Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Kpm2 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board Governance Committee keeps KPM process for now, plans changes for March and June
Summary
The committee heard staff explain KPM 2 (board performance evaluation), agreed to retain the current 15-question evaluation and reporting process for this cycle, and asked staff to prepare proposed edits for committee review in March and presentation to the full board in June. Sabrina Perez emphasized confidentiality and the legislative reporting timeline.
The Board Governance Committee reviewed the board performance evaluation process known as KPM 2 and decided to keep the current evaluation in place for this reporting cycle while developing proposed changes for later consideration.
Sabrina Perez, strategic adviser for agency administration and the KPM coordinator, presented the package and called out a one-page procedures addendum and two attachments: the standard 15-question self-evaluation and an optional form for suggested changes. "When you complete this survey as a board member, you are sending it strictly to me. I keep it confidential," Perez said, explaining that answers are compiled anonymously and used to draft a narrative included with the agency's KPM submission to the legislature each September.
Committee members debated whether the evaluation should use a simple yes/no format or a Likert scale. Perez traced the Likert approach to a 2006 governance subcommittee decision that converted earlier yes/no items into a scale. She noted that only the original 15 standard metrics are included in the percentage reported to the legislature; board-added items are shown for internal comparison only.
Members also discussed targets and past performance. One committee member said last year’s overall result came in "70-ish something" after multiple years in the 90s, and several members argued that keeping 100% as an aspirational target remains useful even if the target is seldom met. Perez described an administrative option for the board: if the committee or board wants to change a reported rating, the item can be pulled from the consent agenda and put on the regular agenda for deliberation and a revised reported outcome.
The committee discussed who should formally “own” the KPM—whether it should remain a board KPM or be treated as a department measure—and acknowledged that any formal change to KPM status would follow the agency’s biennial budget timeline and legislative review. Staff said changes tied to the biennial budget would likely not take effect before July 2027 unless exempted.
Next steps: staff will synthesize committee feedback, circulate suggested language for the board governance committee to review by March, and prepare a package to present to the full board for consideration in June. The committee did not take a formal vote but directed staff to continue refining the attachments and to provide options for how the board might present alternate ratings.
The committee adjourned after scheduling a follow-up and agreeing to include the performance-evaluation items on March and June agendas.
