builds support.
Rating
Descriptive Statements
NI
FME
EE
NA
General Comments
Takes a proactive approach to issues
Motivates and inspires council, staff,
and the public
Offers new ideas, processes and
procedures to council, staff and the
public
Provides mentoring and coaching to
key staff
Understands his staffs strengths and
shapes programs around those
List notes or comments that support the overall rating on leadership
NI = Needs Improvement, FME = Fully Meets Expectations, EE = Exceeds Expectations,
NA = No observation or too early to tell
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
FISCAL MANAGEMENT AND BUDGETING
Rate the city manager's ability to prepare an operating and a capital budget, be responsible for (or delegate) purchasing, ensure the
collection of revenues, administer the financial affairs of the city, and prepare reports to council to keep members abreast of the city's
financial condition, per the city's charter.
Rating
Descriptive Statements
NI
FME
EE
NA
General Comments
Ensures purchasing policies are
followed and informs council when
revisions are needed
Prepares realistic and understandable
budget documents
Operates the city's finances in
compliance with generally accepted
accounting principles
Maximizes all efforts to collect taxes
and other revenues and seeks new
revenue sources
Manages the budget within the
confines of what the council adopted
Makes the best use of available funds,
conscious of the need to operate the
city efficiently and effectively
List notes or comments that support the overall rating on fiscal management and budgeting
NI = Needs Improvement, FME = Fully Meets Expectations, EE = Exceeds Expectations,
NA = No observation or too early to tell
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
SERVICE DELIVERY AND ADMINISTRATION
Rate the ability of the city manager to supervise the administrative affairs of the city to include staffing, the management of the
departments, and the provision of city services. Basically, the ability to run the city.
Rating
Descriptive Statements
NI
FME
EE
NA
General Comments
Ensures the public receives city
efficiently and effectively
services
Enforces laws and policies adopted by
the council and the state
Makes sure staff has the resources it
to do its job
needs
Responds appropriately to citizen and
employee complaints and /or concerns
Performs duties within given time
frames
List notes or comments that support the overall rating on service delivery and administration
NI = Needs Improvement, FME = Fully Meets Expectations, EE = Exceeds Expectations,
NA = No observation or too early to tell
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
CITIZEN AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Rate the effectiveness of the city manager in dealing with the citizens, the public, intergovernmental agencies, businesses and non-
profits. Is fair, responsive, professional, polite, open, skillful with the media, cooperative, and listens.
Rating
Descriptive Statements
NI
FME
EE
NA
General Comments
Asks for and gives attention to
concerns and opinions of all
community groups and individuals
Uses sensitivity, diplomacy, and
empathy when dealing with the public
Interacts effectively with federal, state
and other local government
representatives to achieve potential
benefit for the city
Demonstrates openness, receptiveness,
and approachability in both formal and
informal situations
Deals effectively with the media
List notes or comments that support the overall rating on citizen and community relations
NI = Needs Improvement, FME = Fully
Meets Expectations, EE = Exceeds Expectations, NA = No observation or too early to tell
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALITIES
Evaluate the character of the city manager, his integrity, his ethics, his fairness and equity in dealing with employees, the council and
the public, his dedication to professional development, time management, problem solving and decision making skills.
Rating
Descriptive Statements
Projects a positive and professional
image
NI
FME
EE
NA
General Comments
Has complete personal and
professional integrity
Demonstrates continuous professional
development
Adheres to the ICMA code of ethics
Works toward gaining and maintaining
the respect and support of staff
List notes or comments that support the overall rating on personal and professional qualities
NI = Needs Improvement, FME = Fully Meets Expectations, EE = Exceeds Expectations, NA = No observation or too early to tell
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 20I3
CITY COUNCIL RELATIONS
Rate the effectiveness of the city manager in dealing with council members including prompt, thorough and complete information
provided equally to all council members; the lack of surprises on behalf of council members; availability; tact; responsiveness; and
how well he successfully interprets the direction and intent of council.
Rating
Descriptive Statements
NI
FME
EE
NA
General Comments
Assists by facilitating decision making
without usurping authority
Disseminates complete and accurate
information equally to all members in
a timely manner
Responds well to requests, advice, and
constructive criticism
Presents multiple options for council to
consider
Keeps the council informed of
administrative developments
List notes or comments that support the overall rating on city council relations
NI = Needs Improvement, FME = Fully Meets Expectations, EE = Exceeds Expectations,
NA = No observation or too early to tell
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
ADDITIONAL NARRATIVE — LOOKING AHEAD
What would you identify as the manager's strength(s), expressed in terms of the principal results achieved during the rating period?
What performance area(s) would you identify as most critical for improvement?
What constructive suggestions or assistance can you offer the city manager to enhance performance?
What other comments do you have for the manager, e.g. priorities, expectations, goals or objectives for the new rating period?
Please provide recommendations and comments on a possible change in compensation and a contract extension beyond the current
expiration date of August 8, 2013.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
Employee Performance Evaluation
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
The purpose of this employee evaluation is to evaluate performance, take a personal inventory, pinpoint strengths,
outline and agee upon a practical program for improvements and establish tasks and goals for the next evaluation
period. In conducting performance reviews, these evaluations will provide a history of performance, development and
progress.
NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
JOB TITLE:
DEPART!' NT/DIVISION:
SUPERVISOR:
RATING PERIOD: From: To:
DATE OF EVALUATION:
TYPE OF EVALUATION: ❑ ANNUAL ❑ OTHER
DATE OF INITIAL/LAST REVIEW:
DATE OF MID -YEAR REVIEW:
PERFORMANCE RATINGS
Far Exceeds Requirements: Performance was consistently well beyond requirements
Exceeds Requirements: Performance consistently exceeded responsibilities, standards and objectives
Meets Requirements: Performance consistently met the majority of responsibilities, standards and objectives
Below Requirements: Performance frequently did not meet requirements
Well Below Requirements: Performance consistently fell well below requirements
SECTION 1. PERFORMANCE TASKS /STANDARDS `.
1.
Well Below
Requirements
Below
Requirements
Meets
Requirements
Exceeds
Requirements
Far Exceeds
Requirements
Comments:
2.
Well Below
Requirements
Below
Requirements
Meets
Requirements
Exceeds
Requirements
Far Exceeds
Requirements
Comments:
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
3.
Well Below
Requirements
Comments:
Below
Requirements
Meets
Requirements
Exceeds
Requirements
Far Exceeds
Requirements
4.
Well Below
Requirements
Below
Requirements
Meets
Requirements
Exceeds
Requirements
Far Exceeds
Requirements
Comments:
5.
6.
7.
Well Below
Requirements
Comments:
Well Below
Requirements
Comments:
Below
Requirements
Meets
Requirements
Exceeds
Requirements
Far Exceeds
Requirements
Below
Requirements
Meets
Requirements
Exceeds
Requirements
Far Exceeds
Requirements
Well Below
Requirements
Comments:
Below
Requirements
Meets
Requirements
Exceeds
Requirements
Far Exceeds
Requirements
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
SECTION II. °` PERSONAL TRAITS /STANDARDS
1. INTERPERSONAL SKILLS
a. Sincere interest in job
b. Effectiveness in working with
others
c. :Communications
d. Cooperation
e. Flexibility
Well Below
Requirements
Comments:
Below
Requirements
Meets
Requirements
Exceeds
Requirements
Far Exceeds
Requirements
2. APPEARANCE
a. Neatness and appropriateness of
grooming, dress and characteristics
b. Projects a positive image
c. Appropriate personal hygiene
Well Below
Requirements
Comments:
Below
Requirements
Meets
Requirements
Exceeds
Requirements
Far Excccds
Requirements
3. INITIATIVE
a. Self motivated
b. Ability to keep working without
prompting
c. Conscientious
d. Hardworking/Productivity
Willingness to pursue challenges
4. JUDGEMENT /KNOWLEDGE
a. Recognition of problems
b. Application of common sense, Logic_
and decision-making principles
c Recognition of appropriate
responses
Well Below
Requirements
Comments:
Below
Requirements
Meets
Requirements
Exceeds
Requirements
Far Exceeds
Requirements
5. RELIABILITY/DEPENDABILITY
a. Observance of work schedule
b. Adheres to instructions and policies
c. Meets deadlines
d. Completes tasks
e. Attendance
f. Safety
g. Accepts responsibility
Well Below
Requirements
Comments:
Below
Requirements
Meets
Requirements
Exceeds
Requirements
Far Exceeds
Requirements
Well Below
Requirements
Comments:
Below
Requirements
Meets
Requirements
Exceeds
Requirements
Far Exceeds
Requirements
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
SECTION 111. GOALS /STANDARDS FOR THE YEAR
1.
Well Below
Requirements
Below
Requirements
Meets
Requirements
Exceeds
Requirements
Far Exceeds
Requirements
Comments:
2.
Well Below
Requirements
Below
Requirements
Meets
Requirements
Exceeds
Requirements
Far Exceeds
Requirements
Comments:
3.
Well Below
Requirements
Below
Requirements
Meets
Requirements
Exceeds
Requirements
Far Exceeds
Requirements
Comments:
•
4.
Well Below
Requirements
Below
Requirements
Meets
Requirements
Exceeds
Requirements
Far Exceeds
Requirements
Comments:
5.
Well Below
Requirements
Below
Requirements
Meets
Requirements
Exceeds
Requirements
Far Exceeds
Requirements
Comments:
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
SECTION IV. AREAS OF STRENGTH/OTHER SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND RECOMMENDED
AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT
1. Indicate significant job- related accomplishments since the employee's last review or date of hire. Relate these to any previous
established work program or objectives where applicable. Also, indicate those activities or accomplishments that were significant in
the employee's career development since your last review or date of hire (e.g., education courses or degree completion, seminars,
etc.)
2. What recommendations (as to further training or behavioral change, etc) do you have that will help to improve this
employee's performance? Indicate dates, as applicable, for improvement. This section should also include any changes in standards
or tasks. If training is indicated, ensure to provide individual with opportunity to attain it. (Use additional sheets as necessary)
Supervisor's Overall Rating
Well Below
Requirements
Below
Requirements
Meets
Requirements
Exceeds
Requirement;
Far Exceeds
Requirements
Supervisor's Signature
Date
SECTION V. EMPLOYEE'S GENERAL COMMENTS
EMPLOYEE CERTIFICATION: I certify that this evaluation has been reviewed and discussed with me and a completed
copy will be placed in my personal file. I understand that my signature does not necessarily indicate my agreement with the
evaluation.
Employee's Signature
Date
SECTION VI. REVIEWER'S RATING AND GENERAL COMMENTS
Reviewer's Overall Rating
4-4 'Concur with ratings of Supervisor
u Concur with ratings of Supervisor except as noted by my initials
Reviewer's Signature
Date
AGENDA ITEM # 10A
AUGUST 12, 2013
ATTACHMENT ;4
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PREPARATION WORKSHEET
Name: Date:
Department: Job Title:
Instructions: The Performance Evaluation Preparation worksheet should be provided to employees 30 days in
advance of their performance appraisal. The form should be turned into the supervisor 15 days in advance of the
appraisal date and be used in conducting the appraisal review. All inputs from the employee are optional.
1. In your opinion, what are your major contributions this year?
List anything you've done this year that you want management to be aware of such as community activities;
teams, committee work/projects; education and/or courses completed, etc.
3. In your opinion, what are you main strengths?
4. Describe your interpersonal skills. Give examples where you have effectively resolved conflict, effectively
communicated on projects or lead our organization.
AGENDA ITEM # IQA
AUGUST 12, 2013
5. List any significant responsibilities you have assumed not yet incorporated into your job descriptions.
6. List any subjects you would like to discuss during your performance appraisal.
7. List below any goals you would like to accomplish in your position in the upcoming year.
8. List any items that I, as your supervisor, might do to assist you to improve the performance of your duties.
Signature of Employee Date