Council moves to hire facilitator for evaluations of manager, attorney and judge; seeks clearer KPIs and more frequent feedback

Staff presented survey results and themes about the council’s current process for evaluating its direct reports — the city and county manager, the city and county attorney and the municipal judge — and council discussed next steps including using an external facilitator and improving cadence and clarity of expectations.

Nikki Macklin, director of an internal office who led the presentation, summarized survey responses showing divergent views among council members about whether evaluations currently align with council goals, produce actionable feedback, or rely on clear measurable criteria. "The goal in this process is really to strengthen communication, accountability, and alignment through a consistent, transparent, and effective evaluation process," she said.

Council members discussed frequency and format. Several favored more frequent, shorter touchpoints rather than a single annual review; proposals ranged from twice a year to quarterly conversations, with many council members and staff suggesting that quarterly would be too frequent and that biannual or three‑times‑per‑year reviews might be preferable. Multiple council members and staff emphasized the value of regular one‑on‑one meetings between individual council members and direct reports as part of a broader feedback loop.

Council generally supported using the city’s forthcoming strategic plan and public‑facing performance dashboard as the basis for evaluation criteria and key performance indicators (KPIs). Members asked that any external facilitator tailor the evaluation tool to the strategic plan and help the council develop clear rubrics and measurable expectations for each role.

By consensus council directed staff to begin a process for engaging an external facilitator to help design and administer a custom evaluation tool, to present a short list (three candidates) and to arrange executive‑session interviews. Staff said CML‑recommended consultant June Ramos is a potential candidate and that the facilitated process should include a collaborative workshop, tool design, administration, compilation of results and optional training for council on giving constructive feedback. Staff noted municipal judge evaluation timing is constrained by the judge’s contract schedule, and the manager said she would be willing to delay her next evaluation until the new process is in place.

Council asked staff to bring candidate information, scopes and estimated costs to an executive session for interviews and to return with a recommended contract and implementation timeline. Staff also flagged that the facilitator selection and the evaluation tool could be structured so the facilitator’s role diminishes over time once a repeatable process is established.