Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sweet Home City Council agrees on evaluation process and survey plan for city manager and city attorney
Summary
At a work session, council members reviewed draft evaluation forms (three for the city manager, two for the city attorney), agreed to a narrative self-evaluation followed by numeric scoring, and directed staff to return with a proposed community survey measuring city direction (not individual performance).
At a Sweet Home City Council work session, council members reviewed and agreed to a proposed evaluation process and supporting forms for the city manager and city attorney, Speaker 4 said. The package includes three forms for the city manager and two for the city attorney, all using a 1-to-5 rating scale alongside self-evaluations and proposed community feedback.
The proposed approach, presented by Speaker 4, would "be modeled on City of Silverton's approach with input from city council, department heads and feedback from staff," and would include self-evaluations from each employee to be reviewed alongside council evaluations in executive session. Speaker 4 also described seeking broader community feedback through a general survey focused on the city's direction rather than on individual employee performance.
Because the public is not allowed to speak during work sessions and the transcript identifies speakers only by number, quotes and attributions in this report use the speaker numbers recorded in the work session transcript (for example, "Speaker 4").
Council discussion focused on the format and sequencing of materials. Speaker 5 asked whether the "self report" was intended to be a narrative account of accomplishments; Speaker 4 confirmed that the self-report is a narrative where the employee details accomplishments and areas for improvement. Speaker 2 clarified the original intent had included a numeric 1–5 self-evaluation; councilors concluded it would be clearer to present the narrative self-evaluation first so evaluators have context before completing numeric scores.
Speaker 2 committed to returning to council with a proposed community survey before the evaluation period. Multiple council members thanked staff, with Speaker 1 saying, "Thank you to Cecily for putting all of this together in a fairly easy to read document," and several members described the process as "thorough and transparent." Speaker 1 later stated, "we are all in agreement that this process is what we're going to go with for the next evaluation time," indicating consensus to use the approach in the next annual evaluation cycle for both positions.
No formal motions or votes were recorded during the work session; work sessions do not produce decisions on the record. The next procedural step recorded in the meeting is for Speaker 2 to present the proposed survey before the evaluation period and for staff to finalize the form sequencing so the narrative self-evaluation is distributed before numeric scoring.
