Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Madison executive committee vets annual performance tool for council chief of staff
Summary
On Jan. 13, 2026, the Madison Common Council Executive Committee reviewed a draft annual evaluation tool for the council chief of staff, to be completed before April and modeled on processes used for the library director and independent monitor. Members debated anonymity, HR protections and how to collect input from all alders and staff.
On Jan. 13, 2026, the Madison Common Council Executive Committee reviewed a draft performance-evaluation tool for the council chief of staff intended to provide structured, consolidated feedback and set goals for the coming year.
President Vittiver said the tool was developed with the city HR director and with Karen, the council’s chief of staff, and was designed so the committee could deliver “an appropriate, kind of annual evaluation conversation” and set goals for successors. Vittiver told members the review should be completed before April so the outgoing president and vice president can set objectives for the next leadership team.
The proposed process would use Legistar as the legislative record for the tool and solicit feedback from CCEC; staff described options for broad input including an online survey (SurveyMonkey) that could be run anonymously or via email. Erin (staff) described how the survey would be distributed and analyzed and said the president and vice president would receive the consolidated report.
Karen, the council chief of staff, told the committee she opposes a fully anonymous process with fellow alders because she said named feedback allows follow-up and clarity. “I do not want this to be anonymous with you all because I think you can tell me,” she said, arguing that knowing who submitted feedback would let her seek clarification and better meet members’ needs. President Vittiver noted the unusual span of the job, saying, “Karen answers to 20 people,” as context for designing a process that protects the position while giving actionable feedback.
Members debated anonymity and protections. Alder Figueroa Cole and others urged a way to solicit input from both staff and alders and recommended language that encourages consulting HR; Attorney Haas and Director Hilson clarified that the city’s 360-degree evaluation tool is typically used at contract-renewal times and that personnel discussions and some evaluation details could be handled in closed session and otherwise remain HR-protected. Staff said the evaluation form itself would be placed in the legislative record but that substantive personnel discussion would be protected.
Several alders favored an option that permits anonymous responses but allows respondents to identify themselves if they wish; others warned anonymous feedback can hamper follow-up and clarity. The committee asked staff to return with a finalized tool and process at the next meeting, with a plan to vote on and implement it before the April leadership transition.
The executive committee did not take a final vote on the evaluation tool during the meeting; it agreed to refine the draft, consider mechanisms for soliciting input, and schedule a formal vote at the next meeting.
What’s next: Staff will revise the tool to reflect members’ feedback (including options on anonymity, solicitation of input from non-CCEC alders and staff, and HR guidance) and return to the committee for a vote; the committee set an implementation target of completion before April so outgoing leadership can set goals.
