Council discusses quarterly check‑ins and evaluation tools for city manager reviews
Loading...
Summary
Council members debated whether to use 360 reviews, job‑description‑based assessments or quarterly executive‑session check‑ins to evaluate the city manager; Councilor Kim Holmes and a staff member agreed to gather options and return to a work session.
Councilors spent substantial time on June 2 discussing how to structure future evaluations of the city manager and how the council should provide regular feedback.
Councilor Kim Holmes said previous reviews lacked meaningful tools and suggested clarifying “what is it we want to be measuring, and how do we want to measure it.” She recommended a process that ties manager review to city performance goals and measurable objectives.
Several councilors cautioned against using a 360 review as a “weapon” and emphasized feedback should be timely and constructive; Council President Miller and others suggested quarterly check‑ins as a possible forum for the full council to provide collective feedback. Councilor James argued that employees should be evaluated against duties in their job description.
City Manager Ben Bergner and staff encouraged the council to maintain a constructive tone and to avoid practices that could inadvertently create a toxic environment. Bergner said the structure exists to support transparency and accountability but asked the council to avoid crossing boundaries that would undermine staff operations.
A small working path was agreed: Councilor Kim Holmes and a staff participant (Marissa, role unspecified in the transcript) will collect model approaches (including League of Oregon Cities guidance), draft options and present them at a future work session. The council also expressed support for scheduling periodic executive‑session check‑ins, and staff will return with recommendations on cadence and draft materials. No formal policy or evaluation instrument was adopted at the June 2 meeting.
