Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Evaluation Tool topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scappoose council advances discussion on city manager performance assessment tool
Summary
Councilors reviewed a draft assessment tool for the city manager that breaks performance into budget/finance, leadership, and relationship-building categories; members debated 3- vs. 5-point scales, staff anonymity, and aggregation before returning red-line edits for final approval at a future meeting.
City staff and councilors spent the bulk of the Oct. 20 meeting refining a proposed city manager performance assessment tool intended to give council specific, recurring feedback.
Kim (staff lead on the project) said the draft organizes criteria into three primary performance areas — fiscal stewardship and transparency, leadership, and relationship building — with draft questions under each area. Councilor Santiago had proposed structural changes that would replace ranking with a pass/fail checklist; the council discussed whether that approach would obscure nuance.
Councilors debated practical elements: whether to use a 3-point or 5-point rating scale (several favored five points for more nuance), whether the city manager and staff should complete the same rubric (some members said seeing the manager and staff inputs first would help councilors contextualize their own ratings), and how to preserve staff anonymity if all staff are invited to participate. Ideas for administration included using spreadsheet aggregation, online survey tools, or third-party administration (Sharon Harris/CIS was cited as available to review the final draft). Kim agreed to circulate red-line revisions on budget and performance-metric language for further comment ahead of a final vote at the next meeting.
Councilors also discussed implementation mechanics: disaggregating criteria so each item could be graded individually, creating a companion document listing council considerations, and providing quarterly check-ins so the manager receives regular feedback. No formal adoption occurred; staff will send red-lines and the matter is expected to return for final action at a future meeting.
What happens next: Staff will incorporate council red-lines on budget timing and performance metrics, share changes for additional feedback (including from an outside reviewer), and place a final version on the next council agenda for formal approval.
