Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-82-0327ON TO RALPH ONGIE City Clerk .FROM D ETRIO PEREZ, JR. City Commissioner c_nY (')F INTER -CiF`F-lCF'-`E fd1C)f�.r'�iv(�l_fM April 21, 1982 City Manager's Evaluation :.i 2 Enclosed herewith please find a copy of my evaluation of the City Manager as mentioned in our meeting yesterday. Also enclosed please find a copy of my statement made at the meeting. Please incorporate to the public records file. n -s IL FL CITY MAINAGER' S EVALUATION CONDUCTED AT A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE MIA.Ml CI`_^`' CO -%I -MISS ION ON APRIL 20, 1982 Presented by: Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner CCITY MANAGER'S EVALUATION In the prepara`.ion of this evaluation, I have spent numerous hours reflecting on the past, present, and future of our City. I have faced all of the issues and areas with an open mind and with a positive outlook, and I have con- cluded that my main concern is the present and future of the City of Miami and not the past. 'However, I am fully aware that the past cannot be ignored as it teaches us valuable lessons on errors that we should not comanit again. I pray to God that he will give us t':e-aisrom to :Hake the right choices and the courage to carry them out. It is of utmost importance that we emerge from this process as a united city, working towards the common good. At the April 1st meeting, when the matter of the City Manager's evaluation was first brought before the Commission, I had these words to say: "Mr. Mayor, a house divided cannot stand, but I think that we have to define our position for the future of our community. My concern is not with what happened a year ago, what I would like to see is an improvement in the near future in some specific areas of importance to the residents of Miami. I share the opinion that we need a special meeting to conduct the evaluation. At that meeting, we should be given specific answers to issues before us, for example: we need more minority participation in the City contracts. _ Almost 70'� of the residents of Miami are either Hispanics or Blacks, and I would like to see a higher proportion of Blacks 00 0*7 C and His panics in our bidding process. I would like Tore af= rtiati�JP action it the hi.zher salary ranges in the City of Miami. I would lire to see better communicat•.:ons between the Admi- nistration and- the Cc�:�._asior.. I would like to continue to work in the area of making our workforce more professional, and I would like to try to find solutions for our housing and crime prcblems, but I think that we have to be united, and I am sure that with -the effort and the support of all of you and the good faith of our City Conxiission, if we wort: together, we will find better solutions for the future of our community. Follc.�ing i s my eval uat:on brcken down iatc criter; 3 areas set forth in the evaluation f•o_-mat sub tl t-ed to the City Commission. 1. LEAUB'RSHIP. Mr. Gary's participation in numerous community relations meetings have been documented in the press. His involvement is respected by the Black community and he serves as a role model for many young Blacks. In terms of his leadership role as it applies to his admitlis- tration, it must be pointed out that his subordinates regard him as the finial word on administrative matters. While this might seem like the normal thing in most managerial.systems, often in real life situations, the leadership position of the chief administrating officer is reduced by circumvention. In Mr. Gary's case, his leadership role is well defined and effective, Mr. Gary is a dynamic and energetic figure in our Citv and community, specially the Black community, I would like: to see him intensity his efforts to bring together more Hispanics and Blacks into the municital government process. - 2 - EM M - i I c - - The average citizen has feel he t,� a � A � to h :1c..J it �..a� t� th... f S administration. Mr. Gar,, who is a long, t; me ras id>>n t , with roots deepl-.y imbedded in our com.^:unity, is a great asset to the City and a good representation of our population. 2. PROFESS _Q,1:=.L JNT1:G7ZyT`:. I could not approve - of working with a Cite Manager for even one minute if his or her integrity was in doubt. In my contacts with the City Manager, I have observed him conduct his busiresa in t::e highest tradit_ons of a professional. in my opinion, one o% the iI'idiza to= s sup- porting my judgment is the amount of documentation support- ing different issues. Whenever I have requested back-up information to issues on the Commission meetings agenda or to other topics of importance, I have received an adequate amount of memos and letters supporting the development of —M the topic. I perceive this as being indicative of a metho- dology consistent with proper procedures of ethic and legality. Such attention and existing documentation "before the fact" are a healthy sign in the administration. One area in this category where I would like to make a recommendation is in the separation of administrative and — governmental functions. I believe that the City Manager should not becomQ involved in those matters whore only elected officials should dwell. This dichotomy of powers and functions is essential to the well being of our community. - 3 - At t 3. ADL'1I`1IS"?l?T."'E Ir. an cr;ani..ation the si~a of our Cit. , and oper -ting With 3l1 tii0 resources and personnel availa"Ile to t e we should have a more efficient and quicker response to specific _ requests. For e:•:arrple, some of my memos concerning uncor- plicated requests,such as requesto and complaints from citizens, have taken as long as six weer:s to be replied. Gn several issues of impor Dance to the community, the Memos informing the Commission have been late in arriving at Ou of _ ice �,nc' , In S'c 2Mc cases, i ha : a . ' - ^'t : the: in the papers before receiving official word from the admi- nistration. For example: the case dealing with difficulties Cinvolving the Conference Center, both the dispute with the developer and the potential set -back as a result of the - strike last week. I would also like to know the evaluation criteria used to judge the efficiency of the departments, department directors, and assistant city managers. The Commission should also have information available where the goals and objectives of the different departments are stipulated. As a matter of information, I would like to know if the City is using the available technology in data processing, computers, accounting and management systems in an effort to make our work force as efficient as possible. I would also like to know if the existing systems available to the City �. are being used to t:ie maximum potential. 4 - r4. STABILITY OF PS 7�FrP"IANCEV.e ?tabili of ti:_ City manager's performance is „ost e•iildent in the manner by 'Mein tho day to day bu,roes.; of `_:._ `:i' is card`?.. out. Since I moved to Miami over tventy years ago, I have followed closaly the workings of our Municipal government, first as a concerned citizon, .,later as a civic activist, and now as a City Commissioner. For ti:e most part, our present manag�mer.c of the City is onenz­d towar-;s ti.e "management by objectives" style, rather than "management by c'_'=.sls" SLIia of Major projects within the City are being given good attention, however, the same attention is not being given to smaller, but just as important, issues. For example, the Commission adopted a motion setting aside a Clean -Up day for the purpose of highlighting the need for a clean city, nothing was done. I believe all motions and resolutions approved by the Commission are a direct desire of the people of Miami, who are tha ones who elected the Commission and, therefore, should be given the same attention regardless of their magnitude. Another indicator of stability is low turnover in the administrative staff. Since I have been a City Commissioner, Mr. Gary has kept the same assistant managers and special assistants. I believe this fact is a good reflection on the stability of the manager's performance. I also insist that it is also just as important to present an image of dynamism as one of stability. 5 a i 5. F1JL%.0 1t] ?�.v-'.'1F, T For t `- 7r-cse�it fiscal year, we will have a surplus of over $6 mill -!-)n - .,:hi1-z, to m-y ersta:^,.i:.g, this is -a ^cc, r=_fi_c�__n c1 theit;�'s fiscal status, I was concerned with the lack of information surrounding the news of the surplus. The day before the surplus was announced, the City Commission was agonizing over cuts in social services programs. The in_- ormation of the surplus came as such a surprise that it makes one wonder whether it was ex..nected or not. If the surplus ha been projected, as statac at a later date, then the Commission should have been better informed at the time the funding of important projects was being ( debated. I perceive the City as being financially sound and solvent. However, improvements are needed to keep the Commission better informed of future projections. G. COMMUNICATIONS WITH COMMISSION. Marked improve- ments have been made in this area in the last few weeks. At the beginning, there were many items of importance that were not properly brought to my aLtention. Specifically, negotiations for the Sports Complex:, changes in design at the Knight Conference Center, and details in some major personnel changes and promotions in major departments of the City. While I recognize that the City Manager is solely responsible for the day to dal administration of the City, the City manacier should also realize the electod officials are accountable to the people and serve at t! sirsill, - 6 - g-. -- .r and the C-_t_• 211anay(: should also that he ser:res at the discretion of the Commission, and that ma;,or chan,::es A. tiie ri:•�s personnel ar"-' an i3su:: G'.1„ fcrcm tC_e political and ethnic point of view. My point of vi w is to increas�- and bitter corununications in matters dealing with tl.e adrtynistration of the City. 7. RELATT_ONs WITH TFI E PUBLIC. I have heard many Cjt43ens comalaiz --at it is very di_`f"icu"' t to secure an appointment to see the r?:2�gager. While it is not practice.'_ to :ae wit-h eve_„cre :•;:-.o comes �:o Ci ::all, a bettar xay must be fourd to ;,take the ,%drdnistrat-Lon more accesible. Relations with the public should reflect the ethnic f composition of this community, and minorities should be given a greater chance to participate at all levels of City government, Also the public in the minority sectors is not well informed on matters dealing with the award of City contracts for purchases and services. Whenever there is an invitation for bids sent out, we must make sure that minority vendors are contacted and invited to bid. I would like to see a breakdown of the total figures for purchasing showing how much money was contracted out to each ethnic group in Miami. 8. Z1MENTA'L RELATIONS. The City Manager should improve the coordination of affairs affecting the City, State, County, and Federal government. i For e::amp l c : a. Efforts to ficht crime shculra „av2 Steen c;or- d:ated some time ago at all fc•.Ir of govQrn- The initiative taken by =h^ Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce in creating the crime. task- -orce , should have been coordinated b,% the City some time before that. b. Traffic and street -lights are controlled by the County, but the City has-been very slow in contribut- ing input in areas where.improvement is absolutely necessary. c. Coord-Ln ati'on of City and County in order to build the new sports facility has been very slow. d. The City has not mad` a serials attem-,t to demand fiscal resronslbcil=ty for man' ex—,znces re._, atcZ:A� to t `e r,.31"gel LCa � _i re-fucees ana the Ha± i in r2r,,iaees . e. A better effort must be made to jointly lobby issues of importance to both the County and the City at State and Federal levels. f. Coordinate efforts with Metro Police and the State Attorney's office in order to reduce the number of "undesirables" in our City streets. g. Work closely with the County and Federal government in the area of public and semi-public housing for the elderly and poor. h. Work together with all levels of government and the private sector in an effort to alleviate the unem- ployment problem.. Specially in the groups that need it the most, like young Blacks and Hispanics. i. Eliminate duplicity of services whenever possible as a means to save money. 9. OVERALL SUMMARY OF PERFOP.NSANCE A. Major strengths and significant areas of achievements. Amon; the Cit.; Manager's most notable achieve- ments, I consider the following: 1. Th•.`_ reorganization of the Finance Department 2. Tho Minority Vendor Ordinance. 3. Negotiations with developers of the conference center. t 4. Affirnati. a act-_cn _. ^la-e:ttat4_on. 5. Gener- l fund, surplus. The ahlove ach_: -_%i .--n S are c-.ns st nt it' the goals of the City Commission, and are an erccura��ing set of achievements to surpass in the coming year. B. What areas need i:rprovament and why. ' Most of the areas where invrlvement is needed have been covered in the pre7ious pages. As a sum -nary, I will again point out some items that demand special attention. I. A cle_nr and well def_ne-d separation of poli- tical and adm?nIs tr-ative fUrot4 o- 2. Communications between the City Manager and the Commissioners. 3. Minority Participation and involvement at all levels of the City government. 4. Accessability of the Administration. 5. Long range fiscal planning, and projections showing potential shortcomings in the City's finances. A five year plan would be adequate. 6. The decision making process should be made quicker and more accountable to those involved. 7. Crime prevention. 8. Long term evaluation of the City's. pension. 9. City participation in low inccme housing. 10. Increase our support and the resources of the Solid ;Taste Department in order to allow them to proceed in the most effective manner to keep the City clean. 11. Create the position of assistanc manager for mincri.t.' affairs. 12. Planning Department needs to improve its detection of potential crisis areas in the City, in terms of violations, and recommendations zoning, code, and housing should be :Wade on a timely basis on changing, demographics and character of the di_`fcre t r.eig:ibcnc�cds. - 9 - In closing, I :rust statq that the positive far out- weighs the negati',e -n thiS evaluation. whatever short- can ;: _ C;�r= ��" _��: and. do not :Onst_tut` a F breach of trust or faith. I will recommend that the Administration devote special att'.�:1t1Gi1 tO the areas pC1;7tC:: Out In this report where room for improvement exists. I, th _yore, re..=ens, that we keep t..e prese;,t Manager and work closely together with him and give him ou-- su::ncrt .O_ tiles goo'.,, of I am fully con=ident that the small disagreements we had with the City Manager in the past, such as the dispute over the cost of living salary increase and his policy of having an assistant sit in on conversations between the Commissioners and department directors, have all been resolved and that from this point forward, we can concen- trate on making Miami a better place to live. - 10 - s,rATEMENT By COMMISSIONER DEMLTRIO PEREZ JR. Public Hearing - April 2(1, 1982 "...Let us have faith that right makes might... let us do our duty as we understand..." Abraham Lincoln At the last Commission meeting I stated that I would approach the subject of the City Manager's evaluation with an open anLobject.ive mind. After many hours of research and study I ha4e included my conclusions and recommendations in a ten page report. Any persons wishing a copy of the evaluation may request one from my office. I have concluded that my main concern is the present and future of the City of Miami and not the past. However, I am fully aware that the past cannot be ignored as it teaches us important lessons on errors that we should not commit again. I pray to God that he will give us the wisdom to make the right choices and the courage to carry them out. It is of utmost importance that we emerge from this process as a united city, working towards the common good. At the April lst. meeting, when the matter of the City Manager's evaluation was first brought before the Commission, I had these words to say: "...What I would like to see is an improvement in the near future in some specific areas of important to the residents of Miami. Today, we should be given specific answers to issues before us, for example: we need more minority participation in the City contracts. Almost 75% of the residents of Miami are either Hispanics or Blacks, and I would like to see a higher proportion of Blacks and Hispanics involved in our bidding process. I would like more affirmative action in the higher salary ranges in the City of Miami. I would like to try to find solutions for our housing and crime problems, but I think that we have to be united, and I am sure that with the effort and the support of all of you and the good faith of our City Commission, if we work together, we will find better solutions for the future of our community..." a f In the closing statement of my ten page evaluation I wrote: "I must state that the ghs the negative in m positive far outweighs g y evaluation. Whatever shortcomings exist, can be corrected and do not constitute a breach of trust or faith. "I will recommend that the Administration devote special attention to the areas pointed out in this report, where room for improvement exists. "I am confident that the small disagreements we had in the past with the City Manager have all been resolved, and that from this point forward, t. we can concentrate on making Miami a better place Ito live. "I therefore, RECOMMEND we keep the present City Manager, and work closely together with him and give him o-isr support for the good of the City" \7 0 CITY CF MIAMI, FLCR10A INTEI-OFFSC= MEMORANDUM Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission FAO'.+- Howard V. Gary?&. City Manager 'ANT` April o, 1982 FILE City Manager Evaluation A :F K'4 ENCt5 E:r+cLosuaes. At the meeting of April 1, 1982 the City Commission requested that the City Manager prepare the evaluation format for the annual review of the manager. That format is to contain the criteria for the evaluation to be conducted on April 20, 1982. The City Commission requested that the evaluation format be based on that recommended by the International City Management Association, which is also incorporated in the procedure used by the Broward County Commission in its evaluation of the County Administrator. In developing the evaluation format I.d.il.A.'s Evaluating the Chief Administrator was referenced. Particular attention was given to the principles involved in the evaluation process. Those principles include the following: An evaluation must have a defined purpose. Evaluation should begin with mutual agreement and acceptance. • The evaluation process should be regular. An evaluation should be open and constructive. Evaluation should be based on objective criteria. • Evaluation should fit into the general stream of things. An evaluation should lead to positive action. Additionally, staff of the City Manager'soffice contacted the County Administrator's office of Broward County to determine the format utilized by Broward County. The evaluation of the County Administrator of Broward County is an annual occurrence. The County Administrator prepares a position paper highlighting the activities of the County Administrator during the previous year; that paper then serves as the basis for the County Commission to conduct its evaluation of the County Administrator. 0 �j Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission City Manager Evaluation Page 2 The following procedure will provide the City Commission with the opportunity to identify on an individual basis the strengths of the City Manager as well as identify where improvement could be made. I. The City Manager develops a memorandum for the City Commission highlighting the activities of the previous year. (Memo previously distributed March 27, 1982, copy attached.) II. The City Manager's report of accomplishments together with the evaluation criteria are presented to the City Commission (Date: April 6, 1982; copy attached) . III. City Commissioners meet individually with the City Manager to discuss their individual evaluation of the manager. Those meetings should be concluded by April 16, 1982. IV. The City Commission holds a public hearing for the purpose of conducting the evaluation of the City Manager as a unified body, April 20, 1982. It is anticipated that this entire evaluation process will be a positive and productive experience for the City of Miami. 4p CITY MANAGER EVALUATIOi1 CRITERIA 1. LEADERSHIP M 2. PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY 3. ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 4. STABILITY OF PERFORl-LANCE • 5. FISCAL MANAGEMENT n u 6. COMMUNICATIONS WITH COMMISSION 7. RELATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC 8. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS - 9. OVE2ALL Slii•Li4IARY OF PERFORINIANCE A. Major strengths and significant areas of achievement. B. What areas need improvement and why? Do you have any constructive, positive imput on how the City Manager can improve these areas? CONI@IISS IONER t�ai'+ , •_ •i •. =.• - - •.. l• a"r� .- a: ,� •. ` i.:'��% :,�, •ram �� . �T.f a. . �. .ta ♦ •X �... ,' c '^i l:• '!' 3r.3r ! Tw.� •- i. "!_ 1 vV S ' ♦ � 1_ •a is .' •� y' 7, •.. • J.. . •t', . . , 1 1 t. • + +\ � - •`- � `.+ •' ••+ \•L b �S t• • �r 4 � a•�;•• to - -. ..�. I• wrr •f-' �� • it " ••.:• ♦. ;•..+•. .i ',„ • r .' �. ti ' _ t _. �_' .� f - �t..•a: +•i..t`•• •�� •4, ..r• .bf .:; i..t; 5. ,`''','''`(((`i'�y-/J//y/,//�/� �. " •r a7 - ..;:.` _ - .r r. ti; ;,• _+t1' ') j• i :1• .� �11 wt• - Ai.t • •:a :+, \. ,�?•� ,. - ... _ l•: 11' •-:_� �� .: u.� rJ `: ��` f ;•r f•rf�:: '�c• '.y'a'-^ •1 .`e." ''• .�.,�.. _ _ `F.... .e�.t. a tr: jr Y +. rat tr : � •' . >ti . • .t +•' 'J • . r+ 'riti" .i"" r • :'_4e77, _ + r. l •rl... J.:. Jyr 1i'* S' r. s+ )Sid �\r _ •• :?•�r'�:'L- ti'J ,�.• • i :a r t wY .' ,.,\: rr �. ��.�,Zr,. i i . ,�i•Y..l t' i1,,'+tt'�' .•J + n e a � � yJY+. Y •- y � e r.' t•-i•1tr.�3 .r-tY L ,�5= .�:i.e ^. t•1 �:�+. �'��. ���.rQ.•� >>lh..✓fi•:.Iclfy n••:C '•...., a, J;..l J.1 ,• -:. ' ',tic iy, '4ti 1.: t«/ _ � =`.. + Sri r=��. `h ;f +'.•.•3!Y - r�iJ�Y.tN t �`�w N•� -.� ^ a.:. is �.. r,.• �... �L '� ...• r 7•Y.. ri. *i{ ,a •-. • � )r�'�u�'w+h t.;,Y ..;cY itt e•;.�.`�•i... :',, •IL a !' '�i•' :•`•s:: - '^..: '.:•i 7(i,4 ;JV, �✓i'•y'{? „fj"ri,,,`•. �i+R.1+� 1•-;+�t/ .•j+•t,'ijr,3(.v ''. .ii"'• ..: •: �;;; t.Zr �Ys�'-y Cam', '�� +:' • "�:"tom f.i'•f. •\\'L ~'J°t: }��.i, t LG.►f 1='�:d rttr^' •i_r�T�Y� .�r_a. ci t'tl!�r,,:: kt .7. ,7� •.\/ttt .•�.iY N •+•\ 4••� ,r;r,rr �i. �.. ' ll !•.. .� � •-`',a inh:. �.. i ! .i+: �.rr._..••�♦ t tC•' '' .•iu'v �-f y.:.�'a•'-+, b •t a�'r's' •i {�:•/+. tw..r. .- ^'. •, ,�+r� :y. ? w=• 'q. .4} • ; ,• f: 'ta,:'�•a:':.Si. �, •._. tM•'t,at�: 'r -sue .L t•a• v ,",•.yr - ) ti . ,. ; u - •.y • a? t j'• a �i:.'•r- a.-� ,a i. r. y, i:_ r'• iw.r1,S i .I � x .., r�:i c•ry; •'�`.Ct-Y - �' •r7�i r�:� rr.•i�'. • "-t•,. r J : )' u�• 'f. i�,.. ,�iS J'�0 � �,, •.. •' • r .L.•. . '..• }'C a ♦.+. •'<'r ' �F� .+ l.i � '; •1 X..� . L•t.♦• i it S T trr: t� �. S eF i �. .....Y % �'� �"�•.0 �a.,•tl � i'+t:i '• '. 1 M ; l Y ^ it • Ma h .- •� ..i r: '•or'• t.. ::�?.':. ► �+��.? ' r ' lY us ♦+\3. 1:.i•lr JTi'rfi� 1� JL'.'„"•' a - •�a 7i._ .. =i=:'. '� r •. >. a Y' r a .r.r• :"•i Q' ° •' . �L�.: �•p:. w, - •" t .-'.• L � \ �' + ':.L i Y,'_ ;�:, i' T' ' +. is J'-' a r '• _ P -i ...• .'��,•R-'' • C_r L�"a. •Y T � < <" '+ ! r �i 4S. I.> ''' xy;? •rs cur t S +.'• arc' • � •i i'},• +O: rr��~`^) .y eq•a y � A 3 h A�1r �i•'_"f r�4y •� �ri+::�;F-1��-,yY t,,.'T Y. � �"•ryi_ �.� • sy► •�•i.� � ss F •, . • � ,�-• .r4•. � �e _N•�.•4;;: `Z"r r. rc,:R�..� yt. _ ,✓i..'.` A'_7•j M^a �.^�� ,. _:SF•= _•�• ira•r '' . '7"•':.i a�i'• �3: Y-���'�=`:''r•e v 1 7 ,tie row: � - )_.,• . yr :�a.:a-... _:�►''n: t:�••-r�~Yr•f�'2 f::'� r�i•-q:•"�" v•, .7�yra�' L- i.• 1 f t •jM1i� .i0i•`je>51 it •¢ ?• + '+r„ r r A •, t, ' } ��,r a ♦; ,'T7�+.-�• �t�{ K Y�., ira�r � _ � � • • 7 4 '+- 7�r.; _.l,�.Ji•9.1"�. a y '+•'.. ' • ,y. L. ••.2•�y. ` •/ C• r� \• .} Y a •c. h],•:7 'y�i -. ' � �:.r•,�',,-.'_= tr`l�r"� ��a G_ ifs �. •, L .. r. • ++; ��ay';:I�. .r•,. r.. ._ � , � •Crv,/t .•;; •,fit ;:: 1 ,o. '� r� a;r 1. 'J'.'•�.. kr.3••• t' "?::` '.♦.1 t St! J .�'yr„{..: it:.f '� ' j „ r.l:�r •;,'. .•s. R.i'•-:. r .�� �a!�.c� e 1z `•'. i •3 _ 1 1 ..� *71 \ .Yam... �.ay } :y ;• . c..'.. - av i'::?•':�: = �;.: r „� "w + •) 'tr.t•S• j �1.-•ll' AW - r " `. t ",• r• • • 't .r \ � r�? ,.,L l'. E i uR L a ,•:NT. .�`}rr..�'rr' .�1~� J,t�c. r L :� i;3,� .;::`'.3 T. •u•�.iC".t".t.•.�.`Cty.�"�,'1 •�-• J j� .`.�.�Y�.•r� - *�•y�.•.:''"+�'�ii?. nr:•�.,t;•� ..�:• `` .. '7N r. �3�i+.�'a; ♦ L M�-: �,� l • T. ,1 • K,. ♦ .. aG:''.rt.'.a{�i +� �'`: �� f .t: i•' { �.;, v, \ f ::'tY� . C • Y , , i►•• • l 1 _ N : ~ ry •._ y F. �` � ti�a a�. ljy iJ. a ,'.,,, •. • x '-1 . a .tTY. J� .�..,,«. n _.. •'. � r r� ;� �'Y• i r n{a•arT lr i .l %. .. ••� . ti �i ••:y'v� a � .r_ i r , . . S�•' t �yC iJ =.tr ` ,.'n )`. �•.r tir '� .•r SFr• ra:•i .5yy` �K,.:r ��'�'�'l ° fJ 1 _r a. ` -er► •'''\ X+ %�• •_{%^ �L :e`•7 j''i 4\ tel: ••+i� r .•t .,,t {•t:�r,.{'• .•• Y rf. L, ry ' i♦, ` M1 ,i yi1 .q- :',+: ' "; ;t r 4C r� 1 S ..�'_+ s\I„f�'• r 't.� ••i p ti' •�. �`�'. t l � L` _.'• •` <;: ^` . t ;>IL 1-1+`• J' �•L•',1!1 ,•� F` ♦ '� a :. + ' t .. ^' L \ �Y tt r'w�. �'`'. V a r.L.t 4 •�..: + rq.•., ...la. r'� r„•' J: J•1' ♦ r K. ,r�Y« L. ai a. '. •.�r}i6••.e%:•♦'.•: ianw r••.. J ::%)• :iu t�.. '•c5�''••:`•�..t.`�:•- y' :2 t l v+VC'.;=rl;r° •ay '?.,.: r ':tc�. rFr YS „.Tl •w -� t t 7e ar r, i e 1� •J, 4,l-•.. .,, a�!" '" ,• 'r't• .. 'i.'ti•'�Y •.Y r�r•i: •:� . .1. � '�" Eti 1-a_� t--.:-r!. ty}=s" .iaa•-'+.Nlr•trl�,:`�.•, rw-.: .i r � J �✓'.'�LAf' t r +t y1 - :y.y ; mil. .� :^r, +• 1`Lr1r�. t\.N�'Lt�,r( •,j�= .i., '., r �'rt3,.,7, t••}��•.r.. •"rr •'r:" • r _ I • iC l ►ir.. t_.. .L,.f♦.T7.l3r•, -,y r,... � `�s " ,. ••:"r�,'pt. .:.r=•.�;r✓• CS ar � 7f•�Jk - JR� r' .'his a•' J. - •�+;': ...��•':. •'�' a r•.fi' •. Mr3�: ..•;` .'�'.. r•1 o= .. ;. ., t•+. r..t • •+.,a f • �:" '" :..•..•: r' i^ Y`, :•;•7 s.••' Ca `r,a{ .p! t!a• -� •: _ . ter. �:r.^��ah- E ♦ i Ij,A {�.. +:�-r.�i••. .Y'a: lY- u•:� •'i-'•t"'. ia. •t '�"S•.+;j�:t� 1�.. `a. �'�+�� .,, /'7rr,• "..i'+' .t:. .: t �L •• I:'• ._f !. } rYJYi, fy. J. i•� ;.4.,°'�`� � +:,'• r � r' •L• •. •' ' .•I,Y2.Z` (_Y'': � a2Y♦ .. i • .'yf"'r i rt..• .• ' ._ •F,!•• ''•' :,,1i v'?'�•>trr ts�iu`4i.s •�.'n,\y�r v'\•'j" ,� '�'i ♦,1 u7r•1 �.:•'f i:�: �'-•,. 5�;�•��r,1`s 7(:i,"�•,«'..ii;+�:`w,+; ry.i•" , '/. 2• `e, yr • j•i^.....'irCr•A•yi',+r�w]l,:f.• '"YRi>: +•'i;Ys*� i�!rw..fFf•vn.73:y` ,. f ►*v��.`"y�'•�.��! tf+ }y :•.ti,ay�:!'!.' �,. •.I,P�. L �aM��yl: .' ,� :,,tf''-N'.' ,. ;aS1,;... •:��i-').••,,�f•• .i rN i 1: '�+ r + 7•`ai?. ��l y'. •+.1'J ;•..,:y'. ( . �;' . ,,, .,,i,�•• � ..-I• a: • %k:�•, •R rlir• � •r". s. ,t' . M `4:.7; " - .: a. r !. h•.• J • •.t.,, w:. . \, I•". t ~"! •(•,•. r'S' r' �3 7 1 •. _ ,.y. 1 1L. e � � ci -�.y lt`��{ ;�7�6c:� ,•. ? .. t L�� �, .'il:• •L.• � •+ S tK.• �i��• •S : t ;l• i �'#`-..•,•4.4.y w�_ '�rry, . V. 1..`. •r •.^ 7. a,r. s' . s• t .� ..� • Z a: •'t. { i�;p J•i ` c •` ia.: `"+ u • ••, �S ♦. r �4' i• . '� •' al � f�'_. p^r * Z\r � t:.9' •' '4l' 1 ..r.:J.. ••y r,' r .Y �: f'• +t• � d 1. -••'\ f � 2 ' f e .�! td. A x. }� rY'i i. •a .J' � 1. R w'.� n l o x'r,� -..i '+� i.• s . . ^ ♦{f • _ ' •t i .S fr;��r srt.... I,•E". '\ I• Y' •n. - ��r.•;t ��J.r� t ; :�. = t r iv 'r � :.�s�•• .!'.. . � _ .:'•i.._..r�. �N'. ���+,�:C-'" R r•7f:R .r,:. t+f'.i' .^<'r , +�• ,LC+ .,.Lw ;!. •-•-.r�:N,+ ,' lil'.iZ•rr )J,: w•t•••„•- C t;f r. -.Lrri �'. �.' .r.•.. �i .r'•ry ..•} 't: 11'•. ''•l ,.3, �' �:`.JQ'..' .r .ri P'w,+rt r_ �Y�.+!•�.az� �•:lfy.:• '!`; ..•ti^:' r i+.�.rr .1•� ' Xis;.. 'f..[�ti�! ... ; a •a •/• j7' t"it♦ .NT•'=ri,�: �+iiM.rt r'+�-�41 ., .. ..+' .. �.,, •`i: ,•+•ia.. \ r •r. 1•.• t ' t ,. .... �. ',._•••+icy 7 ' '• +. ,.• „• _{: ...r'•• ' 1Y'1. ..r 1^• .f T! c:; ~`j�•`C'• . �L s•tr.ii.•.. i .• ..•.`.. _ ,+•" :r. •t.;�+�` •.'�, .[.'•.t= •� •- a s•• It + , •�.•. ••t: '"' a, �' , a I •7t. �. is :F:i:ti .i•. '.c �•. L.. '} r . _, •• •�1;+' •-�•!}+•J• '4r/:.`V';.tw�* J•: •tI� t.•. ,.II•r'...p• •',•'h•.. :l• �: ,•. +._+..• �'�i'^•; Y._y�: / 'h'•.i •'��-'3t•7.L''•,. •{.. �•! _ •_•. r`., •.r'': ,'^;T F•r', ', Via. I. .. �.;c `. •.♦1 •ayr, l•. �. �L�...:i. � .�•.j, 't a•;: r�,•J•.!'• �; `rr. '.�. f.: ',' •;•., a. ••'f..t t '•,y T y'�T_{�tic �j.ly •.'tt , f•,��.'�7'' i L-+++';.1 •^ ^.-'�• r`ir;' ,. •3, t/,. ►. 1-. -r'(. < .. /� _ •r•• ' ;I = gar y• T'• _ •, _ - :.. Cad c��� The Local Elected Officials Handbook Series was developed by the International City Management Association, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Counties under a con if tract with the Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Members of the Project Advisory Committee who provided continuing assistance in • _ this work are: Nathaniel Bates, Mayor: kichmond. California } :f Richard Brown, City Manager, EI Cerrito; California.K� �•. ' - f Gregg Cook, former Councilman, El Ceriito,'Califorma J. Coper, Myr, Pri h rd, Alabama' �Ardath MasoriCade,'former Administrator, Charles County, Maryland.. Richard DeCair, Executive Director, Virginia Municipal League'' Hartley Fitts, Group'Chief. Community Management and . ;;.'• r' Productivity Effectiveness, HUD (ex officio_) - - i •_ Arthur Holland, Mayor, Trenton, New Jersey -Melvin J. LeBaron, Faculty, University of Southern California, - 'Las Angeles; California _ , } Arthur. Mendonsa, City Manager, savannah, Georgia j Tom Moody, Mayor, Columbus, Ohio _ Robert Morris, Village Manager.'Gtencoe, Illinois -� Daniel Murphy, Elected Executive, Oakland County, Michigan Walter Orlinsky, ^Aunc' President, Baltimore, Maryland :• , Joel Pelofsky, Councilman. Kansas City, Missouri. ` Jessie Rattley, Councilwoman; Newport News, V'irglnw 1 Alan R. Siegel, Director, Division of Community Development _ ' and Management Research, HUD (ex off icio) `_;. „• , John E. Stacy; former Program Director, Midwest Research �+ f ' ,:►::�:. Institute, Kansas City, Missouri .y _ I . John Tanner, Executive Director. Utah Association of Counties, Salt Lake City, Utah, Archie Twitchell, former City Manager, Boulder, Colorado Mike White, Elected Executive.'Jackson County, Missouri Copyright © 1977 by the International City Management Association.1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, including photocopying, recording, or by any,informatian retrieve) system without the specific permission of the copyright owner. HUD retains the right to a royalty -free, non-exclusive,•and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use 1 and to authorize others to use for U.S. Government purposes all copyrighted material produced under this contract. .. _ The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the U,S. Government in general not the Department of Housing and Urban Development in particular. i Printed in the United States of America. ' f A - 1. • • . !!� J - `'d b ••e ,ter •�•,y. �• - • .� • . ' f•j1 � T � � i �" ~, ram,. ••Y. ,'. t_ , t tea'. �. ��^ J i' '► f /f' �' ° This handbook was prepared byChristine Schwarz Becker, Project Oireo1or, International City Management /\onododon The . swmreoreatedby Peter C|arey, Eng|evvuod, New Jersey. Handbook design by Virginia SheardL Washington, D.C. C @n�Qng A Positive Look At Evaluation ........................ Principles Of Evaluation .............................. Roles And Responsibilities ............................ Evaluating: The Mechanics ........................... AndSo ... ....................................... Appendices ....................................... Resources ......................................... 1 3 6 13 22 23 29 f Evaluation is a touchy subject —whether it's evaluation of a product or of an individual. Traditionally, personnel evaluation has meant a critical and often negative look at an indivi- dual's performance —putting the employee's every move under a microscope and determining what's wrong. In the public sector, evaluation has gradually become a part of staff relations and development. But when it comes to the relationship of chief administrator to elected governing body, evaluation causes some particular uneasiness. You evaluate.an administrator because there are problems and you want to take a closer look at what's wrong —or you avoid the process entirely. But wait —why does evaluation have to imply something negative and unpleasant? Why not think of evaluation as a process to find out what's right and what has been going well. A positive attitude toward evaluation will help both you, the governing body, and your admini- strator begin to accept and appreciate the value of the process. First, let's think about what evaluation is. Of course, it IS a critical look at what an em- ployee (the chief administrator) has accomplished during a given time. But it's also a communi- cations process —a method for permitting discussion apart from the formal decision -making pro- cess. And, despite the close working relationship between the administrator and governing body, opportunities for that kind of frank and personal discussion are very rare. Evaluation is also a learning process. Through a regular evaluation, you can begin to learn more about what everyone is doing, what everyone expects from each other and where there are strengths or weaknesses in the relationship. At the same time, evaluation is a difficult and sometimes time consuming process. You have to think about what's happening in your community, what you want to happen, and why things are or aren't going as you hope. You have to do more than scratch the surface. And, evaluation is threatening —a risky process for both the evaluator and the person being evalua- ted. Some will say it's harder on the evaluator because the benefits are less clearcut. If an ad- ministrator is doing a bang-up job and knows it, evaluation will only reinforce the strengths of that administrator. But what does it do for the governing body —the ones who have to agonize through the process? For one thing, it can help you see yourself in a new light. It forces you to spell out your expectations and needs in terms of the administrator's performance. And, if it's done well, it can help you determine how you're doing as an elected official —what you're contributing to the organization and how you might improve YOUR performance. • This handbook is designed for you, the governing body or the evaluator, as well as your appointed administrator, the one who's being evaluated. It won't tell you the perfect way to conduct an evaluation, but it will get the wheEis turning toward a thoughtful, effective, sensi- tive, and POSITIVE evaluation process. A An evaluation must have a defined purpose. V paheopM d Ems - flUC--��Oocln A good way to start talking about evaluation is to consider some basic principles which should go into any evaluation process. While there isn't one pie in the sky way to carry out a perfect evaluation, some common concepts will help you reach a satisfactory end. The most important principle is that there aren't any absolutes when it comes to evalua- tion. There are many systems, formats, approaches, criteria, and designs. What works is what's acceptable. What feels best is what's right for you! LITTLETON, COLORADO has an informal semi-annual evaluation process for its city manager— largely just a general discussion about what's happened and how both the council and manager are doing. "The process is very infor- mal and the success is largely dependent upon the personalities of the Coun. cil and Manager involved." explains Littleton City Manager Gale D. Christy. "It could be more formalized if we chose to make it so, but why argue with success? ? ?" Once you realize there isn't one right way, one recommended approach, you'll be well on your way to developing a good approach for your community. Here are some additional principles to help you think through the evaluation process: • AN EVALUATION MUST HAVE A DEFINED PURPOSE: That's obvious, you're probably thinking. Everyone knows the pur- pose of an evaluation. But, sometimes misconceptions about what the evaluation's purpose is can lead to the unpleasant, negative eval- uations you want to avoid. So start by thinking it through —why do you want to go through a process which is time consuming, risky, and threatening? Try to define your reasons —spell them out. -Are you evaluating strictly to see if a raise is appropriate? Or does it go deeper than that? To find out what the administrator's strong and weak points are so you can work to improve them? To improve the working relationship between administrator and governing body? To help define goals and objectives for future performance? Don't assume everyone "understands" the purpose. Spell it out when you're plan- ning the evaluation process and make sure your process meets that purpose. K, • EVALUATION SHOULD BEGIN WITH MUTUAL AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE: Ideally, starting and developing the whole process should be.a joint undertaking. That means both the admini- strator and governing body want to do it and have a hand in figuring out how. It won't work if the process is railroaded through by an individual or by either the administrator or governing body. Work on it together —coming up with some mutual understandings about why you want to evaluate and how you're going to do it. ♦ THE EVALUATION PROCESS SHOULD BE REGULAR: Once you start, stick with it. A one shot•deal ("hey, let's evaluate our chief admini- strator tomorrow") is ineffective, threatening, and suspicious. Regular doesn't necessarily mean stiff and formal. It means you evaluate period- ically, at an agreed -upon interval. When you jointly define the purpose and process, also define the interval and make sure you stick with the i schedule. e AN EVALUATION SHOULD BE OPEN AND CONSTRUCTIVE: i When you're evaluating you should be sharing —talking openly. Admittedly, that's hard to do. But, if you try to think constructively, you'll make the process infinitely more beneficial for everyone. Look ! for the strong points without concentrating on the weak ones. And when you do raise weaknesses, focus on what can be done to eliminate them. Try not to waste time on areas the administrator can't do any- thing about— like the administrator's personality, At all costs, both you and the administrator should avoid going on the defensive. Talk, share, be open, and positive. You're communicating— not facing head -to -head combat! ' • EVALUATION SHOULD BE BASED ON OBJECTIVE CRITERIA: :a The criteria will give evaluation the needed direction. And, if your criteria are well thought out and positive, you'll end up with a positive and effec- `' tive evaluation. The best criteria are comprehensive— identifying skills, achievements, and results. In other words, you try to look at and evaluate every dimension of your chief administrator. It's hard to come up with objective criteria when you think about the many hats a chief administra- tor wears. But you can begin by thinking about expectations — and then expanding those expectations into criteria. z • EVALUATION SHOULD FIT INTO THE GENERAL STREAM OF THINGS: An evaluation shouldn't be an isolated, unrelated interruption. It's an integral part of everything that's going on. When you're developing an evaluation process, think about the way you do things, what you're already doing, and how you can fit evaluation in. It might become part of an annual retreat where you hammer out goals and objectives. Or it might fit best some. where in your budget cycle. But integrate it into what is already happening. 4 0 �`.,. SUCCESS' } ' �. UCCESS UCCES S CC E S S tf Su _ �_ Ls God_ Boos Look for strong points without concentrating on the weak ones. • AN EVALUATION SHOULD LEAD TO POSITIVE ACTION: Follow-through is critical to the success of evaluation. Make sure you plan on something hap- pening after the evaluation --action steps or a governing body -administrator improvement plan. Then, when you come to the next evaluation, you'll be able to look at progress, "How'd we do?" An evaluation should lead to change. Even if there's nothing wrong, think about specific ways to make strong points even better or to develop new skills. 1 R@� @g Qfld Ins@ZP ,ng)at i Every time evaluation of the chief administrator is mentioned, at least ten questions pop up about who does what, how do 1 start it, what should 1 do, where does the public fit in .. ? So it's important to think about the process in those terms — roles and responsiblities in evaluation process. ' There are really three important actors to consider in the process— the governing body who does the evaluation; the administrator who is being evaluated_ and the citizens who want ' to know what's going on. Where, if anywhere, do they all fit in? THE GOVERNING BODY. Why Bother? I Everyone always assumes an evaluation process is roughest on the person being evaluated. There's also a great deal of pressure on the evaluator and, in most cases, the benefits of the • process are less apparent. So, what's in it for you, the evaluator? An evaluator probably has to be a little more magnanimous and a little less self serving ;• •; than the person being evaluated. A good evaluation pointing up some of the administrator's strengths can be beneficial on both sides. Obviously, it can strengthen your working relation- ship with the administrator because you'll know more about the person you're working with. s. ! But it can also help you in your role as the administrator's employer —a role some elected offi- cials forget about until they decide it's time to fire the administrator. A good employer needs to know if an employee is satisfied with the job, the working conditions and the challenges. A good employer also needs to be able to pinpoint strengths and weaknesses, and, more impor- tantly, let the employee know about those strengths and weaknesses. And, a good employer owes an employee regular feedback —whether it's a reprimand or a pat on the back. In your policy making role, an evaluation can put you and the administrator on the same wave length when it comes to issues, ideas, concerns, and interests. When you're evaluating an administrator, you're bound to look at some of the issues which concern both of you —the goals you and the administrator are trying to achieve. And a common awareness of goals and expectations will lead to a more satisfying and more productive working environment for both you and the administrator. More simply, evaluation provides an outlet —a regular forum for airing issues, problems, needs, concerns, frustrations, or anxieties. If you're dissatisfied with the way your administr for handled a certain issue, evaluation gives you a chance to air that dissatisfaction and deter- mine if it was the issue or the administrator that really bothered you. 6 . You can get a more direct benefit from evaluation if it's a two way process —governing body evaluates the administrator and the administrator evaluates the governing body. That way you can get the kind of feedback you might need to strengthen your end of the team. Are you articulating your needs, concerns, and interests clearly and effectively? Are you giv. ing the administrator the kind of policy leadership needed to carry out the day-to-day business of running a city or county. Are you getting too involved in day-to-day administrative business? Your administrator is in a good position to evaluate how well you're doing as a policy making body. Then, after the total evaluation process you and the administrator will be able to improve the way you carry out your respective jobs. Another beneficial element of the general evaluation process might be a chance to do i some SELF EVALUATING. When you think about how well your administrator is doing I and how well the governing body as a whole is functioning, you can also take a look at what you're doing as an individual. Are you communicating well with the administrator and govern- ing body members; are you working as a member of the team; are you accomplishing some of your own goals? It can be helpful to turn the process inward — to make it introspective. Two MAINE councilmen who have worn the hats of evaluators admit the process can be difficult— but feel strongly that it can also be most rewarding and beneficial. Richard Walker, of CUMBERLAND, MAINE, says a planned evaluation annual establishes a sound working relationship between the coun- cil and manager. It also provides an opportunity to review the manager's job description, council expectations of the manager, and the manager's own satisfaction. Similarly, Robert Adam of FALMOUTH, MAINE, sees evalua- tion as a way to achieve "a healthy two-way communication." Both the manager and council must discuss problems, expectations, and needs. "The evaluation process should facilitate careful consideration of Council and Manager roles in municipal government and how effectively each has func- tioned." Now, as the evaluator, what are you supposed to do? That's not easy to define. Your responsibilities will depend on the evaluation structure you and your administrator choose. It might mean filling out a form, or talking with the administrator or both. "Eyeball -to - eyeball" contact with the administrator is often the hardest part of the evaluation. But direct contact —an open and honest discussion —is usually the best and most thorough way to evaluate. It adds a certain amount of credence to what comes out in a written form. And it can give both you and the administrator a chance to question, clarify, or elaborate on what you feel. Your primary responsibility in evaluation is to be HONEST. Think first about what you ex- pect from an administrator and then think about what you're getting from YOUR administrator? Di they coincide? Remember, it's best to focus on RESULTS —what the administrator set out to achie, 7 and what's been achieved. Personality, or better yet, STYLE will have some impact on your im- pression of the administrator. The way a public administrator carries out a job can be an im- portant part of what he or she accomplishes. Nevertheless, it's important to look primarily at results —not at personality traits, THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR: Why Me? ? ? So you're the chief administrator —why on earth would you want your governing body to evaluate you? it seems like a perfect way to let them take pot shots at you and put you on the chopping block. Few administrators who've gone through the process will tell you ` that's the way it is. Of course, it's threatening and sometimes risky. After all, you're dealing with an elected body, usually at least five people, all with different ideas about what you're supposed to be doing and different opinions about how well you're doing it. There are, however, some very definite benefits for you in an evaluation. Think about it: • Evaluation gives you a chance to talk openly and frankly with your governing body —a way to deal with them away from the decision -making table. • Regular evaluation can help you avoid crisis confrontation with your governing body. If there are problems, you have a way to get them out. If there are serious conflicts, you'll know about them and together you can find a way to handle them. It helps avoid surprises! • Regular evaluation gives you a chance to show how well you're carrying out the governing body's directives. If you're doing an outstanding job, you have a right to know. Evaluation gives the governing body an excuse to pat you on the back. • Evaluation can force you and the governing body to define roles and expectations so you'll know what you're supposed to be doing. Ideally, roles and expectations should be defined BEFORE an evaluation, but if that doesn't happen, evaluation is a perfect place to agree on a process to spell them out. • Evaluation can give you more confidence — in both yourself and your work. After a good evaluation you have a clearer idea of what the governing body wants. Even if the evalua- tion points up problems or weaknesses, at least you know where you stand and why. In a more general way, evaluation gives you a better handle on things. You'll begin to know more clearly what individual governing body members want and expect from you and you'll be better equipped to meet those expectations. It puts the governing body into perspective for you. a 'Evaluation is a touchy subject! And, if you and the governing body agree to make the evaluation process a two-way street, you'll have a chance to talk about how well the govering body is meeting your ex- pectations and what changes are needed. From your perspective, it's not easy to take on the evaluation of an entire governing body. There are a lot of sensitive areas. But you're probably in the best position to give the governing body some constructive feedback, so it's worth a try. Some of the "tender" areas worth discussing include: • Is the governing body providing the necessary leadership? • Is the governing body facing critical community problems and coming up with solutions to those problems? • Is the governing body stepping too much into administrative affairs —are they concentrating enough on policymaking? • Is the staff getting a clear direction from the governing body? It's not easy to focus on these kinds of issues unless you have a fairly good working re- lationship with the governing body. But if you agree you want to evaluate each other, then do it. E 1 _0 14 Let's assume you're sold on evaluation. What role do you play in developing and imple- menting the process? You may be in a position to sell the governing body on the process. If you're starting a new job, you might ask the governing body to set up an evaluation as a condition of employment. That approach has worked for some administrators because it gets the process started off on the right foot. In other cases, you could build an evaluation" process for yourself into an employee evaluation system for your own staff. You evaluate the city staff and your governing body evaluates you as part of a broad process. Either way, there's some advantage if you initiate the idea of evaluation, particularly if the governing body members don't have any individual experience in employee evaluation. They might need and welcome guidance from a professional administrator on the mechanics of evaluating employees. Once you're both sold on evaluation, it's a joint effort. In VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON, the manager and council spent some time defining the managerial duties and then implementing an evaluation system. City Manager Alan Harvey believes that the concept of evaluation is worth pursuing. "To maintain effective Council and Manager relationships, it is essential that the Council establish specific measurable objectives with the City Manager and periodically review those objectives. To do otherwise creates the situation where both are operating without the advantage of knowing the other's expectations." He says defining the manager's duties has been the "hardest part of the process." MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA, has a comprehensive Management Perform- ance Program which includes evaluation for department heads, city attorney, city clerk, and city manager. Each individual is reviewed semi-annually by the respective supervisor based on a general approach to employee appraisal for all levels. The city manager goes through the process with his supervisor —the coun- cil. In all, about 50 management level employees in the city participate in the evaluating process. The Mountain View approach is based on the premise that "careful planning and implementation of a Performance Evaluation System is an essential management element to insure that all personnel are effectively used" —including the City -Manager. The "Performance Evaluation System" was designed by the administrator and staff, but specific objectives for the manager's review are developed jointly by the manager and the council. In FALMOUTH, MAINE, City Manager David Whitlow requested an evaluation as a condition of employment. The first evaluation would take place six months after he started in Falmouth and then annually thereafter. 10 Once the process is moving, you become a participant in it —not a victim of it. That means working with the governing body to maintain the positive approach needed to carry out a worthwhile evaluation. If the governing body puts you on the defensive, try to work your way out of that position. And, if the process seems to be waning or the governing body wants to forget about it, work to keep it regular. The first crack at evaluation usuaily won't be your best shot. Don't give up the CONCEPT of evaluation before you've had enough time to work the kinks out of your PROCESS. THE CITIZENS: Hey, what's going on? ? ? A few years ago, the role of citizens in evaluation wouldn't have been an issue. After all, personnel evaluation is usually private and confidential even in the public sector. But with the rise of open meeting laws —Sunshine Laws —it's impossible to forget about the citizens. "Evaluation in the sunshine" makes the process even more threatening and intimidating. The open and frank dialogue so critical to evaluation's success is harder to achieve under the watchful eye of the public and the press. How do you handle the public? If you shut them out deliberately and completely, they may get suspicious. But, if you open the door to anyone and everyone, you may also be opening up a Pandora's box of misunderstandings and misconceptions. It's important to start by convincing yourselves that evaluation is best conducted in pri- vate. Think about it. What is evaluation? It's primarily a personnel process —a systematic review of an employee's performance. And while the kind of issues discussed may affect what happens in the community, you aren't making any formal decisions or setting speci- fic policies. You're looking more at your ability to make decisions as governing body and administrator rather than actually making decisions. Few administrators would be willing to go through a public evaluation. Even fewer elected officials would want to evaluate in a goldfish bowl. it's hard to be completely honest, critical, and objective when a lot of out- siders are watching you. Most sunshine laws allow closed sessions for personnel issues. That's usually the best route for justifying a closed evaluation. Look to your city attorney to find the right exemp- tion for justifying an executive session for the evaluation. If there isn't'any exemption — some states like Florida have rigid sunshine laws which permit very few closed sessions —the best way to handle evaluation is a one-to-one process, based on written forms. Each govern- ing body member completes the written evaluation and then the mayor or a selected repre- sentative compiles the forms and meets with the administrator to discuss the findings. Other members of the governing body may also want to talk to the administrator individually. There are some flaws in this approach. It cuts down on the sharing which is sometimes so im- portant in evaluation and which can only come at a meeting with the entire governing body. Nevertheless, if it's the only legal way, it's better than no evaluation at all. Assuming you can evaluate in private, what, if anything, should the public know about it? Your biggest challenge will be to convince the public that the process is POSITIVE and 11 0 9 BENEFICIAL. Evaluation is a suspicious process— particularly the first time you do it. Some- how it implies there's something wrong. Regularity will reduce the suspicions but there's still a first time. The best way to deal with the public is to bring them into the evaluation at the develop- ing stages —when you're deciding to do it and figuring out how. If they understand what you're doing and how you're going to do it. chances are they'll realize that the actual eval- uation should be done in private. Most of your dealings with the public on evaluation will probably be through the press. They'll set the tone for how the evaluation will be viewed by the public. So it's important to keep them informed as much as possilgle. Again, the best way is to let them in at the de- veloping stages. Give them the criteria you'll be using or the format you plan to use. And talk about it —tell them what you'll be doing when you evaluate the administrator. You're taking a big risk if you keep the evaluation completely secret and the press finds out. The more they know and understand about the concept of evaluation, the more likely they are to agree that the evaluation discussion is best conducted in private. AFTER the evaluation, the same thing goes —let the public and press know what hap- pened. That doesn't mean giving a play-by-play of everything that was discussed with all the specifics. It means simply telling them what you decided to do —keep going in the same direction, make a few changes here and there, or whatever. Several communities in MAINE have conducted evaluations with assistance from the Maine Municipal Association and the Bureau of Public Administration at the University of Maine. One part of all those evaluations is a council-mana- ger development plan which spells out what they plan to do as a result of the evaluation. Although the actual evaluations have been conducted in private, the post -evaluation development plan is released to the public —so everyone knows what the council and manager plan to do over the coming period. And, at the same time, the public and press get a pretty clear idea of what evaluation is all about. The key issue is to think about the public and press when you decide to evaluate —what they'll expect and what you owe them. Some communities have found it's enough to say simply an evaluation will be held and it was held and all important issues discussed. Other communities find they have to say a little more. You'll have fewer problems if evaluation is defined at the time you hire a new administrator —as something you both want to do to make sure the relationship works well. In any case, think positively and the public and press will too. 12 Talking about the concept of evaluation is one thing. Actually doing it and doing it well is another! It is also particularly difficult to generalize about the mechanics of evalua- tion —the steps needed to complete the process. But, with the basic principles firmly in mind and a clear understanding of the roles you should play, you already have many of the tools you'll need to get the process started. GETTING STARTED Getting started might mean talking and thinking through the process. It's not some- thing you can say this is the way to do it and then dive in. Some governing bodies have found that a retreat setting —away from the day-to-day details of running the local govern- ment— is a good way to brainstorm about the process. The retreat could be devoted entirely to the evaluation issue, or it could focus on other areas such as team building or goal setting. It's important to take it slow, at the start, to make sure you're both ready to do it, r y,i.- tee- :•v..,.:: ; ���• lea j - Evaluation: a communication process. 13 The first specific step in designing a process is to develop an "evaluation instrument." It might be a list of general questions to guide the discussion. Or it could be a detailed criteria form which defines management duties —or defines what the governing body and administrator believe are primary management duties. Developing criteria isn't easy. Ideally, criteria for the administrator's job should re- flect the goals and objectives of the governing body and staff. If you already have some clearly defined goals and objectives, you also have what you need to evaluate your admini- strator and yourselves. How effectively has the administrator worked to achieve those goals? Which goals haven't been accomplished? Why not? If you don't have in hand a list of governing body goals and objectives, it is important to develop some evaluation guidelines before tackling the task. First, what are criteria? Most simply, they're specific standards against which you can measure someone's performance. The most effective criteria are framed in terms of re- sults —what should have been achieved. It's difficult to come up with measureable criteria or objectives for a public administrator. The job usually has such a wide range of duties which are often radically different from community to community. And you can't count the number of "widgits" produced and then rate the manager. There really aren't any "recommended" criteria. "Recommended" criteria for all administrators would be so broad they'd become meaningless. Yet there are general areas which you can use to build your own specific criteria. • PLANNING: anticipating needs, recognizing potential problems, looking ahead • ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS: running the day-to-day business, hiring staff, "managing" the community • BUDGETING: managing resources, preparing and carrying out the budget • PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT: skill in designing, organizing and carrying out programs to meet policy directives • RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE GOVERNING BODY, THE PUBLIC AND THE STAFF: meeting the requirements of those relationships • PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT: expanding capabilities, developing and refining skills • PERSONAL QUALITIES/STYLE: working style, aggressiveness, flexibility, ability to handle crises. Usually it's best to develop the guidelines together —governing body and administrator trying to spell out what they expect an individual in that job to accomplish. It might be valuable for you each to prepare separate criteria lists before you come together. Then you can look for common areas and discuss the different issues until you reach an agreement. 14 _.�.-.... �..Tt�•r.�'r!Yr'�?:iti.'f'Si'.'.'Tti::I.w`S;�'ia1r ,4,;,.,-„�. a •. ��.r. �,c:. ,.►:u ..k'�""t'i;��,,.. ryy_...•a_.-+'�-'.ii .ram.----• !tt.Tll:'.T:ti" .� fir_- '.-�.. y _ +!•y_cr Y . 4 ..".k y��a+-:?Y¢-:.'�. In VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON, the Governing Body and City Manager together came up with a criteria list based on what they agreed were the manager's major areas of responsibility. These were: • organizational management • fiscal management • physical plant management • program development and follow-through • relations with mayor and council • long range planning • relations with public • intergovernmental relations Within each major area, several general performance guidelines were spelled out to specify what the responsibilities were. Then each council member had to rate the manager in that area on a scale of 1-10• •one, that the manager doesn't meet the council member's expectations; ft... that he meets the expectations to some degree, and ten, that he meets all ex- pectations. For each category, the council member could elaborate on specific strengths and weaknesses. When you're developing your evaluation guidelines, don't confuse criteria with formality. An evaluation based on specific written criteria isn't necessarily a formal process. And, if you opt for an informal type of evaluation, it doesn't mean you don't need criteria. Criteria are what make an evaluation process something other than a gripe session —or a testimonial dinner. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA, uses two sets of objectives for evaluating its managers. First, there are normal performance objectives — the broad objectives expected of every manager or basic requirements. Then, there are incentive objectives —something beyond the normal requirements which are used as a basis for extra compensation. And, there is a third level for evalua- tion — personal development objectives which look at the individual's person- al development and plans for the future. All objectives are developed by the manager and governing body at the beginning of the fiscal year and then re- viewed at the end. Additional sample criteria are included in the appendices. 15 z I 1 EVALUATING Once you have the criteria, you're already well along the way to an effective evaluation process. Your criteria will help determine the process. There are three general approaches to consider: 1. Use your criteria as a discussion tool. The criteria provide guidelines, but the evaluation isn't limited to those areas. 2. Develop a written rating system to use with your criteria. For each area, individual governing body members rate the administrator's performance either on a numerical scale or as satisfactory/unsatisfactory. A section for addi• tional written comments is useful with the rating scale. Then, all the forms are compiled to develop an overall picture of the administrator's performance. 3. Use a combination of both —a written evaluation form i followed by a general discussion. While all three approaches have been used with varying degrees of success, the combi. nation written -discussion is usually the most effective. It has the advantages of individual, thoughtful, and written evaluation as well as of open and frank discussion. With the written approach, you also have a written record to keep for comparison. Sometimes a freewheeling, unrecorded discussion can become "you said," "but I thought you meant" and "didn't we i agree?" after the evaluation. P When looking for the right approach, it's best to start simply. A long and detailed evalua- tion instrument and a gruelling follow-up discussion can turn everyone off to the process before anything positive happens. A simple start might mean talking through the process the first time —almost a dry run. In FALMOUTH, MAINE, the manager and governing body started the evalua• tion process with six simple questions. Developed by the manager, they were used to lead the discussion. The first evaluation wasn't very satisfactory, largely because the council hadn't worked long enough with its new manager. But, the group did agree to try again in another six months. By that time, the six questions had been expanded somewhat, drawing on experiences in the private sector, and the council was more prepared to handle the task. The evaluation discussion is the most personal part of the process, so it's difficult to generalize. How well it goes during the discussion will depend somewhat on the individuals involved. Your ability to communicate with each other, the rapport you already have with each other, and your individual and group commitment to the process will contribute to the success of the discussion. 16 9 2 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA, in its Management Performance Program offers some tips on carrying out a successful "evaluation interview" no matter who is being evaluated. Here are some ideas to make the discussion work: 1. PREPARATION: Both sides should think about what's going to be discussed beforehand and be ready to discuss. That means really thinking about performance, including a self - assessment before the discussion. If you use a written instru- ment, it deserves time, attention, and thought to make sure you know what you feel and why. It's helpful for the admini- strator to complete the same written form as a self evaluation. i 2. PRIVACY: That means no interruptions and a clear understand- ing that what's said is confidential or, at least, will be handled with discretion. It's important„therefore. to decide in advance I what the public will be told about the discussion so everyone feels free to talk openly. 3. TIME: The feeling that you're being rushed through the evalua- tion discussion makes it more threatening. Make sure you have enough time to talk things through and to finish what you start. You should try to set aside a special time just for the evaluation — NOT after the regular governing body meeting. 4. PROPER PHYSICAL SETTING: The interview should be held in a place that's physically comfortable —where the environment is cordial, but businesslike. A noisy restaurant isn't private or comfortable. An office, conference room, or governing body chambers are usually fine. 5. PROPER EMOTIONAL SETTING: This is harder to define, but it's important. The discussions should be open and honest —and allow for give and take between the manager and supervisor. It _ means talking and listening on both sides. Again, this is a matter of positive versus negative —open discussion versus a gripe session. Once you've got your criteria, decided on a process, and found the right setting, what actually happens at an evaluation discussion? It will vary depending on the process and the people involved. At its best there will be a lot of discussion —a lot of give and take. In order to make it work, however, the mayor or governing body president probably should serve as a dis. cussion leader. That way you'll have some guidance or leadership to make sure the discus- sion goes somewhere. While you don't want the discussion to be stiff and formal, you do need some organization and direction. The success of your discussion will depend a lot on how comfortable you are with each other and with your process. So it might take a little time before everyone opens up and talks freely. The administrator should participate actively — that means contributing to the general discussion rather than responding only when asked. Give yourself a little time, though, and gradually you'll improve your ability to talk openly with each other. BRINGING IN AN OUTSIDER Another variation on the evaluation process you might consider is using an outside facilitator —sort of an evaluation moderator. The approach tries to minimize the threat and make sure the important issues are covered. It's most useful if there's a communica- tion gap which is hampering evaluation. The outsider can bridge that gap. 17 sr. ..^:'.^....itr'y.^'s�,t.�^'[ r..T-.�+uR^,w^.7�n.n^,.�y 7±t`.��:'.�•;t�ya7!.....ri'.^'o.gp�.am�.- t . .:)?+.+fir•-m�i +TY .iS�aY:,,,,�Y'�P'�,"g"'+" ro'�C� yam.fps =+p"m?.-i,',.[:' .�� This approach was tried in Maine to evaluate the executive director of the Maine Municipal League. It worked like this: • the executive committee and director met to agree on a process and chose a facilitator. • the facilitator met individually with each member of the executive committee (comparable to a governing body) to discuss the executive director's performance. An evaluation checklist was used. • the facilitator then met with the executive director, using the same checklist for self -assessment. • then the facilitator compiled the findings of all of . these ii-aerviews, pulling out common issues, special concerns, and coming up with an agenda for the evaluation discussion. • the executive committee and director met to discuss these findings and came up with a performance improve- ment plan —with the outsider acting as discussion leader. The approach, according to officials in Maine, worked well, particularly in compari- son to an earlier evaluation process without a facilitator. Both sides were unhappy with the results of that first evaluation. Several other communities have also tried this approach: In BRUNSWICK, MAINE, the executive director of the Maine Municipal League served as facilitator for an evaluation of the manager. Officials in the city say the facilitator helped "keep the whole process in perspective" and helped the council and manager focus on "important issues". The facilitator also helped the council and manager concentrate on developing an improvement plan as a result of the evaluation. PHOENIX, ARIZONA, also used a discussion leader the first time the council eval- uated the city manager there. The Council, Manager, and discussion leader met at a day -long retreat to hammer out major goals they agreed the manager should be striving toward and then discuss how well they thought he was doing in achieving those goals. Both the manager and councilmembers felt the discussion leader played a key role in the first evaluation session. He provided valuable guidance when the council and manager were dealing with a new and somewhat unfamiliar process. He also helped put the manager and all council members -in the same position —all PARTICIPANTS in the evaluation discussion with no one serving as the appointed leader. In considering this approach, it's critically important to find someone who you and the administrator trust and feel comfortable with. Without that kind of trust and confidence the process simply won't work. Basically, the idea behind bringing in the extra person is to eliminate the problems whi, sometimes interfere witli effective evaluation —inability to communicate, failure to address issues, personality conflicts, personal vendettas, general griping, failure to come up with an W:3 _.-�-�+WrtCri.' i.wy�i��I��: ;; }_.�T.• '�M•. weµ �.� '. a ion plan. So, it's probably most useful when all else fails. If, after some effort, you can't get an evaluation process moving by yourselves, the third party approach might be your next option. Most will agree that something much simpler is best at the start. ANOTHER VARIATION NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS, handles evaluation of its manager from a different perspective. There, the management staff evaluates the manager's performance from their vantage point as employees. The written forms are completed by all department heads and compiled by the Personnel Officer. Then the Person. nel Officer and Manager meet to discuss strengths and weaknesses and help the manager work better with his staff. This approach emphasizes the mana- ger's capabilities as a supervisor and staff leader. In addition, the department heads weigh the manager's overall performance as a manager and his relations with the council as they see it. FOLLOW-UP The real success of an evaluation comes in what happens after it's done. You might come up with a WORK PLAN for the period before the next evaluation or a DEVELOPMENT PRO- GRAM to strengthen the weak points and make the best of the strong ones. Or you might de- cide that a broad team building program using some outside resources is really what's needed to strengthen the overall working relationship. Be sure your evaluation includes an element for action steps —changes to be made, special tasks to be done, or decisions to follow as a result of what the evaluation showed. If you already have a good working relationship, evaluation probably won't bring up any major surprises —like discovering that an administrator isn't satis- fying ANY of your needs and should be dismissed. But it will help you identify areas to work on. Then, the next time you evaluate, you should be looking for progress —improvement in the weak areas and even more advancement in the strong areas. You can also consider some special development options as part of the evaluation —courses, conferences, training programs which you (governing body and/or administrator) might want to attend. Remember, formulate action steps and schedule the next evaluation. TIMING Another important element in a successful evaluation —and one of the frequent questions which comes up —is HOW OFTEN to evaluate and WHEN to fit it in. The frequency will vary. Annually is usually enough because it gives you and the ad- ministrator a chance to do something to evaluate. And it gives you a broader area of issues to cover so you won't concentrate on a particular crisis. Some communities feel semi-annually is better because it keeps the communication process going more regularly. It might be worth- while to start on a semi-annual basis while the process is evolving and then spread it out to annually once you're comfortable with the concept and approach. It's important to try more often —perhaps even quarterly —if you're having trouble with the process. Otherwise, you might find yourself letting it slide, if you wait too long. 19 Even more critical than how often, is WHEN. The day after a major crisis is definitely not ,the right time to evaluate. You'll end up focusing entirely on that one conflict rather than on overall performance. Ideally, you should decide to evaluate six months or a year after hiring a new administrator. That way you'll be starting with a clean slate and will be evaluating in your mind all along. But if you're starting mid -stream, there are several issues to consider when deciding on WHEN. Your most important decision will be whether to tie the evaluation process to the budget cycle —and, at the same time, to salary. There are some obvious advantages to evaluating with or around budget work. That's when you have your closest working relationship as governing body and administrator. That's also when you're both carrying out your most important job responsibilities. But salary adds another dimension to the evaluation process and can pose some extra problems. When you talk money and performance, you also have to think about budget constraints, tax increases, other salary hikes, and the general pay scale. You run the risk of mak- ing evaluation a negotiating process —more than a communicating process. For that reason, it's more effective, particularly when starting out, to separate the actual evaluation process from salary issues. n PULP P2. •; � U�,�1'j•� ---�, `' ``..� to ,,. '; 1 1✓1 V �`•-±•- fir,.. �{�'� ! ,,�; •`~... ��� lrT' y 1� (� 1 Evaluation: when to fit it in. 20 ^�x!'.rsr•ie^K's.�y,75}•'T'Ptt?:c� t"�'�';:^�i • r;,• You should also think about your election schedule —try not to set your evaluation short- ly after an election when some of the elected officials haven't had a chance to work with the administrator and form an opinion. Right before an election, when a change in the governing body make-up is expected is also a bad time to evaluate. Another issue you might consider is ongoing programs which could be tied to evaluation. Goal setting is a perfect example. If you meet annually to set goals and look at accomplishments, you could evaluate at the same time. Once you find the right time and the best interval, REMEMBER to make the process a REGULAR part of your activities. Set the time and do it. 21 2 Z,A\ do �@aoa Are you ready to evaluate? ? ? Probably not yet. But you should feel a little more comfortable about the questions to ask yourselves and the issues to address before evaluating. It's too bad evaluation has had such a bad reputation. With only a little care and plan- ning, the process can be remarkably constructive. Even going through the exercise of devel. oping a system and defining some criteria can begin to strengthen your working relationship. A regular evaluation process won't eliminate all conflicts —but it will help you keep those conflicts in perspective. More importantly, it will give you a regular outlet for dealing with conflicts. Evaluation is a very personal and interpersonal process. It can help you learn more about the people you're working with and how you can work together better. On a more practical level, evaluation gives you a chance to talk about what's been done, what should have been done and what you'd like to see done, Without it, you don't have many chances to talk about things in general —you're always facing so many major decisions } and specific issues. There haven't been many post evaluation casualities. In fact, most administrators and governing bodies who've gone through the process said they felt better when it was over, And their relationship worked better. The key is to think positively and design an evaluation system which will produce positive results. . i • S s. t a i 22 .�, ..�...._ �i.•.'..L�4!"7�";n'w:': c'�';� � ,7"�jr� r}�j., ��.r,.�. - (i..-ta="' yt"...:..,+r. ;-r. }.-,-�G= 4 2 Appendix A &PC P&nd),O, (� (!_� Z EVALUATION IN EL CERRITO. CALIFORNIA Because of the many variables and issues to consider in evaluation, it's helpful to look at the way one city carried out the process from start to finish. In EL CERRITO, a suburban community of 25,000 in the San Francis•:o Bay area, evaluation is one element of ao broad team building pro- gram. The city got involved in team building early in 1974 when the mayor and city manager at- tended a retreat. After the retreat, the manager shar-ed the elements of the conference with his staff and the mayor introduced the rest of the council to the concept. One ongoing part of the program has been evaluation —both for the city staff level and the city manager. In fact, it became a "matter of policy" that the council would evaluate the city manager "not less than once yearly". Evaluation in El Cerrito is a TOTAL process, including written evaluation forms, a discussion between the manager and full council, followed by individual conferences between the manager and city council members. As part of the individual interviews, the manager also evaluates the per- formance of the council member, particularly in terms of the role the individual wants to assume on the city council. So evaluation becomes a two-way street. The entire process takes about a month to complete from the time the mayor distributes the written forms until all individual discussions are completed, Officials in El Cerrito view evaluation as primarily a "communications process" a• .i an important part of their team workings. Salary isn't an issue during the evaluation. The goal of the process is to discuss what the council expects of the manager, how well he is meeting those expectations and what the manager and staff expect of the city council and how well they are meeting the expectations. Salary levels don't fit into that scheme, so evaluation has been deliberately separated from wage adjustments. The written form used in El Cerrito has two parts. The first section lists PERFORMANCE categories which the council feels are most important to the manager's job. The council and manager spent a lot of time developing this list —to make sure it was comprehensive and usable. The second section deals with SKILLS the manager should have to carry out the job. In the first section, council members evaluate the manager's work according to the RESULTS that have been achieved. It's a narrative -type evaluation, Then, when it comes to the "managerial skills", coun- cil members rate the manager on a 1 to 5 scale— unsatisfactory to outstanding. There's also a section for brief comments to explain the rating. After all the forms are completed, the mayor compiles a total picture of the manager's performance. After the evaluation, the council and manager together develop goals and objectives which will provide a framework for the next evaluation. The goals provide an action plan to make sure some Progress is made between evaluations. Evaluation in El Cerrito isn't static. The council and manager periodically review their approach to evaluation to make sure it's still timely. Recently, the evaluation format was changed, drawing on the experiences of one council member who is a manager in private business. The new form emphasizes areas which the council and manager agreed were critically important in the manager's job. The process has worked well in El Cerrito. A key to its success, according to the City Manager Richard Brown, has been the team building program. "Before evaluation can be performed success- fully, the council must prepare itself by developing rapport among themselves and with their chief administrator," Brown explained. "Retreats participated in by all council members and the City Manager are a common device for this purpose. It's important to develop rapport to the point where council members and the city manager can articulate their feelings about their working relationship." 23 ��.t'NY:'72'�'-".r.•^v�,Y„�C+^i!PS,�' I EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT EVALUATION Section I EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE RESULTS A. JOB RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Coordination of City Departments 2. Preparation and Review of Staff Reports 3. Budget Development —Preparation and Monitoring 4. Press Relations 5. Professional/Personal Development 6. Personnel Development —Subordinates 7. Communication with Employees 8. Communication with City Council 9. Communication with Public 10. Project Accomplishment 11. Priority and Organizational Goal Setting 12. Supervisory Ability Section 11 EVALUATION OF MANAGERIAL DIMENSIONS A. ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS 1. Organizing and Planning 2. Quality of Decisions 3. Decisiveness 4. Creativity 5. Written Communications B. INTERPERSONAL SKILLS 6. Leadership , 7. Behavior Flexibility 8. Oral Communication C. STABILITY OF PERFORMANCE 9. Tolerance of Uncertainty 10. Resistance to Stress D. WORK MOTIVATION 11. Inner Work Standards 12. Energy 24 4 140 a Appendix B SAMPLE CRITERIA, FALMOUTH, MAINE Evaluation of the Town Manager In Falmouth, evaluation is limited to an open discussion based on some general questions and criteria prepared by the manager and council. The questions are used to provide direction for the discussion. All councilmembers are expected to review the questions before the process, sothey're well prepared, even though no form- al written form is used. Councilmembers are also encouraged to send written com- ments to the manager before the evaluation if they want to. These six questions were prepared by the manager: 1. Is the manager providing the council with adequate information to make decisions? Is the council provided with sufficient alternatives to avoid being forced into a decision? 2. Is the technical data and other information presented in an understandable manner? 3. Is the manager effectively communicating the council's positions to the public? 4. Is the manager able to resolve problems under strained or unpleasant conditions? 5. Is the manager approaching the job from a day-to-day standpoint or are his/her efforts directed toward broad organizational objectives? 6. Is the manager able to recognize and deal effectively with the distinction between policy and administration? Is he/she too engaged in policy? Not enough? These additional questions were prepared by the council to evaluate specific managerial performance: 1. How well did the manager independently recognize problems, develop relevant facts, formulate alternative solutions and decide on the appropriate conclusion? 2. How effective were the manager's letters, memoranda, and other forms of written communication? 3. Does the manager make the most effective use of available talent to get the work done? Does the manager develop staff members? Is the manager readily accepted as a leader? 4. Does the manager respond in a positive way to suggestions and guidance from the council? Is each assignment undertaken with enthusiasm and zest? 5. Can the manager be depended upon for sustained, productive work? Does the manager readily assume responsibility? Does the manager meet time estimates and document work papers properly? And, for general guidance, the council added these criteria for the manager: • is visible in the community through participation in various social, athletic and cultural affairs • originates ideas and program improvements • attempts to economize whenever possible (especially important in a small New England community) • makes recommendations on issues as often as possible to provide a benchmark and starting point for council action. 25 �J K, 'Appendix C SITUATIONAL STANDARDS FOR NORMAL PERFORMANCE MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA The Basic Requirements For Any Management Position PLANNING: To anticipate future -needs and make plans for meeting them. To recognize potential problems and develop strategies for averting them. ORGANIZING: To efficiently and economically organize and carry out the operation for which you are accountable. COORDINATING: To coordinate all activities related to work goals. To maintain cooperation and coordination with other departments and divisions. LEADERSHIP: To create a leadership climate providing challenge and motivating employees to high performance. BUDGETING: To prepare operational and capital budgets and to expend within adopted budgeted limits. PUBLIC To maintain a high level of contact with the public and RELATIONS: meet the needs of the public within available resources. EMPLOYEE RELATIONS: To equitably adjust grievances among subordinate employees. PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT: To train and develop subordinate employees. MANAGEMENT: To provide quality achievement in your job. To make sound judgments and decisions. To be creative and decisive. To set and achieve goals and objectives. To adjust plans to accommodate unforeseen and uncon- trollable factors. PERSONAL To remain aware of current developments and writings in DEVELOPMENT: the field of public administration and your career field. To develop personal traits and characteristics necessary to make your performance effective. 26 Appendix D EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: COACHELLA VALLEY (CALIFORNIA) ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS ADMINISTRATION (Factor 0- 1. Manpower Development: Does he appoint and train effective subordinates? Has he retamed exceiTent peop a who were tempted to go elsewhere? 2. Supervision: Does he direct his group and control their efforts? Does he encourage their mitrative7 Does he know what is going on with all CVAG projects) Is he available to his employees for guidance and cour,selling7 Does he evaludte his key personnel and suggest ways for them to improve? 3. Execution of Policy: Does he understand and comply with the overall polies. laws and philosophy of the organ,zation? Do his efforts lead toward successful accom• plishment of goals? Does he measure results against goals and take corrective action? 4. Budoet: Is his budget realistic? Is it prepared in a good format? Is it reasonable Goes he control expenses within the set levels of the budget? S. Reporting: Does he submit accurate and complete Staff Reports on schedule? Are they tM ble? Are Staff Reports concise, to the point and submitted with appro- priate recommendations when necessary? 6. Plannino: Is he familiar with the Association's poficies, objectives and practices? Does he translate these policies, objectives and practices into specific programs? 7. Leadership: Does he motivate others to maximum perfurmance7 Is he respected as oem,anukng but !air? Does he get enthusiastic response to new ideas and needed reoro'izations? 8. Job Organization: Does he delegate responsibility but handle job details efficiently? Does he use time productively? Does he program activities in an orderly and systematic way? 9. Communication: Does he keep appropriate people informed? Does he present is thoughts inan orderly understandable manner? Is he able to convince people to adopt his viewpoint? Is his written correspondence clear and concise and an accurate representation of Association policy? EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS (Factor II): 10. Community Reputation: What is the general attitude of the community to this man? Is he regarded as man of high integrity, ability and devotion to the Coache• lla Valley Association of Governments? 11. Professional Reputation: How does he stand among others in the Public Admini• stration profession? Does he deal effectively with other City and County Managers? Is he respected by other professional and staff representatives of the Cities and County? Does he enthusiastically and constructively attend seminars and conferences conferences? 12. Intergovernmental Relations: Does the Executive Director work closely with other Federal, tate and local government representatives? Is his relationship with others friendly? Does he provide requested assistance to other Cities and the County? 13. Community Relations: Does he skillfully represent the Coachella Valley Association of Governments to the press, radio and television? Does he properly avoid politics and partisanship? Does he show an honest interest in the community? Does he pro• perly defend CVAG and its reputation? PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS (Factor IIII: 14. Imagination: Does he show originality in approaching problems? Does he create effective solutions? Is he able to visualize the implications of various approaches? 15. Objectivity: Is he unemotional and unbiased? Does he take a rational, impersonal viewpoint based on facts and qualified opinions? 16. Drive: Is he energetic, willing to spend whatever time is necessary to do a -good job? Does he have good mental and physical stamina? 17. Decisiveness: Is he able to reach timely decisions and initiate action, but not be compulsive? 18. Attitude: Is he enthusiastic? Cooperative? Willing to adapt? 19. Firmness: Does he have the courage of his convictions? Is he firm when convinced, but not stubborn? 27 CITY MANAGER EVALUATION: VANCOUVER. WASHINGTON ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT: FISCAL MANAGEMENT: PLANT MANAGEMENT: PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND FOLLOW-THROUGH RELATIONS WITH MAYOR AND COUNCI L: LONG RANI PLANNING: RELATIONSHIPS WITH PUBLIC: INTERGOVERN- MENTAL RELATIONS- 'Plans and organizes the work that goes into providing services established by past and and current decisions of the Council. -plans and organizes work that carries out policies adopted by Council and developed by staff. -Plans and organizes responses to public requests and complaints or areas of concern brought tot the attention of staff by Counc:l and staff. *Evaluating and keeping up with current technology. -Selecting, leading directing and developing staff members. Plans and organizes the preparation of an annual budget with documentation, etc. that conforms to guidelines adopted by the Council. -Plans, organizes and administers the adopted budget within approved revenues and expenditures. •Plans, organizes and supervises most economic utilization of manpower, materials, and machinery. -Plans and organizes a system of reports for Council that provides most up-to-date data available concerning expenditures and revenue. -Plans and organizes maintenance of City -owned facilities, buildings, and equipment. *Plans and organizes maximum utilization of public facilities. *Plans, and organizes a system of preventative maintenance for buildings, facilities, and equipment, *Plans and organizes acquisition and retirement of unused, unnecessary, or worn out buildincs, facilities and equipment. -Plans and organizes ongoing programs and services to the City Government. -Plans and organizes work involved in researching program suggestions by Council and staff and the reporting of the results of analysis. -Maintains knowledge of current and innovative trends in the area of services beino oro- vided by local Governments, and incorporates that knowledge in program suggestions and research. -Plans and organizes work assigned by the Council so that it is completed with dispatch and efficiency. -Plans, organizes and supervises implementation of programs adopted or approved by -Maintains effective communications, both verbal and written, with Council. -Maintains availability to Council, either personally or through designated subordinates. -Establishes and maintains a system of reporting to Council current plans and activities of the staff. -Plans and organizes materials for presentations to the Council, either verbally or orally, in the most concise, clear, and comprehensive manner Possible. -Maintains a knowledge of new technologies, systems, methods, etc. in relation to City services. -Keeps Council advised of new and impending legislation and developments in the area of public policy. -Plans and organizes a process of program planning in anticipation of future needs and problems. -Establishes and maintains an awareness of developments occurring within other cities or other jurisdictions that may have an impact on City activities. -Plans, organizes and maintains a process for establishing community goals to be approved or adopted by Council and monitoring and status reporting. *Plans, organizes and maintains training of employees in contact with the public, either by phone or in person. -Ensures that an attitude and feeling.of helpfulness, courtesy, and sensitivity to public perception exists in employees coming in contact with the public. *Establishes and maintains an image of the City to the Community that represents service, vitality and professionalism. -Establishes and maintains a liaison with private nongovernmental agencies, organiza- tions and groups involved in areas of concern that relate to services or activities of the City -Maintains awareness of developments and plans in other jurisdictions that may relate to or affect City Government. *Establishes and maintains a liaison with other governmental jurisdictions in those areas of service that improve or enhance the City's programs. Maintains communications with governmental jurisdictions with which the City is involved or interfaces. �.,..wiY�..r�,w,>:rscuc—�3':'T"t1G"'�er•'S'!�M":= i R(:�oumz ORGANIZATIONS: • American Society for Training and Development, Madison. Wisconsin, 6081274.3440 ' • American Management Association, 135 West 601h Street, New York, New York 10020, 212/586.8100 • Institute of Government, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602 404/524.1328 • Institute of Public Affairs and Community Development, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, 913/864.3288 • International City Management Association, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036, 2021293.2200 • National Association of Counties,1735 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006, 202/785-9577 • National League of Cities, 1620 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006 2021293.7330 • National Municipal League, 47 East 68th Street, New York, New York 10021 212/535.5700 • National Training and Development Service, 5028 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20016, 202/966.3761 • New England Municipal Center, P.O. Box 39, Durham, New Hampshire 03201 603/868-5000 • U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1620 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006 202/293.7300 • Your State Municipal League or State County Association Qj s 4 - 17 �N O r. ;,•. _ 'G' MEETINGS GOVERNIN •z ;• o'' " •STREAMLINING MORE TIME-gUT.YOU DON'T ` ' nnQg • IF YOU ONLY NAD VERN4NG BODY _ Q�U GOAL SETTING BY THE GO �STRATOR .,, • THE CHIEF ADMIN • EVALUATING F EVALUATION TAKING STOCK: A GUIDE TO SEL • COP muwCA.TIN� • E IT AND HO\y TO SPEND IT • MONEY: HOIN TO RAISME' ' MAKE POLICY? WHO, t RELATIONS INTERGOVERNMEN MMITTEES - - _ i USE OF ADVISORY CO S' •t _ L'pNAGEMENT: AN OVERVIEW FOR o �� • FINANCIA D OFFICIALS •Y .' Ei.ECTE .. UNSHINE •LIVING 1N THE S - ." .. • COPING WITHSTRESS r - NAGEMENT RELATIONS LABOR MA ENT STRUCTURE AND 1 _ i LOCAL G N1 AT _ .. ORGA i PUBLIC OFFICIALS' ttA81UTY ' • TEAM BUILDIN O' ''.•` 'AND DECLINE ` — MANAGING GR W O ICY , LOCAL HOUSING P i NG,GAME ifieWS jAn overview of elect obs better.) ' o .. •THE LEARNT learning how to do their 1 s1 across the countrYlook at how one city council tackles an *GO AL SETTING UI rocessJ 7 annual goal setting P For intorma, n,write, ICMAement {nformatioriSe rce ' Maap �nnec%!Cut Avenue, NW . _ _ Washington, DC 20036 mot. :_ 'y '4" �t. '' �; `•� ..' },. `ti.:, , 'w i' i•� _ •t• 1'• t•\ :•a. `'n•♦ 1 •♦'�•. ' IL•'r r t•• »f ' •_• = r., _ 'r,` r :•,•\ar,f: •L',: ��-�' wt .t _ tom• - .•%• _\ I'••. - y _ _ '' — r ;, r'r• _ ,r - i } :I •— ` i �f,l•_,.� �� - :+ •,ice \ � , ' •. �• I l 1 l ♦I •r�C.' � _ t •'• `rr ,�4 �,, ! �' fir; ''�� ♦. 1iia ': +. t y + ..' ,. L, \ `. ` '•. i �•\ to ♦ ._ '• j, `,� t r ��y•�+ � •'a •. ±ti• •�, ?' t ��. •l�',�••i l:. .�..i; w��. � .,. .. _ 4 .t r I .- •... , ' ' \ ` - , • 1•R •• 1, : .. .�.Y - � .i "t' , >r� + J- - l r t aw . f •J' R ter' r .,r •� \ - :» '+a. . i• .. t � 1. � • - + •.... • t.� .. ..\ ,,, �- � �)�a- � •ir' ♦•,•r� �•A.' G: .., 1 I. ':I's.,•'l• yJ �t: _ �_ +.r' .- a •1. • �t f. if, .1' Y � ,1 ' .''t rrt • 1 f 1. •y � � , ' 't•i .ir •�..�•�. •�• ,.0 ♦_ / i.•r•'\. S '' J f .il :r-�t •r., r:.��-• .. i Ir .. International ..i City .. '•., ,'f •.; •', �- t Management . ; , ` ' !�, - r a' ` ' ',• ' r. Association 1 '''• i t 1 `, . , .. .a •. �t � � � �.i 1 � � . 1 f r j`r • I t .J I I`-„ •;' '•'+• .�• a: �• •. •a r ! y � a +r r. 't .t tip NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES ♦• •F•-J�w'1� , ....5 •' •,••1♦•T��.�a y^ •^t�•� ,aul. .fr n�'I•~�L•.•. 'a` •1.• , .. .. ..• • • •C�a• i•rr ,I ..4L'. '6" +Yia;i �• .t„V�: �'��•-r t '. ram r •(P• -�r•i. r.. I ';;*,, .. ,'-'S• ' q , ,S r 't '< �ir:t ._. `t !. `; ..• !�•; 7••, :1 •i 1• _G•:J'• CITY MANAGER'S EVALUATION CONDUCTED AT A PUBLIC HEAPING AT THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ON APRIL 20, 1982 Presented by: Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Y C' CITY MANAGER'S EVALUATION I:t the preparation of this evaluation, I have spent numerous hours reflecting on the past, present, and future of our City. I have faced all of the issues and areas with an open mind and with a positive outlook, and I have con- " cluded that my main concern is the present and future of the City of Miami and not the past. However, I am fully aware that the past cannot be ignored as it teaches us valuable lessons on errors that we should not commit again. I pray to God that he will give us the wisdom to make the right choices and the courage to carry them out. It is Of utmost importance that we emerge from this process as a ® united city, working towards the common good. At the April 1st meeting, when the matter of the City Manager's evaluation was first brought before the Commission, I had these words to say: "Mr. Mayor, a house divided cannot stand, but I think that we have to define our position for the future of our community. My concern is not with what happened a year ago, what I would like to see is an _ improvement in the near future in some specific areas of importance to the residents of Miami. I share the opinion that we need a special meeting to conduct the evaluation. At that meeting, we should be given specific answers to issues before us, for example: we need more minority participation in the City contracts. Almost 70% of the residents of Miami are either Hispanics or Blacks, and I would like to see a higher proportion of Blacks and Hispanics involved in our bidding process. I would like more affirmative action in the higher salary ranges in the City of Miami. I would like to see better communications between the Admi- nistration and the Commission. I would like to continue to work in the area of making our workforce more professional, and I would like to try to find solutions for our housing and crime problems, but I think that we have to be united, and I am sure that with -the effort and the support of all of you and the good faith of our City Commission, if we work together, we will find better solutions for the future of our community. Following is my evaluation broken down into criteria areas set forth in the evaluation format submitted to the City Commission. 1. LEADERSHIP. Mr. Gary's participation in numerous community relations meetings have been documented in the press, His involvement is respected by the Black community and he serves as a role model for many young Blacks. In terms of his leadership role as it applies to his adminis- tration, it must be pointed out that his subordinates regard him 3s the final word on administrative matters. While this Might seem like the normal thing in most managerial systems, ofteh in real life situations, the leadership position of the chief administrating officer is reduced by circumvention. In Mr. Gary's case, his leadership role is well defined and effective. Mr. Gary is a dynamic and energetic figure in our City and community, specially the Black community, I would 41 like to see him intensify his efforts to bring together more Hispanics and Blacks into the municipal government process. - 2 - The average citizen has to feel he has access to the Administration. Mr. Gary, who is a longtime resident, with roots deeply imbedded in our community, is a great asset to the City and a good representation of our population. 2. PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY. I could not approve of working with a City Manager for even one minute if his or her integrity was in doubt. In my contacts with the City Manager, I have observed him conduct his business in the highest traditions of a professional. In my opinion, one of the indicators sup- porting my judgment is the amount of documentation support- ing different issues. Whenever I have requested back-up information to issues on the Commission meetings agenda or to other topics of importance, I have received an adequate amount of memos and letters supporting the development of the topic. I perceive this as being indicative of a metho- dology consistent with proper procedures of ethic and legality. Such attention and existing documentation "before the fact" are a healthy sign in the administration. One area in this category where I would like to make a recommendation is in the separation of administrative and governmental functions. I believe that the City Manager should not become involved in those matters where only elected officials should dwell. This dichotomy of powers it and functions is essential to the well being of our community,. - 3 - L J 3. ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS. In an organization the size of our City, and operating with all the resources and personnel available to the administration, we should have a more efficient and quicker response to specific requests. For example, some of my memos concerning uncom- plicated requests,such as requests and complaints from citizens, have taken as long as six weeks to be replied. on several issues of importance to the community, the memos informing the Commission have been late in arriving at our office and, in scale cases, I have read about them in the papers before receiving official word from the admi- nistration. For example; the case dealing with difficulties involving the Conference Center, both the dispute with the developer and the potential set -back as a result of the strike last week. I would also like to know the evaluation criteria used to judge the efficiency of the departments, department directors, and assistant city managers. The Commission Should also have information available where the goals and Objectives of the different departments are stipulated. As a matter of information, I would like to know if the city is using the available technology in data processing, computers, accounting and management systems in an effort tQ make our work force as efficient as possiule. I would also like to know if the existing systems available to the City are being used to t1je maximum potential, - 4 - 4. STABILITY OF PERFORMANCE. The stability of the City Manager's performance is most evident in the manner by which the day to day business of the City is carried out. Since I moved to Miami over twenty years ago, I have followed closely the workings of our Municipal government, first as a concerned citizen, .later as a civic activist, ` and now as a City Commissioner. For the most part, our present managemene of the City is oriented towards the ` "management by objectives" style, rather than "management by crisis" style of administration. Major projects within the City are being given good attention, however, the same attention is not being given to smaller, but just as important, issues. For example, the Commission adopted a motion setting aside a Clean -Up day for the purpose of highlighting the need for a clean city, 110thing was done. I believe all motions and resolutions AV)provod by tha Commission are s direct desire of the pacaple At Miami# who are the ones who elected the COM11455iOn and, therefore, should be given the same attention regardless of their magnitude, Another indicator Of stability turnova_r in the administrative staff, since i halve i�aeen a City comissione i Mr. Gary has Rept the same assistant managers and special assistants. i t,eiieve this fact is a good reflection on the stability of the managexls performance, I also insist that is it is also just as inzPartant to present an image of dynaraiizi\, as one of stability. - 5 - 5. FISCAL MANAGEMENT. For the present fiscal year, we will have a surplus of over $6 million. While, to my understanding, this is a good reflection on the Cityls fiscal status, I was concerned with the lack of informationl surrounding the news of the surplus. The day before the surplus was announced, the City Commission was agonizing over cuts in social services programs. The information of the surplus came as such a surprise that it makes one wonder whether it was expected or not. if the surplus had been projected, as was stated at a later date, then the Commission should have been better informed at the time the funding of important projects w4s being debated. I perceive tho City so being financially mound Alld 601vont, ilowovar, improvomonto aro noodod to kaq) tho Coll"inoion bottor informed of Nturo projoctioilp, 6, C.OMM {NICATIMS WTTII CO IMUS" TON, M-44'4ej improve. PlentA hove bean fhada in thin oyes in the 14at few woe�a, At the begill"0193 there were m4ny jtams, of i�l��io��a��ee diet Were 110t Properly L)rz) Aq)!t to, PIT atiei3t i all. fleg-lt atians for the Sports campjat, the )cTlight Conference Center , alld detalls all F,-"%e Mal" pe"Si�,nllel Changes and Prayllot alli ill Uiajoi"tlllc�ilia 1i tine City', While I re. o-31li?;e that the Cite h3aknager as aoiel\ res >onsiL� e for the day to d3i' ,f the Oit�l Cat\' Nl331age �-:!Ioul i al i,,-) Te'al1;;.e the cl c�te4 Iuaal i aYe a%le t > the �az, le a13'i sey\,a, at xhr:ir -;-aI a - 6 - and the City Manager should also realize that he serves at the diszretion of the Commission, and that major changes in the City's personnel are an issue both from the political and ethniQ point of view. My point of view is to increase and better communications in matters dealing with the administration of the City. 7. RELATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC. I have heard many citizens complain that it is very difficult to secure an appointment to see the Manager. While it is not practical to meet With everyone who cones to City tiall, a better way must be found to make the Administration more accesible. Rol(itione with the public should reflect the ethnic componityion of this community, and minoritiaa should be IgivOn a groator chanco to parti€ipato at all lavole of Citl' 90','@rnmont. Also tho public itl the mill"OritY §dctora i 'Wl l informod oil matters 4041itiq with the aw4rd 0 Wi i Ootl y4 ts, for purv))4§04 4144 40VVige-5, wlef evaf � Ilar #1 �; t t #� e � Pit 4 VO vrou3 d like t 5ee a of the t;�A ii how i1L1cb �ilu?ilc�' t4 i i�i1t le i>`� a?L1Y to %�. ANT1 Ii 'at1\ IY4L,"-.V:t the �����s da�latio�� �i as#aa1 > aiiai it ;� r�+:< �`3ta ; $t.Ale, 46 For example: a. Efforts to fight crime should have been coor- dinated some time ago at all four levels of govern- ment. The initiative taken by the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce in creating the crime task -force, should have been coordinated by the City some time before that. b. Traffic and street -lights are controlled by the county, but the City has-been very slow in contribut- ing input in areas where improvement is absolutely necessary. C. Coordination of City and County in order L•o build tho now sportz facility has been very slow. d. Tho City has not made a serious attompt to deulynd fiscal rOOVOneibility for many expenses related to the mariol boatl ift refugoea and thu. Haitian ref uVe5 - a. A better effort must be made to jointly lobby issues of itiportanoe to both the County and the City at Stagy and rodoral 10vels. f. coordiogt6 offorto Witt) Motro Policy and 00 OtFlto t£ rnay' OffiPO to OfdOf tO V!AOI�§ thO fitimbof of to 04r city 4troatg. �i1 the #Vca �T- V,)044i' #t- 3vl¢ tja it lie pi 4'val c ac4l a#3l all efIPkI to Wevi—iAtc i lc i �at35. lie �jl ili]}•+ � 5 i =+de a - � a- t:1ai� �.1.;:�.;e: aLi}.�ai.:at�,� �?I �cIi'a4c� "�;'l,�c�����i ;' ZIt.1 rya a Tlle:_iii_ { 4 sl c id \ct _ tlici.i.� .v `..�i.'.a:a�:$ ilia �:,`.11W)�,i]Il•::): i yi': ..'.;iiI;; 1 i ... .. 0 0 4. Affirmative action implementation. 5. General fund surplus. The above achievements are consistent with the goals of the City Commission, and are an encouraging set of achievements to surpass in the coming year. B. What areas need improvement and why. Most of the areas where impr.nvemont is needed hlvc boon covered in the rr.rvio"S I.)tIRcins. As EX summary, 1 will Ictain point out same it(AMM that 60111}nd spacial att lantion, 1. A clear And w011 d0finl16 net}aration of pOii_ tical and adminintrative functions. A. CrMMUnicaticng �ietwh ri the pity ttlnndig(ar titld 01V Cott niggiongrp. 3. Mit?ot=ity�ttry»tint� i�?ant 411 101 001 l of th@ City, ?t F Vry3 �'I���s� �"•�i�S,�G ���G'.'i,� �J„{3�1 i'1�'1���t�� `7 �a����'`%'„`)CiC ��� 611r>va l"c ;!cl} c#lt a �jli i s c�}li{a:t, yip 31 i �c C' i \ 3331c c �= +� '�'}iG ti:c�t•aLau�l;i {Il:d#+x�Fiy_' �3ts�cc�.� �11.:���a �}C: It{��B ��1:1�c-���. is�iic� i`uc`.3c +.r:i,`�,ii1{�i�.i�e ice`, �i{utic 3k�i<<}j•����, .: tl .l iiv i 'G..ii T. L 41t.i•i $• t{i �.', u':a t iitiwi t tti. c st c ti ty 1 t yy F t �` t � .l ti ��, iA� t L Yl�. + M� a ♦ ilir ��� •# *4 4 A `��. ,J ♦ iw- .j _i -y 4\ \ t 1i� {t' � u-' .a .1.1 �.i:.«s.tr ti�i� ��..,Jt.i•'ee• � 3 «��, t ia:4J . 4At rL. q 11 iv. �-t...i e 1t 11 In closing, I must state that the positive far out- weighs the negative in this evaluation. Whatever shprt- comings exist, can be corrected and do not constitute a - breach of trust or faith. ; I will recommend that the Administration devote special attention to the areas pointed out in this report whore room for improvement Oxi.sts. 1 , 1r3ro f ore, rt t bitiJ►1c3t1c1 t;11-it wo kutjp Hhe C�r�'o`-'t1t City M811agor and worlt cjOng1y together with him nrld give hit" our support for the good of the City+, � �J}� tt.�j 1;� n�r►f i�jerJ# that the �tJ��� j rjj ��gr���,�nts w hod wjt kh6 City fA#bAg6- r° it) the Vag # dj §V�ito V# ?:}ct 34\1itj`) p<1e.>tr;}�' l���;Afv<� ate•: a�rjr�?'��3ai m�{ �i•� a?±'a cc?Si'J�1,7��" .� 1... � W '�� i�-j C O)'flift;a cii' c.tac3 ii A Iyttei;� i3 ast c o}}1 ii�aij.�'r'i. i'na � t';a as tGt C.S +} sn4 X. as -c _j i i!;;� .17 SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING (EVALUATION OF THE CITY MANAGER) APRZL 20, 1982 (NO AGENDA) (SEE CITY CLERK REPORT)