Sean C. Morgan
The City Council last week began revamping its process for evaluating the city manager.
According to the council’s contract with City Manager Ray Towry, it is supposed to evaluate his performance after six months. Towry went to work for the city in November.
Some councilors do not like the current format, though, Towry said during the council’s regular meeting on May 9. He provided examples of city manager evaluations from seven other Oregon cities to help the councilors consider the format they would prefer.
One of the complaints is that the council is sometimes trying to quantify things that aren’t quantifiable, Towry said, but at the same time, councilors do need to have a system in place to evaluate the city manager.
Some cities have gone to a round-table discussion, Towry said. That can lead to better understanding among the council and city manager.
“I do think there needs to be a measurable system in place to protect the city,” Towry said, but some items on the current evaluation measure things a councilor has no way to evaluate without being in City Hall every day.
The current form evaluates the city manager in nine different areas. Eight of them include multiple parts that are rated on a four-point scale ranging from unsatisfactory to excellent, with an option for councilors to choose “no observation.”
Towry suggested that the council tie the evaluation directly to the job description and City Council goals, paring the categories the councilors rate down to the six overall objectives listed in the summary of the city manager’s job description.
Councilor Ryan Underwood suggested that a self-evaluation accompany the evaluation process and decreasing the number of ratings to three, including “needs improvements,” “meets” and “exceeds.”
“I’m not real big on the numbers,” said Mayor Greg Mahler, agreeing with Underwood.
“Most of the time, I think it’s way too long,” said Councilor Dave Trask. He liked the idea of doing a round-table discussion. “To me, if you can sit and talk about things in the open, not necessarily with the person in the room, I think people tend to be more open.”
Councilor Lisa Gourley said that the evaluation should include data, like scores.
Towry said that evaluation should take place consistently and invited councilors to talk to him directly if there’s something going on in the city that the councilor doesn’t like.
Open communication should be year-round, Towry said, and an evaluation shouldn’t have any surprises.
Towry said he would formulate a proposal based on the council’s discussion and return a draft to the council for consideration during its regular meeting on May 25.
It will include a self-evaluation, a smaller number of scored criteria and a round-table evaluation.
Present at the meeting were councilors Susan Coleman, Gourley, Underwood, Mahler, Trask, James Goble and Diane Gerson.
In other business, Mahler proclaimed May to be Older Americans Month.