Lowell subcommittee reviews draft evaluation tool for city manager, auditor and clerk

Lowell City’s personnel subcommittee on Feb. 18 reviewed a draft evaluation tool for the three employees under council oversight—the city manager, the city auditor and the city clerk—and agreed to continue refining the tool before reporting progress to the full council.

Mary Icardi, human resources practice leader with the Collins Center at UMass Boston, presented the draft and said the evaluation should be “a process” not a one-time form, stressing two-way communication and regular follow-up between the council and evaluated employees. The Collins Center was engaged after the subcommittee’s summer 2024 meeting to develop the tool.

The draft emphasizes aligning evaluations to organizational mission and strategic goals, using SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time‑bound) goals, and scheduling regular check-ins. Icardi recommended quarterly formal reviews or quarterly reports with triggered meetings if issues arise, and suggested a pilot for the calendar year 2025. She also recommended a four-point rating scale and stronger narrative comments tied to each rating.

Councilors said they welcomed a goals-driven, metrics-based approach but raised practical questions about how to set goals across 11 council members and how to ensure the manager’s, auditor’s and clerk’s goals reflect both citywide strategy and district priorities. Councilor Balancha said the council should set short- and long-term goals and meet more frequently, adding, “When they look good, they make us look good.” Several members suggested using department budget submissions—where department heads list accomplishments and goals—as a starting point for measurable objectives.

Solicitor Corey Williams noted the city’s existing contractual language around evaluations and said the subcommittee can work within that language or recommend ordinance or contract changes later if necessary, observing that any numeric or procedural requirements in contracts would need to be honored or amended.

Members discussed logistics for goal-setting and evaluation rollout: the Collins Center proposed facilitating a goal‑setting workshop or using surveys to collect council priorities in advance, summarizing results and bringing them to a facilitated session. Icardi said the center’s scope includes tailored forms and training for evaluators and that the center would support drafting goals, providing sample evaluation language, and helping the council avoid common pitfalls (for example, letting recent events dominate an annual review).

The subcommittee did not take formal action at the meeting. The group agreed to treat the presentation as a progress report, continue work with staff and the Collins Center, and bring a report back to the full council. The consultant said she would return to a future subcommittee meeting to help finalize guiding principles and process steps for the pilot.

Next steps noted at the meeting include councilwide input on priorities for goal-setting, a facilitated workshop or survey to consolidate goals, training for council members on objective evaluation practices, and a subcommittee report to the full council to outline the recommended pilot timeline and any contractual implications.