Scappoose council favors simpler city‑manager review with six‑month check‑in and quarterly touchpoints

Scappoose — At a Feb. 3 work session, Scappoose City Manager Ben presented recommendations for revising the city manager performance review, and council members signaled support for a simpler, strengths‑focused process that includes a six‑month initial review and recurring quarterly check‑ins.

Ben (City Manager) told the council he had provided three articles — two from Harvard Business Review and one by a Portland State University professor — and drew on experience and best practices, arguing that traditional year‑end appraisal cycles can discourage excellence and create administrative overhead. “It’s not about feedback, it’s about how we do that and how we really move towards excellence as opposed to the bare minimum,” he said.

Why it matters: the council’s review process determines how the city evaluates leadership, handles corrective action and links any compensation changes to performance. Council discussion addressed practical issues — what to evaluate, how often, how much documentation to require, and legal limits on council involvement in personnel matters.

Most important points

- Structure proposed: an initial six‑month review to confirm expectations, then annual reviews, with quarterly, short touch‑points focused on council goals and “what’s going well/what needs improvement.” Several council members preferred keeping the reviews informal and conversational rather than producing lengthy written self‑evaluations.

- Criteria and scope: Council President Miller and others emphasized that reviews should be tied to the city manager’s essential job functions and the 15 core duties the council previously adopted. Miller cautioned that without clear evaluation criteria, feedback can become inconsistent and confusing.

- 360‑degree feedback: Ben recommended keeping any 360‑degree development reviews separate from formal performance evaluations, citing potential legal and supervisory complications if such feedback is used in personnel actions.

- Compensation and market studies: Councilors raised questions about whether pay changes tied to reviews would be retroactive. Ben and councilors discussed using periodic market/salary studies (every two to three years) to set ranges rather than tying pay directly to a single review.

What council members said

Council President Miller urged a simple rating — “meets expectations” or “room for improvement” — rather than numeric scores, saying numeric scales had caused confusion in past evaluations. Marissa (councilor) and others advocated for concise, in‑the‑moment feedback and modest documentation that confirms a conversation occurred.

Councilor Santiago and other members recommended that quarterly check‑ins focus on how the manager is executing the council’s strategic goals and project milestones, not rehashing the full job description each time. Tyler (staff member) was cited as maintaining a spreadsheet of the 15 job functions that could be used as a starting point.

Legal and process caution

Ben warned the council that tying 360‑degree reviews to formal performance actions raises legal risks — for example, exposing supervisors to claims of retaliation or complicating HR procedures — and recommended treating those instruments as separate development tools, perhaps on a multi‑year cycle. Several councilors agreed the council should act promptly on any serious performance concerns rather than waiting for the next scheduled review.

Next steps

Councilors agreed to refine the approach and circulate drafts for comment: use the existing 15 essential functions as the baseline for the six‑month check‑in, consider a shorter set of core competencies for recurring quarterly conversations, and keep any 360‑degree instruments separate from formal disciplinary or compensation decisions. Council members asked staff to distribute the proposed draft evaluation materials for feedback before the next meeting.

Ending

No formal vote was taken during the work session. The council concluded the discussion by agreeing to circulate the draft review materials and to begin with a six‑month check‑in using the existing job‑function checklist, followed by quarterly touch‑points focused on council goals.