Scappoose council debates 6‑month manager review, quarterly check‑ins and salary study; no final compensation decision

Scappoose — Council members spent the latter portion of the Feb. 3 meeting debating how to conduct a six‑month performance review for the city manager, whether to hold quarterly check‑ins, and how any compensation adjustments should be handled.

The council discussed a draft evaluation matrix that would set competencies and evaluation criteria for the manager’s review; the conversation focused on using the draft as a baseline while avoiding overly repetitive quarterly assessments. Several councilors said quarterly sessions should be informal check‑ins focused on progress toward council goals, with an in‑depth evaluation using the competency matrix reserved for the six‑month review or annually.

Councilors repeatedly emphasized a separation between performance review and compensation. The manager’s contract language read aloud during the meeting states that the council "shall provide a formal performance evaluation of the manager after six months" and that such an evaluation "may include salary and or benefit adjustments if appropriate and decided by a majority of the city council." Council discussion noted existing contract language but also stressed that staff would bring a distinct compensation proposal backed by market data if the council chose to pursue an adjustment.

On process and transparency, councilors asked staff to clarify what topics are proper for executive session and which should be discussed in open session. Staff said the Department of Justice guidance is that salary discussions should occur in open session and that contract negotiation topics could be handled in executive session where appropriate; staff committed to producing a clear process and to review what may be discussed in executive session versus what should remain public.

Next steps: Council asked staff to prepare a proposal that includes a recommended review process (using the competencies as a base), an updated salary/comparables analysis and a timeline for any compensation adjustment. Councilors indicated they expect quarterly check‑ins to be informal status updates while the formal six‑month evaluation will document performance against the agreed competencies. Any compensation changes would be subject to a future council action with supporting documentation.

Provenance: Discussion and debate about the manager evaluation process began when the council returned to the item on the agenda and concluded with staff agreeing to prepare a compensation proposal and to clarify open‑session vs. executive‑session procedures for salary matters.