Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Performance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Minnetonka council narrows city‑manager review to five competencies, adopts clearer four‑point scale
Summary
Council and staff presented a redesigned city‑manager evaluation that pares competencies to five areas, adds per‑competency definitions and moves to a four‑point rating scale with a 'growth opportunity' band; directors will complete staff input before council ratings and the new form will be used for the manager's December review.
Miranda Donovan, assistant city manager, opened the study session presentation by saying, "So tonight, we are going to establish a shared understanding of the city manager review process." Staff proposed consolidating the evaluation into five competencies — Leadership Strategy and Results; Council Relations and Communication; Organizational Management and Staff Development; Community Engagement and Public Trust; and Financial Management and Stewardship — and asked council whether the five areas "cover enough of what the council feels is important."
HR manager Sarah Donnan described the broader human‑resources initiative that will move nonunion performance reviews into NEOGOV Perform and create a consistent grade/step approach across the organization. She said the new evaluation pairs defined competency descriptions with three open‑ended narrative questions for examples and improvement areas and a goals section for progress and future priorities.
Staff recommended a four‑point rating scale — Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, Growth Opportunity and Needs Improvement — to reduce clustering on the middle of a five‑point scale and create an explicit category for employees who need targeted development. Donovan and Donnan told council the 2026 manager review will use the new paper form (staff will transition to NEOGOV training and full electronic use next year).
Council members generally supported streamlining. Councilmember Rebecca Schack said the shorter set of competencies should produce "more concrete feedback rather than this wide chasm of responses." Several councilmembers requested a side‑by‑side comparison of old and new forms so they can compare line‑by‑line before finalizing edits.
Staff said the process timeline remains tight: directors will be asked to complete their versions first so council sees staff perspectives before finalizing council input; Donovan said forms will be distributed after Thanksgiving and the review is slated for mid‑December (the packet listed Dec. 15 as the target). The city noted closed‑session rules remain available for the manager review if council proceeds to discuss evaluations in private.
Next steps: staff will finalize the revised form based on tonight's feedback, add the compared old/new form as an addendum to the packet and send the evaluation materials to directors and council in advance of the December review.
