City Manager Performance Evaluation Committee

City Manager Performance Evaluation Committee 10 N. Division St., Room 302A Battle Creek, MI 49014 Wednesday, February 10, 2016 2:00 p.m. Committee Members Present: Commissioners Andy Helmboldt, Susan Baldwin, Kaytee Faris Committee Members Absent: Mayor Dave Walters Staff Present: Rebecca Fleury, City Manager: Nancy Mullett, Labor Attorney: Vicki Houser, City Clerk Call to Order: Comm. Helmboldt called the meeting to order at 2:01 p.m. Public Comment: None Approval of Minutes: A motion was made by Comm. Faris, supported by Comm. Baldwin, to approve the October 7, 2015 and December 9, 2015 City Manager Performance Evaluation Committee minutes. All yes, none opposed. Motion approved. City Manager Progress Update Comm. Helmboldt noted the City Manager Progress Update will be sent to all of the Commissioners prior to the City Manager Evaluation Committee meetings in the future. Comm. Helmboldt stated he would request the Commissioners review the update and determine the goals listed are still the priorities for the City. Rebecca Fleury, City Manager, stated the biggest project is implementation of the Community Economic Development Ecosystem, stating this is an opportunity to look at how everything is interrelated and to consider if the City is structured to capitalize on this. Ms. Fleury stated this would allow administration to look at all aspects of community service and programs to ensure the proper delivery of services, making sure each service aligns with the City’s 8 goals, and to understand the expectations for each. Ms. Fleury also discussed the different expectations of her 9 bosses, the Commissioners, emphasizing the need to follow City policies or procedures, but to also be open to consider changes if the Commission as a whole feels the change to policy is warranted. Ms. Fleury requested input from the Committee for addressing individual Commissioner’s desires that fall outside of the City’s goals or policies, to ensure the Commissioner does not feel she was not responsive to their request or suggestion. Comm. Baldwin inquired as to the frequency of requests outside of City policy, stating issues need to come to the City Manager Evaluation Committee as this may later affect the City Manager’s evaluation and expectations. Nancy Mullett, Labor Attorney, noted there are specific times, particularly the first few months of each calendar year, that may provide an overload to the City Manager, who must be responsive to numerous responsibilities, such as union negotiations and budget preparation. Comm. Helmboldt noted the managerial competencies portion of the evaluation is weighted at 75% of the total, although it is only one item. Comm. Baldwin, noting that as much as the Commission tries to be diplomatic, there are processes and guidelines which must be followed, stating the Commission cannot allow an individual Commissioner to expect something outside of the process. Comm. Baldwin expressed concern the Commissioner may negatively evaluate the City Manager if they did not have something resolved in the manner they had requested, although the City Manager had been responsive. Comm. Baldwin noted the situation is unique with elected officials as the City Manager’s boss, stating it was important to ensure fairness to the City Manager, while recognizing the Commissioner’s request/concern is coming from residents. Comm. Baldwin stressed it is important to address any miscommunications as soon as possible. Comm. Helmboldt suggested the City Manager communicate the individual Commissioner’s request/concern to the whole Commission to help find a resolution. 1 Ms. Mullett recommended the Committee members, as leadership for the City Manager’s evaluation, communicate to the whole Commissioner that it is understandable that individual Commissioners have individual questions and projects, and that the City Manager will address them and be responsive. Ms. Mullett further recommended those issues that have been responded to, but not to the satisfaction of an individual Commissioner, be considered/reviewed by the full Commission, rather than just the City Manager. Comm. Helmboldt expressed concern the Committee would become the conduit for all special requests, recommending the wording be focused on the performance of the City Manager. Ms. Fleury stated it was important that the Committee be aware that if a Commissioner did not like a response, this does not indicate the City Manager was unresponsive, stating she would expect an opportunity to present the issue to the whole Commission to help everyone move forward. Ms. Fleury stated she has attempted to work out the issues by providing different options or strategies. Comm. Helmboldt stated he would provide a communication from this Committee, first to review the goals and to ask if each was still a priority, but to also ask Commissioners to communicate any issues or dissatisfaction, stating this may provide an opportunity to reassess a process to ensure it is achieving the best result. Comm. Faris expressed concern this particular Commissioner has not yet come to the other Commissioners, asking how the City Manager could bring this to the full Commission. Ms. Mullett recommended the Committee pose the intermediate question, asking if a Commissioner feels the City Manager has not been responsive, asking them if there may be a misunderstanding, giving them an opportunity to clarify their perspective. Comm. Baldwin agreed this would provide the Commissioner, and the whole Commission, an opportunity to reevaluate a process or procedure. Comm. Baldwin also commented on the numerous specific goals, commenting that some goals or objectives may have been completed. Ms. Fleury stated there will always be goals that are ongoing, noting positive strides are being made toward the goal, but that others have a specific end so that they may be checked off. Ms. Fleury stated it was important that she was completely aware of the Commission’s expectations for timing and completeness of the goals. Ms. Fleury noted she provides more detailed information in her weekly reports, noting the City Manager Evaluation Goal Update is a summary of the prior two months activity. Ms. Fleury suggested a work session to touch base with the Commission to answer questions, discuss goals and priorities, discuss how the evaluation tool is implemented, and to clarify any concerns. Comm. Faris agreed the work session was not to reinvent the goals document, but to ensure it is still working and define the goals in a clear manner. Ms. Faris recommended language indicating that if the City Manager’s response is not satisfactory, they would need to bring their concern to the City Manager Evaluation Committee. Ms. Mullett asked if it was appropriate for the City Manager to include comments related to ongoing issues. Comm. Helmboldt noted the evaluation process renews every October 1st, with the Commission approving new goals, asking if the retreat should be annually or semi-annually during non-election years. Comm. Baldwin stated some municipalities will have the meeting/retreat shortly after the election to establish the process, possibly January or February. Comm. Baldwin stated the work session would allow the Commission to discuss the specifics of the goals, to discuss a procedure if someone feels things are not responded to appropriately, and to tweak the goals if needed. Ms. Fleury stated this could provide more specific information on what progress looks like, stating the Committee could discuss what determines that a goal has been completed. Ms. Mullett recommended completed goals remain on the update to demonstrate the achievement of the specific goal. Comm. Helmboldt expressed concern that more specifics should not be added until the City has completed their first course of Priority Based Budgeting (PBB), stating it may be easier to reevaluate the specific goals at that time. Ms. Fleury agreed it may be easier to define the metrics that partner with the PBB pieces after completing the first year. 2 Ms. Mullett stressed the importance of determining a process to address specific relationship concerns, what steps are to be taken when a Commissioner does not agree with the City Manager or a city process, stating they need to agree how disputes are resolved. Comm. Faris agreed an intermediate process to address conflict resolution was needed. Committee members agreed a Commission work session be scheduled on February 23, 2016 at 6:00 pm at the Department of Public Works. Committee members requested that Nancy Mullet, Labor Attorney and Jill Steele, City Attorney both be present at the work session, along with Ms. Fleury and Mr. Dearing, the Assistant City Manager. Comm. Helmboldt agreed to lead the conversation with Mayor Walters, stating he would provide a list of topics to discuss. Comm. Baldwin noted the City Manager’s update includes many goals and objectives, noting all of this is being done while she is also completing the daily business of running the City. Comm. Baldwin stated she understood some projects were ongoing and would not be accomplished immediately, asking if the Commission was being fair to ask for so much when she also had everyday responsibilities to ensure services were provided to the City. Comm. Helmboldt recommended the Committee discuss whether some of the items on the update were more appropriate to include into the Managerial Competencies, or if they should be reconsidered in the new evaluation cycle. Ms. Mullett suggested the Committee identify which goals are desirable and which are mandatory in a City Manager, providing a means to identify priorities. Comm. Faris recommended the Committee plan additional time for the April meeting to ensure all items are discussed. Committee Discussion: There were no additional Committee discussions. Next Meeting: April 13, 2016 at 1:00 pm. Adjournment: Comm. Helmboldt adjourned the meeting at 3:28 p.m. 3