Canby council selects evaluation form, asks consultant to help finalize city administrator review process

Canby city council members on March 5 agreed to use the first of several proposed evaluation forms to complete an overdue performance review of City Administrator Eileen Stein and asked consultant Sally Joy to help the council finalize the process.

Council members said the most important unresolved issue is how the council’s goals will be reflected in the evaluation. Councilor Jason Padden argued the goals document should drive the evaluation, saying, “the goals document is really what drives the evaluation form.” Padden presented a draft goals-based process he prepared as a possible template to use going forward.

The discussion focused on three practical questions: which form to use, how individual council ratings should be combined or discussed, and the timing for a city administrator self-evaluation. Several councilors said they preferred a concise, measurable form. Councilor Davis said he supported “option 1” because it was “very measurable and very specific.” Council president Tracy Hensley and others also favored Option 1 for clarity and ease of tabulation.

Councilors debated process details. Some members favored each councilor completing an individual rating that would later be distilled into a single document; others said they wanted more chance to discuss divergent ratings before finalizing a single report. Councilor Dan Stearns asked for an explicit “insufficient information” rating for items where a councilor has no direct observations (for example, staff management), and several members agreed it is acceptable to mark a competency “not applicable” or leave it blank if they lack relevant information.

Consultant Sally Joy, introduced as a mediator and arbitrator in private practice, described her role as a neutral facilitator. Joy said she expected the council’s chosen form to be used as the base and that she would help the council synthesize input and advise on process design. City Administrator Eileen Stein told the council she was uncomfortable preparing a thorough self-evaluation on very short notice, saying she was “concerned about being able to do a quality self evaluation in that short of a period of time.” Members discussed shifting some meeting dates to accommodate a full self-assessment.

The council settled on Option 1 as the working evaluation form by consensus and agreed to two near-term steps: (1) use the Option 1 Word document that staff will circulate in a fillable format for councilors to complete; and (2) convene additional sessions to reconcile individual evaluations into a single document and to compile a short list of concrete goals or “opportunities” for the city administrator to address in the next review period. The group discussed meeting next on March 12 (in limbo because of open-session/notice constraints) and agreed to a meeting on March 19 following the regular council meeting if needed; Joy said she could attend the March 19 meeting later in the evening if that schedule is used.

Councilors also emphasized the desire to memorialize a repeatable process so future councils do not “reinvent the wheel.” Several members said the long-term recommendation should tie evaluation timing to the city’s goals/fiscal year rather than an arbitrary calendar date.

Staff will circulate the selected form and logistics for the follow-up meetings. Joy and city staff will prepare to collect council input and to synthesize comments into a single report to present to the council and to Stein once the council completes its reconciliation.