Public commenter asks council for transparent metrics to evaluate city manager

A member of the public urged the Glendale City Council to use a published statistical section of the city's financial reports as a transparent baseline for evaluating the city manager and the city's performance.

Herbert Milano told the council that a consistent statistics section in the city's financial reports would allow the public to compare performance year to year. Milano singled out four areas he said need more transparent measurement: recreational facilities (he said Planning Area 10 lacks neighborhood parks and would need roughly 25 acres to reach parity), a deteriorating street network (he cited a pavement condition index indicating about one-third of roads need reconstruction, which he estimated at about $100 million), the city's financial-risk posture (he referred to a 2001 state audit placing the city in the bottom 20% on certain risk measures) and emergency services (he said Glendale's effective response for cardiac arrest is about 10%, compared with top-performing cities at about 60%).

"If there is something else other than that report, it means that he's been evaluated on the projects that you yourselves have for which we have no information," Milano told the council. He asked that the council adopt transparent measures so public oversight can track how the city manager is being evaluated.

After public comment the council recessed to closed session; the meeting notice listed closed-session items including litigation (Najarian v. City of Glendale, case no. 24STCP02101), real-property negotiations for 1745 Gardena Avenue and performance evaluations for the city manager and city attorney. Council members indicated they did not anticipate reporting out of closed session.

Milano's remarks were recorded during the public-comment portion of the meeting and did not prompt an immediate policy action on the council agenda.