Lapeer commission adopts revised city manager evaluation after heated debate over process and fairness

LAPEER — After more than two hours of public comment and an extended commission debate, the Lapeer City Commission voted to adopt a revised performance-evaluation form for City Manager Mike Womack covering May 2025 through May 2026.

The measure, introduced by Commissioner Ramona Petrie, uses a 5-point scoring framework with weighted key performance indicators tied to the charter duties of the city manager. The motion to adopt the revised instrument passed on a roll call vote: Commissioners Glisman, McCarthy and Petrie voted yes; Commissioners Brady and Atwood voted no.

Why it matters: Commissioners and the public framed the dispute as a procedural and fairness question about whether changing evaluation criteria shortly before the review improperly altered the standards the manager would be judged against. Supporters said the metric approach creates clearer, trackable expectations; opponents said the form includes new, heavily weighted items that could be used punitively.

“I modeled it on professional frameworks so the commission can have objective measures tied to the charter,” Mayor Jeremy Hing said while explaining the revised form’s origin and research basis. “A well-performing manager would score well regardless of section count or weighting.”

Commissioner Stefan Brady repeatedly objected to introducing a numbered rating system now, telling the commission he worried the instrument could be used to force discipline: “If you’re going to put a number on it, I think you’re going to try to use it to fire,” he said. Brady warned the form’s grievances and some behavioral KPIs were subjective and could expose the city to legal challenge.

City Manager Mike Womack told the commission the revised form represented an ex post facto change to how he would be judged: “My biggest issue is this is an ex post facto change of my criteria which I’m being judged upon,” Womack said, adding he preferred narrative feedback tied to specific examples.

Several residents urged caution. Public commenters warned the new instrument might chill staff morale or be used to push out long-serving employees; others praised the clarity a numerical system can bring. “We shouldn’t assume negative intent,” one resident said, calling for constructive use of evaluation results.

Legal and process questions surfaced about who may change an evaluation instrument and whether the mayor may unilaterally rewrite it. City Attorney Francis (recorded in meeting exchanges) advised that the contract and charter require the commission to conduct a written evaluation and that selection of a particular form is a commission decision.

What passed and next steps: The commission rejected an earlier motion by Commissioner Atwood to instead reuse the previous evaluation form. After subsequent motions and discussion, the commission adopted the revised form and proceeded to schedule or consider the logistical steps required for the review process. The clerk had originally circulated a May 6 deadline for form submission; commissioners discussed whether the schedule should be extended or a working committee convened to refine the instrument.

The vote was procedural: the commission adopted the revised evaluation form for the May 2025–May 2026 review period; no disciplinary action, employment decision, or automatic consequence for the manager was enacted at this meeting. Commissioners noted narrative comments accompanying numeric scores remain important to explain ratings.

The commission moved on to other agenda items after the vote; follow-up on workshop scheduling and evaluation logistics was noted as forthcoming.