Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interim Manager Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses timing and scope of interim city manager evaluation; May 1 deadline noted
Summary
The commission considered how to evaluate the interim city manager, discussed whether to evaluate him in his deputy role or interim role, and scheduled a plan to handle the May 1 evaluation due date and an executive session in June.
Salina commissioners discussed the process and timing for the interim city manager’s evaluation, including whether the May 1 review required by his agreement should cover his work as deputy city manager, his interim duties, or both.
The discussion matters because the evaluation is a contractual deadline built into the interim appointment agreement and can affect compensation and employment decisions.
A city staff member reminded commissioners that the interim manager’s evaluation due date is May 1, a date built into his agreement. Greg (staff member) asked whether the commission wanted the brochure and recruitment process to disclose that the city’s personnel manual contains a for-cause requirement and whether that detail belonged in a promotional document; staff answered it was typically a handbook-level detail and not necessary for the brochure. Commissioners discussed options: (1) evaluate the interim manager now on duties they have observed in the interim role; (2) defer the evaluation; or (3) evaluate both deputy and interim duties. Several commissioners noted practical limits on assessing deputy-role work if they had limited prior observation.
Commissioners agreed it would be reasonable to proceed with an evaluation of the interim city manager in his interim role and to use the existing evaluation form as a guideline, removing sections that commissioners could not yet reasonably assess. Staff advised that the current evaluation form could be adapted (sections marked “unable to evaluate” where appropriate). The commission directed staff to assist with scheduling and logistics; commissioners planned an executive session tied to the regular meeting in early June to complete any personnel evaluations and to discuss the process confidentially.
The commission also discussed whether the evaluation should be tied to merit or other contractual provisions and noted that timing could affect subsequent decisions if the interim manager becomes a candidate for the permanent position. A staff member said the form could be used as written or modified to focus on areas commissioners had the opportunity to observe. The commission set an administrative plan to proceed with evaluation work between the present session and the early-June meetings so the May 1 contractual date would be honored or formally deferred with clear documentation.
Ending note: staff offered to provide the prior evaluation form as a template and to accept commissioners’ edits; the commission scheduled follow-up meetings (including a proposed Thursday noon review) to finalize evaluation logistics and any related executive-session notice.
