Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Juliet board adopts amendment to require annual city manager evaluation amid debate over transparency and goals
Summary
The board approved a resolution to amend the city manager's employment agreement to require an annual, public evaluation to be completed after the budget year; commissioners debated transparency, the need for shared performance goals and whether other appointed officials should be included.
The Mount Juliet Board of Commissioners voted Dec. 8 to amend the city manager's employment agreement to include an annual performance evaluation, initiating a process that commissioners said will be public record and completed after the budget cycle.
Commissioner Malelli, who sponsored the resolution, said the city previously conducted manager evaluations but stopped them before 2020 and that restoring an annual review would increase transparency. "We are all about transparency and everything," she said while introducing the measure.
Vice Mayor (name not specified on the record) supported the concept but emphasized the need for agreed goals and key performance indicators. He said informal oversight — including frequent phone calls and follow‑up emails — occurs now but that the evaluation should be paired with a workshop to set measurable goals so scoring is consistent among commissioners.
Commissioner Giles and others raised practical questions about how the evaluation form would apply: whether it should address only actions specifically directed by the board and whether other appointed officials (for example, the city judge) should be evaluated in the same way. City Attorney Burnette noted statutory and charter distinctions for the judge and said that judges have duties laid out in charter and are different from employees for whom the city can set performance evaluations.
Mayor James Vance warned against ad hoc accountability that could be used to pressure staff and suggested any evaluation should be tied to publicly stated directives or charter responsibilities. City Manager Kenny Martin expressed openness to feedback and staff support but was not quoted endorsing specific language at the meeting.
The board voted by voice; attendees heard "Aye" and at least one commissioner call "Nay." Commissioners directed staff to develop an implementation timeline and the public form and to return with details before the next evaluation cycle so that goals/KPIs can be set in advance.
Because the evaluation will be a public record, commissioners said they expect the process to include an agreed list of duties and target metrics so that future reviews are consistent and not perceived as partisan or arbitrary.
