Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Manager Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boyne City commissioners favor Battle Creek evaluation template for city manager review, set schedule for May 1 completion
Summary
Boyne City commissioners agreed to adopt and adapt the Battle Creek city manager evaluation template, asked staff to create a digital version, and set interim deadlines so staff and community input can be compiled ahead of a May 1 review.
Boyne City commissioners converged on the Battle Creek evaluation template as their preferred basis for the city manager review and set a compressed schedule to digitize and finalize a local version in time for a May 1 review.
Commissioner Sandy said she had “narrowed it down to three” and that the Battle Creek form stood out because “it does it's comprehensive. Um, it picks up, you know, the process for the evaluation by the commission itself.” Commissioners emphasized incorporating staff input and a self-evaluation component so the manager receives substantive feedback beyond a numeric score.
The commission reviewed several candidate templates that ranged from roughly 10 to 40 competencies. A consultant engagement option delivered as a commission-only (non-360) process was discussed; the consultant’s quoted fee for a mix of onsite and remote work was $6,800. Commissioners questioned whether the price added value given that many elements could be adapted from the Battle Creek template.
Commissioner Folultz said he also favored Battle Creek, adding that the template’s language and structure made evaluations clearer: “Battle Creek was my favorite as well.” Commissioners discussed practical changes they want — for example, clearer goal pages, a place for the manager’s self-evaluation and guidance on how to weight staff and community-partner feedback.
On scoring, the group debated forcing a commitment by using an even-number scale versus retaining a five-point scale that allows a middle option. They also discussed whether staff and community feedback should be included in the numerical tally or reported separately; the prevailing view was to ensure that staff input is collected, anonymous where appropriate, and presented to the manager along with the compiled score.
A staff member, Jessica, volunteered to recreate the chosen template in a digital format. The commission set interim dates: commissioners will use a Feb. 23 visioning session to identify goals; a first draft of the digital form is to be available for review at the Feb. 24 meeting; and commissioners agreed on a timeline to distribute surveys to staff and community partners roughly six weeks before the May 1 review so compiled responses can be reconciled in advance.
No formal vote on a final template was recorded in the discussion; commissioners directed staff to prepare the draft and to return the revised document for approval in an upcoming open meeting so the evaluation process can proceed on the schedule discussed.
The meeting adjourned after the allocation of tasks and scheduling of the next review steps.
