Committee opts for informal six‑month review of county administrator; will solicit selected input

The Executive Finance Standing Committee discussed how to conduct the county administrator’s required six‑month performance review and agreed to use an informal, two‑way process that includes a self‑evaluation and targeted external input.

Process and input: members agreed the six‑month review need not replicate the lengthier annual process. One supervisor recommended soliciting input from at least one department head who reports directly to the administrator and at least one elected official who works closely with the administrator but is not a subordinate. “I would also solicit input from at least 1 department head, as a direct subordinate, and at least 1 elected official who is not the subordinate to the administrator, but works closely with her,” a committee member said during the meeting.

Confidentiality and timing: the committee noted the review would include a closed‑session component for performance evaluation, with an opportunity for two‑way dialogue and a self‑evaluation by the administrator. Committee members asked staff to prepare a draft process for the next Executive Finance meeting so they could finalize the approach and begin outreach; the administrator’s contract anniversary was identified as Oct. 1.

Next steps: staff will prepare a proposed review process for committee approval at the next meeting, including a plan to select several department heads (committee discussed randomly selecting a small subset) and to solicit brief written feedback and a self‑evaluation. If grievances exist against the administrator, the committee reiterated that a written grievance process already directs such complaints to the committee.