Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2011-02-08* Revised STUDY SESSION TOWN BOARD Tuesday, February 8, 2011 5:30 p.m. Rooms 202/203 170 MacGregor Ave. AGENDA 5:30 p.m. Town Administrator Evaluation Process. Future Agenda Items. 6:30 p.m. Meeting Adjourn — Prepare for Board Meeting. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Administrator Evaluation Model Framework: Each Trustee involved in the evaluation process needs to reflect on what that process is all about, particularly as it relates to the public sector. Each Trustee comes from a different background: large corporation, military service, self employed, small business, government, private employment, public school, higher education, manufacturing, judicial, medical, etc. Some Trustees have extensive backgrounds in evaluating personnel at all levels - from managers and administrative assistants to production -line workers and crew chiefs. Other Trustees have little or no experience in this arena. Each Trustee brings a different perspective to the process. In this environment this evaluation model is presented — to evaluate the Town Administrator on the goals and priorities accomplished during the past fiscal year. In addition to those criteria,what duties within the Town Administrator's job description can be directly observed and evaluated by the Trustees? All this is in the context of what is best for the community and Citizens of Estes Park. As stated in the attached journal article, "Performance evaluation can provide a regular means of communication between councils and their managers. Golembiewski and Gabris endorse performance evaluations as a way to "produce clearer sense of the political geography in the intermediate politics/administration zone, as well as of mutual expectations and of how performance will be operationally estimated". They also endorse using techniques that encourage the exchange of information about roles and activities on a continuous basis rather than waiting for formal performance evaluation. Performance evaluations concentrate on performance attainment and not personality characteristics. 1 Purpose: The purpose of the evaluation of the Town Administrator is to provide a measure of performance that will give the Town Board and the Town Administrator an understanding of how well the goals and objectives of the Town Board have been implemented during the last fiscal year. The Town Administrator should be evaluated on the goals established by the Town Board on, at least, an annual basis. The evaluation items should also include the Town Administrator's job description, but only those areas that can be directly observed by the Town Board. There are four areas in the Town Administrator's job duties that can be directly measured by the Town Board: "Recommend the annual budget; Administer the annual budget; Advise the Board of the financial condition of future needs; and Recommend actions concerning affairs of the town." (Code No. 215, Town of Estes Park) There are functions of the Town Administrator that cannot be adequately evaluated by the Town Board because they are not readily observed by Board members in a manner that can be judged by all in an equal manner. For example, the current job duties state: "Efficient and effective administration of all departments." Trustees cannot adequately evaluate this area of the Administrator's duties because they are not involved in the day-to-day operations and oversight of the various town departments. Recommendations: 1. It is recommended that the Town Board meet with the Town Administrator in mid - September of each year to establish goals for the next fiscal year. This provides: 2 A) Sufficient time after the preliminary July budget meeting with the Town Board, Town Administrator, and department heads to discuss staff priorities for the next fiscal year. B) Newly elected Trustees have had four to five months to become comfortable in their positions and understand the relationships between other Trustees and Administration. C) The September time frame allows for budget adjustments to be considered, if necessary, to meet goals and objectives of the Town Board. 2. There should be no more than four -to -six major goals for the upcoming year. A) Goals need to be attainable and measurable. B) Goals need to be within the scope of the Town Administrator's ability to oversee the processes necessary for achievement. C) Goals need to transfer into criteria against which the Town Administrator can be evaluated by the Town Board. 3. In January, following the annual evaluation of the Town Administrator, the Town Board and Town Administrator should meet to discuss how the Town Board can facilitate the duties of the Town Administrator, i.e. What can the Town Board do to make the Town Administrator's job more effective and efficient? What obstacles exist to hinder the Town Administrator in achieving the desired outcome? The Model: Evaluation of the Town Administrator should occur during the month of November. It is also recommended that a 6 month review be conducted in June of each year. The purpose of the evaluation is to provide a synopsis of the past performance of the Town Administrator to: 3 1. Evaluate the Town Administrator's implementation of Town Board goals and evaluate job duties of the Town Administrator which the Town Board can directly observe. 2. Establish rationale for contractual decisions and compensation for the Town Administrator. 3. Provide an evaluation of the Town Administrator from the Town Board perspective about the skill level and effectiveness of the Town Administrator in implementing the priorities of the Town Board. 4. Provide an evaluation of the Town Administrator's strengths and areas that could be enhanced from a Town Board view point. 5. Each area/item/goal/objective being evaluated should be given a numeric rating (see below) and each area of evaluation should provide written comments directly related to the goal/area being evaluated. A rating of one through seven is used. This provides for a range of performance rankings. 1 2 4 5 6 7 Q Think of the scale as a bell shaped curve measuring the performance of 100 people. In this normal curve analogy approximately 68 percent (see example above) of the population falls into the category of 3, 4, and 5. This is a perfectly acceptable range of performance, shows basic competence and ability to accomplish the task and meet the goal being evaluated. 4 Here is what is proposed: 1. Unable to perform area being evaluated. Unacceptable 2. Needs significant improvement in task completion and/or skills 3. Low average. Moderately acceptable 4. Average or adequate performance; acceptable results 5. High average 6. Excellent performance 7. Far exceeds most all others in the performance area being evaluated. N/A: There may be an N/A or Non -Applicable category when a goal has been set at the beginning of the year and for some reason has been cancelled or changed, or no longer applies. Rankings between 2 and 3 encompasses approximately 13.5 percent of the population. This is an area where low -average to poor performance is observed and goals are not being met. There is significant need for improvement and possibly a lack of understanding of the issues. Rankings in this area should be given examples of specific performance/performance. Ratings between 1 and 2 contain about 2.5 percent of the population. This category would include behaviors that indicate a complete lack of understanding of what is required or why a goal might be important. This person exhibits an inability to perform even at a very basic level and may not recognize that there is even a problem with performance. Rankings in this area should be accompanied by a narrative of specific performance using examples. In using the bell shaped curve analysis, rankings between 5 and 6 would contain about 13.5 percent of the population being evaluated. A person in this category is very competent in the task being evaluated. Performance exceeds what would be expected of 85 to 95 percent of the 5 population. Rankings in this area (and all areas) should be given narrative examples of specific performance. Rankings between 6 and 7 would fall to only 2.5 percent of our supposed 100 people being rated. Clearly this person exhibits exceptional performance in the area being evaluated. Ability in this area exceeds all expectations. Skills could be emulated by others and there is a clear ability to lead and provide innovative solutions to complex situations using the skills being evaluated. Note: Gradations of rankings are encouraged. 3.5 is better than 3; 1.5 is worse than 2 and conveys serious concerns. This also makes the evaluation a bit more useful when there are only seven individuals presenting a judgment. Each area of evaluation should be accompanied by a narrative providing an example of the performance area being evaluated. The evaluation program should be developed shortly after the goals are set by the Town Board. In this model that would occur sometime in late September or early October. Entries in the form would change from year to year as the Board creates new goals or duties added to the Town Administrator's job description that can be evaluated by the Board. Some entries would remain constant such as "Recommends an annual budget" and "Administration of the annual budget", etc. Training: If it is available, training for the Board from an entity such as the Colorado Municipal League should be considered. This should focus on the process of evaluating the Town Administrator and the communications that occur around that task. This allow for all parties involved in the evaluation process to have the same base of knowledge about the best practices used in municipal government. 6 Conclusion: Once a process is adopted it should be kept in place for several years and periodically refined when circumstances dictate. It is important to evaluate the evaluation process to make certain that all parties are getting the information they need to get the best possible results for the Citizens of Estes Park. 7 To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Halburnt TOWN ao ESTES PA K From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: February 8, 2011 RE: Future Town Board Study Session Items Other Items Not Scheduled Raw Water rights discussion SOPA introduction of Executive Director & business plan, etc. (Bob Gunn to schedule) Town owned properties Estes Park Economic Council — Kathay Rennels in February Mayor's right to vote MPEC Proforma — Greenplay Historic Preservation Ordinance Committee — review public input — March 8th Staff request the Board discuss each item and determine if they would like the item scheduled for a study session or as a discussion item for a Town Board meeting.