Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-12-16 Council Appointed Officer Agenda Packet Council Appointed Officers Committee 1 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Wednesday, December 16, 2015 Special Meeting Community Meeting Room 4:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 10 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items. If you wish to address the Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers/Council Conference Room, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Committee, but it is very helpful. Call to Order Oral CommunicationsMembers of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Agenda Items 1.Discussion and Direction Regarding Council Appointed Officers (CAO) Performance Evaluation Process Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 1 Memo Confidential To: City of Palo Alto Council CAO Committee From: Debra Figone Re: 2015 CAO Performance Evaluation Process Date: December 8, 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction: Municipal Resource Group, LLC (MRG) entered into a 3-year contract with the City of Palo Alto effective June 4, 2015 to provide consulting and facilitation services for the annual Council/CAO Performance Evaluation process based on a Request for Proposal (RFP) from the City. At the time that MRG first met with the CAO Committee on June 4, 2015 to discuss qualifications and approach, it was acknowledged that the City was in a period of transition between a former consultant and MRG, and that new process approaches would be undertaken and assessed after the first year of working together. Although overall feedback to date has been positive about the process, work with the City Council and CAO’s in designing and facilitating the process has exceeded what was anticipated in the original proposal. The City Manager and MRG have discussed that a contract amendment may be required to appropriately calibrate scope and costs. In this regard, feedback from the CAO Committee is important to ensure that contract scope and costs reflect the interests of all parties. Purpose and Desired Outcomes: The purpose of this debrief is to solicit feedback from the Council’s CAO Committee, MRG and the CAO’s about the 2015 CAO performance evaluation process. The desired outcomes for this debrief are to understand:  What worked well about the 2015 process.  What changes would be desirable and why.  Considerations for desired service levels and approach, and possible contract amendment.  Timeline considerations for 2016. 2 Report Structure: The structure of this report is designed to facilitate the debrief as follows: I. Discuss “Process Satisfaction Survey” results and comments. II. Review “Overall 2015 CAO Evaluation Process” and discuss specifics by exception. III. Review timeline considerations for 2016. MRG Recommendations of Significance Found in this Report: The following is a recap of significant recommendations discussed in this report: A. Input Process for Direct Reports and CAO Follow-up: 1) Evaluate and potentially revise the direct report input process. This could take place through an MRG facilitated process. If MRG facilitation is needed a cost proposal could be submitted to the City. A recommendation for a revised input process would be made to the CAO Committee for approval prior to the 2017 performance evaluation process. 2) Use a biennial frequency to receive direct report input to CAO performance, the next cycle being 2017. 3) During the intervening years and as part of the CAO self-evaluation process, report on actions taken and progress achieved on employee input from the prior year. B. CAO Compensation Market Survey and Council Decision about CAO Compensation 4) Confirm that the Committee desires an annual update of a compensation market survey. 5) Confirm that the Committee would like MRG to continue to facilitate the Council discussion and decision-making process about CAO compensation, drawing on technical support from City staff as needed. C. CAO Committee Debrief about Process 6) In future years, schedule the CAO Committee process debrief as an “optional” meeting. 3 D. 2016 Process Timeline 7) Map out a 2016 process schedule no later than May 1 and place a priority hold on key dates on the Council and CAO calendars. 8) Consider the CAO performance evaluation process a priority and not easily subject to calendar bumping and rescheduling. 9) Ensure that there is an internal champion and project manager who can work with MRG and the CAO’s to coordinate, communicate, and run “interference” and “ensure” timely submittals at key junctures. 10) Target process launch for no later than June 1 with completion no later than November 30 each year. 11) Designate a City point person to trigger the mid-year Council/CAO performance check-in process. Conclusion: MRG is very pleased to be working with the City of Palo Alto on this important process. We hope that this debrief will be helpful in ensuring a successful 2016 CAO evaluation process. Any required changes in the scope of services and contract will be brought back to the City Council for approval. 4 DEBRIEF I. PROCESS SATISFACTION SURVEY In anticipation of this debrief and during closed session, MRG was asked to solicit Council and CAO feedback about the process. In response to this request, MRG developed and administered a confidential on-line survey that was made available to all Council members and CAO’s. The following statements were posed to elicit range of “agreement” about the process. 14 invitations to participate were issued via e-mail on October 29, 2015 (9 councilmembers and 4 CAO’s) and 5 responses were received. The results are included in Attachment 1. MRG Perspective and Recommendations: MRG appreciates the positive and constructive feedback received thought the surveys. MRG also noted areas for improvement throughout the process. In response to some of the comment areas, MRG has the following perspectives and recommendations: 1) Satisfaction Survey Comments about Input Process for Direct Reports: Input from the direct reports for each CAO was obtained through a confidential on-line survey (see Attachment 4 for a sample survey). The direct reports for each CAO were invited to participate through individual e-mail correspondence. The survey was an open- ended question method and focused on surfacing issues and concerns in the organization (both from a city-wide and a department perspective as relevant). The open-ended question approach and the focus on allowing employees to surface issues and concerns, was at the request of the City administration. MRG believes that in this regard, the survey was successful in achieving important feedback about issues and concerns from direct reports. However, it should be noted that the survey that was requested, designed and implemented was not included in the original proposal from MRG. Because of questions and comments received during the process about the results of the survey, MRG agrees that the Direct Reports input process should be evaluated and potentially revised. This includes evaluating the purpose for the input and adjusting the contract scope and costs accordingly. MRG also believes that regardless of type of instrument or focus, the direct report input process should occur every other year and not every year. In our experience, feedback processes require time for follow up to demonstrate to the participants that their feedback was heard, understood, and taken seriously. Additionally those requesting the feedback (in this case the CAO’s) may need to engage the participants to seek more clarity about the feedback. Another process re-administered too soon without the participants understanding what happened with their original feedback can undermine credibility in the process and in those asking for their input. 5 Waiting until the 2017 CAO evaluation process to re-administer a form of direct report input survey will 1) allow time for the CAO’s to fully process and engage with their direct reports about the input received in 2015, 2) to work with MRG (if the City desires) to re-evaluate the purpose for the input survey and the best tool to use, and 3) potentially save costs to the City assuming no change in the current approach. A 360-type survey was suggested in the Process Satisfaction Survey. A 360-type survey is very different instrument than the input survey used in 2015 and can be very time consuming and costly to develop and administer. 360’s are usually more appropriate as a development tool and are typically not recommended for performance evaluations. MRG could debrief with the CAO’s about the approach that was used, alternatives, and cost considerations. A proposal could be submitted to the City depending on the need for MRG support. A recommendation regarding a process change from what was used in 2015 could be provided to the CAO Committee at a future date and in sufficient time for the 2017 process. Recommendations regarding “Input Process for Direct Reports”: 1. Evaluate and potentially revise the direct report input process. The evaluation would include scope and cost alternatives and could take place through an MRG facilitated debrief with the CAO’s. If a process change were desired, a recommendation would be made to the CAO Committee for approval prior to the 2017 performance evaluation process. 2. Use a biennial frequency to receive direct report input to CAO performance, regardless of instrument. The next cycle for administering an input process would be in 2017 for the 2016 performance evaluation. 3. During the intervening years and as part of the CAO self-evaluation process, each CAO would report on actions taken and progress achieved on employee input from the prior year. MRG would like Committee feedback on the above recommendations and the Direct Report input process. 2) Satisfaction Survey Comments about CAO Evaluation Report(s) and Facilitation MRG appreciates the comments received in the survey about the CAO Evaluation Reports and Facilitation and will consider them in improving next year’s process. Recommendations about CAO Evaluation Report(s) and Facilitation: MRG has no other recommendations of significance at this time. MRG would like Committee feedback about the CAO Evaluation Report(s) and Facilitation process. 6 II. OVERALL 2015 CAO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROCESS The following is a re-cap of the key elements of the 2015 CAO Performance Evaluation Process. The re-cap uses the “yellow process matrix” included in Attachment 2 as the framework and order for this discussion. This re-cap allows for comment on each segment of the process as needed. Process Steps, Comments and Recommendations: Step #1 – Gather Feedback on CAO’s Performance – This important front end step is described in the yellow matrix included in Attachment 2. It used the following methods to gather input on the CAO’s performance for consideration and inclusion in the CAO’s performance evaluation discussion with the Council and final written evaluation report: a) CAO self-assessment (optional guidelines in Attachment 3) b) Direct Reports on-line survey (sample survey in Attachment 4) c) Council member on-line survey (sample survey in Attachment 5) d) Council member one-on-one interviews (interview questions in Attachment 6) MRG perspective and recommendations: MRG believes that all 4 methods of input were useful. However each has a cost and so it is important to ensure that methods of input are value add to the Council and CAO’s. As noted above, MRG recommends revisiting input method 1b) Direct Reports Survey and administering this type of input every other year. Regarding the use of a Council on-line survey (1c), if this form of input continues, MRG would like to receive 100% participation from the Council, as the survey results are the foundation for the preliminary performance evaluation ratings. Because 100% participation was not achieved this year, the Council member one-on-one interviews, which did have 100% participation, became a very important part of the Council input process. However, an interview process is not a standardized approach as is a survey. The concept behind using both the survey and interview process was to have a standardized way to collect information and to allow for written comment that could then be discussed in the one-on-one interview and used in drafting the preliminary evaluation report. Performance evaluation processes are subjective by their nature. If more quantifiable results are desired as indicated in the Satisfaction Survey Results comment in Attachment 1 of this report, greater Council participation in the on-line survey will be required. That being said, MRG believes that quantified rankings alone are insufficient to capture and convey the nuances of a performance evaluation process. MRG did include the quantified ranking information verbally in facilitating the Council’s initial closed session discussions and found that this was useful to the Council. MRG will incorporate this type of data in the preliminary written performance evaluation reports moving forward. MRG will also consider using the on-line survey questions in Attachment 5 as the basis for the Council one-on-one interviews 7 as opposed to the questions included in Attachment 6. This could help to more efficiently align the information gathered in the on-line survey and the one-on-one interviews. MRG would like the Committee to provide feedback on the use of the on-line survey and one-on-one interviews as methods of seeking Council input at the front end of the process about CAO performance. Step #2 – Conduct Compensation Survey – This step is described in the yellow matrix. The market survey was conducted as in prior years. MRG perspective and recommendations: Market surveys are useful, however they are not the only considerations for compensation decisions. Other considerations include employee performance, budget, internal workforce compensation allocations, total compensation elements, tenure, attraction and retention considerations, etc. Market survey data collection and analysis can be time a consuming and costly process. MRG found that the current year’s data collection and compensation facilitation requirements were beyond the scope of the contract and will be included in the contract discussions with the City Manager. MRG would like the Committee to provide feedback on the value of the compensation surveys and of MRG facilitating the Council’s compensation decision-making process relative to the performance evaluation process. Steps #3 through #9 – CAO Performance Evaluation Discussions and Reports – The following process steps are described in the yellow matrix. Together they lead to the performance evaluation discussion between the Council and CAO and the final written evaluation. For this reason they are considered a “package” for ease of discussion: 3) Prepare a preliminary performance evaluation document 4) CAO Committee meeting (optional - was not needed in 2015) 5) City Council discusses preliminary performance evaluation without CAO present 6) Prepare final draft performance evaluation for Council/CAO discussion 7) CAO reviews final draft and prepares for performance evaluation discussion with the City Council 8) Council/CAO performance evaluation discussion 9) Prepare final evaluation for signatures MRG perspective and recommendations: MRG believes that all of the above steps were important. They ensured that 1) the perspectives of the 9-member Council, each CAO, and CAO direct reports were considered 8 in the evaluation process, 2) all participants were prepared for the various discussions that were held and 3) each CAO was clear on how the Council believes they performed over the prior year and what is expected of them moving forward. In preparing for and working through the next year’s process, MRG will make some adaptations to improve efficiency and clarity, and to factor in the feedback received in the “Process Satisfaction Survey” and from the CAO Committee. At this time, however, MRG does not expect to make wholesale changes. Consequently MRG does not have any recommendations of significance for these parts of the process. MRG would like Committee feedback to ensure that process steps are value add and are scoped appropriately. Step #10 – Debrief process for next year’s performance evaluations and discuss compensation a) Compensation At the time this step in the process was targeted, MRG was uncertain if Council’s closed session discussion and decision making process for the CAO’s would occur with the CAO Committee only or with the Council as a body. It was also unclear what MRG’s role would be. For example, facilitation was not included in the original scope. The Council early in this process reaffirmed that their practice is to meet as body to discuss and decide compensation. The Council did meet on compensation over the course of 2 closed session meetings on November 18 and December 1. MRG provided facilitation and support to this process. b) Process Debrief The CAO Committee is charged with overseeing the performance evaluation process on behalf of the City Council. 2015 was a transition year for this process with a new consultant team. A process debrief might not be needed each year moving forward. MRG perspective and recommendations: MRG believes that the role they played in 1) collecting market compensation survey data and 2) facilitating the Council compensation discussion with the technical support of City staff was helpful to the City Council. MRG has no specific recommendations for changes at this time regarding the compensation process. A 2015 process debrief was planned for this transition year, however, an extensive debrief might not be required annually. MRG recommends including an optional debrief meeting as a placeholder in next year’s CAO evaluation process schedule in the event there is a need. MRG would like Committee feedback about the value of MRG updating compensation surveys and providing compensation discussion facilitation, and about the recommendation for scheduling process debriefs as “optional” for future years. 9 III. TIMELINE CONSIDERATIONS FOR 2016 Annual Process The City’s original RFP for this process set forth under IV. Project Timeline – Estimate of Required Hours that the “City Council desires to complete all the evaluation and compensation discussions by June 30th of each year. It is anticipated that the evaluation process will begin in May and be completed by the end of August.” This was a highly unrealistic timeline for 2015 because in general the City was neither ready to start the project nor clear about how the process would proceed. As indicated throughout this report, there was significant work involved during this start-up year that was not originally anticipated and will be discussed with the City Manager in order to amend the contract for the current year and scope moving forward. The current year’s process took from June 4, 2015, the effective date of contract to this hearing December 16, 2015. Granted, given the “start-up challenges of this year”, we should expect the schedule to improve next year. The Administration and Committee may decide that some services and/or processes are not required. Cost savings may result from some of the recommendations in this report and feedback from the Committee discussion. The parties must be realistic, however, about impacts on schedule that should be expected, such as the Council’s July recess, vacation schedules, the City’s very busy legislative calendar, employment commitments, business and conference travel, etc. These are some of the scheduling impact realities of leading and governing any dynamic city such as the City of Palo Alto. There are also cost impacts associated with delays, rescheduling, late submittals and/or non-participation in key process steps. From MRG’s experience and perspective in working with the City this year, some changes that could help to tighten up the schedule, improve efficiency and potentially control costs are recommended as follows: 1. Map out a realistic schedule by no later than May 1st and place a priority hold on key dates on the Council and CAO calendars. 2. Consider the CAO performance evaluation process a priority and not easily subject to calendar bumping and rescheduling. 3. Ensure that there is an internal champion and project manager who can work with MRG and the CAO’s to coordinate, communicate, run “interference” and “encourage” timely submittals at key junctures. MRG found that it was very labor intensive and time consuming to not have a City project manager, especially early in the process as the project was settling out during this first year. MRG was very appreciative of the role that Suzanne Mason, Assistant City Manager played in this regard once it became clear that this kind of support was needed. Although MRG would expect less demand for this role moving forward, an internal project manager and point person with some standing in the organization is still needed to help the City stay on track. Our experience is the HR Director with the support of the City Manager and/or the Assistant City Manager for Administrative Operations should be assigned to this role. 10 4. Plan to launch the next year’s process no later than June 1st and conclude it no later than November 30th. MRG would like the Committee’s feedback on these recommendations. Mid-year Performance Check-in One topic that has not been discussed is the Council/CAO practice of having an informal mid-year check-in on how the CAO is progressing on goals and other areas that warrant a check-in. One option is to schedule the check-in in the spring and perhaps on an exception basis. If regular one-on-ones are held with the CAO’s there may be less of a need for a mid- cycle review. What is important is to not have any surprises in hearing about issues or concerns in the next year’s process that should have been surfaced sooner. A mid-cycle check-in provides the opportunity for important discussions sooner rather than later. MRG is currently not under contract to provide support for a mid-year performance check-in. MRG recommends that the CAO Committee designate the City’s lead (such as Administrative ACM or HR Director) in coordination with the City Manager in triggering the mid-year review process. This process could also be included in the annual performance evaluation calendar recommended in #1 above. The CAO Committee should discuss how it would like to proceed with this process. Conclusion MRG would like to thank the CAO Committee, City Council, and CAO’s for the opportunity to work together on this important process. MRG hopes that the City found our services of value and representative of the high standard that we hold for our company. We look forward to continuing to work with the City in making the process changes that are needed to meet the needs of all participants moving forward. Attachments: 1 – Process Satisfaction Survey Results 2 – CAO Performance Evaluation Process (yellow matrix) 3 – CAO Performance Evaluation self-assessment – optional guidelines 4 – Sample Direct Report Survey 5 – Sample Councilmember on-line survey 6 – City Council one-on-one interview questions Attachment 1 Process Satisfaction Survey Results Q1. Overall this was a useful and meaningful performance evaluation process. 100% - Agree Q2. During this process I knew what was expected of me and by when (for example, there was clear communication from MRG about the process, instructions, timelines, etc.). 60% - Strongly Agree 40% - Agree Q3. I felt prepared to participate in this process. 20%- Strongly Agree 80%- Agree Q4. I feel that my “voice” was heard (for example, the consultant demonstrated the ability to listen, accurately interpret and fairly represent what was” “heard”. 25% - Strongly Agree 75% - Agree Q5. Process input methods were useful and should be used again (for example, one-on-one interviews with the Council by the consultant, Council online survey, CAO self-evaluations, Direct Reports survey and feedback summary. 20%- Strongly agree 60%- Agree 20%- Undecided Q6. The preliminary, and subsequently refined CAO evaluation report drafted by the consultant was useful, accurate, clear, professional and timely. 20% - Strongly agree 60% - Agree 20% -Undecided Q7. Performance evaluation discussions among Council and with the CAO’s were well facilitated, engaging and meaningful. 20% -Strongly agree 60% -Agree 20% - Undecided Q8. Is there anything else about the process that you would like to comment on, including changes for MRG to consider? This open-ended question in addition to the ability for respondents to comment after each question resulted in the following areas for consideration. In the interest of sharing the feedback Attachment 1 and at the same time maintaining confidentiality, the comments are compiled and summarized into a few areas for consideration: Input Process for Direct Reports  Reconsider how questions are constructed and broaden the survey population.  Consider a 360-feedback approach. CAO Evaluation Report  Work to provide more clarity on Council consensus feedback and direction.  Ensure that critical issues are surfaced and not underplayed.  Consider the value of more precise quantitative rankings. Facilitation  Consultants should feel free to serve as a resource to the process and to the participants by providing active facilitation to build consensus, achieve clear direction, and broaden knowledge about public sector management. Kudos  Process was well organized, respectful and professional.  Communication was great throughout the process.  Process was very well articulated, instructions were clear and deadlines were reasonable and consistent.  Expectations were clear.  Advanced preparation and coaching were helpful.  Nuances of multiple opinions were captured to present a fair summary.  Learned as progressed and liked the process once used. 2015 Palo Alto CAO Final Performance Evaluation Process 1 New Process Steps New Process Description Element of Former Process? New Target Timeline (Subject to Availability & Unknowns) 1. Gather feedback on CAO’s performance Methods include the following: Survey and interview methods of communication will be used to gather individual feedback and perspectives on the performance of each CAO Yes Covers the period of 7/8 – 8/28 as detailed in steps #1 (a) thru (d) a) CAO self-assessment CAO develops self-assessment of own performance for the reporting period. MRG will provide CAO’s with suggested areas to cover in the self assessment based upon experience, best practice and Palo Alto history Yes 7/8 - 8/7 b) Direct Reports survey CAO’s Direct Reports provide feedback on performance through an individual on-line survey. CAO to identify their direct reports with input from MRG. Yes Previously manual survey Direct reports interviewed one on one 7/10 - 7/17 Note: 7/17 is a preliminary close date. Due to July recess, survey will allow late responses until 7/31. Attachment 2 2015 Palo Alto CAO Final Performance Evaluation Process 2 New Process Steps New Process Description Element of Former Process? New Target Timeline (Subject to Availability & Unknowns) c) Councilmember survey City Councilmembers provide feedback on performance through an individual on-line survey. Yes Previously manual survey 8/11 – 8/20 d) Councilmember interviews MRG conducts a 1/1 interview with each Councilmember about their assessment of each appointee. Interviews for all 4 appointees will be conducted in the same meeting. An interview preparation packet is provided in advance of 1/1 interviews to include the following: 1. Cover memo to Council members 2. Compiled results of on-line surveys from direct reports 3. Prior year's final evaluation 4. Appointee self-assessment 5. Interview questions Yes 8/24 – 8/28 2015 Palo Alto CAO Final Performance Evaluation Process 3 New Process Steps New Process Description Element of Former Process? New Target Timeline (Subject to Availability & Unknowns) MRG will have the results of the on-line council survey to prepare for the meeting but will not have the compiled Council survey results at this stage of the process. 2. Conduct Compensation Survey Conduct survey of comparable agencies concurrent with the above process steps for compensation discussion with Council. Yes End of process. See Step #10 3. Prepare a preliminary performance evaluation document MRG summarizes all feedback and prepares a draft evaluation for review with the City Council in Closed Session (see #5) Yes 8/31 - 9/4 4. CAO Committee Meeting (closed session process discussion as needed) This is an optional meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to review MRG’s proposed process for Council’s preliminary performance evaluation discussion in step #5. The CAO committee would provide feedback to ensure that MRG’s approach would meet the Council’s needs. Unknown 9/10 2015 Palo Alto CAO Final Performance Evaluation Process 4 New Process Steps New Process Description Element of Former Process? New Target Timeline (Subject to Availability & Unknowns) 5. City Council discusses preliminary performance evaluation and compensation survey discussion (without CAO present) This is the 1st of 2 meetings and is conducted without the CAO present. The 2nd meeting is shown in step #8 and is conducted with the CAO present. MRG conducts facilitated performance evaluation discussion with City Council in closed session to reach a consensus performance evaluation for each CAO. MRG facilitates compensation discussion. Council delegates authority to the Mayor and CAO Chair to review MRG’s final draft performance evaluation document to ensure it reflects the council discussion prior to distribution to the appointees and the council in advance of steps #7 & 8. Steps #5,6,8 & 9 of new process previously conducted in one session 9/16 & 9/17 6. Prepare final draft performance evaluation for Council/CAO discussion MRG develops a final performance evaluation document based on the group council discussion. Steps #5,6,8 & 9 of new process 9/18 – 9/21 2015 Palo Alto CAO Final Performance Evaluation Process 5 New Process Steps New Process Description Element of Former Process? New Target Timeline (Subject to Availability & Unknowns) The document will be shared with the City Council and the CAO in advance to prepare for closed session. previously conducted in one session 7. CAO reviews final draft and prepares for performance evaluation discussion with the City Council MRG meets with each appointee to prepare them for a closed session with the City Council No previous consultant preparation with CAO 9/22 8. Council/CAO performance evaluation discussion MRG facilitates Council/CAO closed session discussion about performance. To allow sufficient time for Council/CAO discussions, 2 sessions are anticipated. 2 target timeline options are presented. Steps #5,6,8 & 9 of new process previously conducted in one session Option I: 9/23 & 9/24 Option II: 10/13 - 15 9. Prepare final evaluation for signatures MRG will prepare final evaluation for signatures. Steps #5,6,8 & 9 of new process previously conducted in one session Week of 10/19 2015 Palo Alto CAO Final Performance Evaluation Process 6 New Process Steps New Process Description Element of Former Process? New Target Timeline (Subject to Availability & Unknowns) 10. Debrief process for next year’s performance evaluations and discuss compensation MRG will conduct a facilitated debrief of the evaluation process with the full Council or CAO Committee as determined by the Council. Facilitated discussion on compensation. Week of 10/19 City of Palo Alto CAO Performance Process Self-Assessment Optional Considerations and Guidelines Purpose: The purpose of this document is to provide assistance to the City of Palo Alto CAO's in preparing a self-assessment for the annual CAO/City Council performance evaluation process; it’s use is optional. Considerations in Preparing Your Self-Assessment: The performance evaluation between the City Council and the CAO is an important conversation. The CAO’s self-assessment is your opportunity to share with the Council your perspective about how things are going. A self-assessment can cover a lot of territory. It is important to remain focused and strategic in what and how much you cover. Think about the self-assessment as the foundation for your “talking points” during the actual performance review session. Think about what the Council will be considering as they rate your performance through the on-line survey (e.g., the performance criteria for your position; your self-assessment, which they will receive before the survey; etc.). Think about what happened in last year’s review, the feedback you received, and the goals that were established. Think about telling your story in a way that will foster understanding and create the basis for a dialog about what is important to you in the performance of your duties. Some examples of areas to cover include: 1) What your assessment is of your performance over the prior year, including progress on established goals, unanticipated events and their impact on established goals, changes in workload priorities, etc. 2) What you believe the Council should know about the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of/to the organization, the City government and the Community. 3) What your reflections are about the summary results from the direct reports feedback survey, and your action plan and recommendations for addressing their input. (Note: you will receive a preliminary summary before your assessment is due to MRG). 4) What you need from the Council (and others) in order to do your job effectively, and if there are any “gaps” that need to be addressed. 5) What the Council can expect from you. 6) What you see as the priorities for the next year. 7) Issues and trends of strategic importance that should be kept front and center. Format and length of the document are important to consider. It should be readable and hold the Council’s attention. Written communication techniques such as the use of key themes, bolded headings, bulleted and/or short statements, and the use of attachments for support materials are all effective techniques. Attachment 3 INTRODUCTION CITY ORGANIZATION Dear Staff member, Please complete this short survey as part of the Council Appointed Officials evaluation process. Your opinion is an important aspect of this process and this survey is your opportunity to express your thoughts as an individual. All responses are strictly confidential. Candid and constructive feedback is appreciated. The feedback will be compiled and summarized into themes in a consensus­based, constructive report for review by the Councilmembers and the Council Appointed Official. We would like 100% participation to ensure everyone's feedback is considered. Thank you for your time and participation! If you have any questions regarding the survey or the evaluation process, please contact me. Debra Figone debrafigoneconsulting@gmail.com A. What do you see as the most important challenges currently facing our City organization? If you have “no opinion,” please proceed to Question B. Answer the following questions regarding City organization challenges. 1. Please identify 3 to 5 specific issues.   2. What actions about these issues, if any, would you like to see emphasized or focused on during the upcoming year?   CITY AUDITOR OFFICE 3. What is it that you need from Harriet Richardson to ensure these issues are best addressed?   4. What obstacles could stand in the way of success?   B. What do you see as the most important challenges currently facing our office? Answer the following questions regarding the Office of the City Auditor. 5. Please identify 3 to 5 specific issues.   6. What actions about these issues, if any, would you like to see emphasized or focused on during the upcoming year?   FINAL COMMENT 7. What is it that you need from Harriet Richardson to ensure these issues are best addressed?   8. What obstacles could stand in the way of success?   9. Is there anything else you would like to add?   Palo Alto City Auditor Performance Evaluation 2015Palo Alto City Auditor Performance Evaluation 2015Palo Alto City Auditor Performance Evaluation 2015Palo Alto City Auditor Performance Evaluation 2015 INTRODUCTION AUDIT PRODUCTS AND REPORTS TECHNICAL COMPETENCE AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The following is the on­line evaluation instrument that seeks your individual input on the leadership, management and technical competencies of the Palo Alto City Auditor. 1. Please assess the City Auditor on overall audit products and reports. Exceptional Highly Competent Competent Needs Improvement Poor 2. The following are indicators of positive outcomes of the City Auditor's audit products and reports ­ please identify areas of strength or concern: Area of strength Meets expectations Area for development No opinion/Don't know Produces credible, objective, and easy­to­read audit reports that provide useful information to City leaders. Conducts audits, in compliance with Government Auditing Standards, that focus on improving the effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of City departments, programs, services, and activities. Coordinates annual external financial audit with an independent public accounting firm approved by the City Council. Prepares and issues an annual report on the status of recommendations made in completed audits. 3. Comments on the City Auditor's overall audit products and reports ­ please provide examples of areas of strength and areas for development.   4. Please rate the City Auditor on overall technical competence and professional development. Exceptional Highly Competent Competent Needs Improvement Poor Palo Alto City Auditor Performance Evaluation 2015Palo Alto City Auditor Performance Evaluation 2015Palo Alto City Auditor Performance Evaluation 2015Palo Alto City Auditor Performance Evaluation 2015 COUNCIL RELATIONSHIP 5. Indicators of positive traits describing technical competence and professional development: Area of strength Meets expectations Area for development No opinion/Don't know Demonstrates a command of her field of expertise and knowledge of Government Auditing Standards. Establishes and updates audit processes and procedures in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. Engages in continuing professional education (CPE) activities to keep abreast of new developments in her field, to continue to build skills, and to maintain required credentials. Participates in professional activities, such as speaker presentations or serving on a committee of a professional organization. 6. Comments on the City Auditor's technical competence and professional development ­ please provide examples of areas of strength and areas for improvement.   7. Please rate the City Auditor on overall council relationship. Exceptional Highly Competent Competent Needs Improvement Poor 8. Indicators of a successful City Auditor/Council relationship: Area of strength Meets expectations Area for development No opinion/Don't know Keeps Council members appropriately informed of key auditor issues on a timely basis. Assures Council has access to information when they need it. Demonstrates the ability to listen to performance feedback and translate that feedback into action. Is respectful, yet forthright in interacting with Council. Palo Alto City Auditor Performance Evaluation 2015Palo Alto City Auditor Performance Evaluation 2015Palo Alto City Auditor Performance Evaluation 2015Palo Alto City Auditor Performance Evaluation 2015 PUBLIC RELATIONSHIP DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP 9. Comments on the City Auditor's Council relationship ­ please provide examples of areas of strength and areas for improvement.   10. Please rate the City Auditor on overall public relationship. Exceptional Highly Competent Competent Needs Improvement Poor 11. Indicators of a successful public relationship: Area of strength Meets expectations Area for development No opinion/Don't know Is available and accessible to the public. Makes audit reports and other related items accessible to the public. Is a good representative of the City. 12. Comments on the City Auditor's public relationship ­ please provide examples of areas of strength and areas for improvement.   13. Please rate the City Auditor on her overall Leadership as a Department Director. Exceptional Highly Competent Competent Needs Improvement Poor Palo Alto City Auditor Performance Evaluation 2015Palo Alto City Auditor Performance Evaluation 2015Palo Alto City Auditor Performance Evaluation 2015Palo Alto City Auditor Performance Evaluation 2015 STAFF LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT 14. Indicators of positive Department Leadership by the City Auditor: Area of strength Meets expectations Area for development No opinion/Don't know Generally exercises sound judgment. Promotes the Office of the City Auditor’s mission throughout the organization (to promote honest, efficient, effective, economical and fully accountable and transparent city government through performance audits of any city department, program, service or activity. Promotes performance measurement and assessment through the Service Efforts & Accomplishments/Performance Report. Makes herself available to City management to address requests for performance audits, information, and nonaudit services. Is able to balance day­to­day demands while also developing the strategic direction of the City Auditor’s Office. 15. Comments on the City Auditor as a Department Director ­ please provide examples of areas of strength and areas for improvement.   16. Please rate the City Auditor on overall staff leadership and management. Exceptional Highly Competent Competent Needs Improvement Poor Attachment 6 City of Palo Alto CAO Performance Evaluation Process City Council One on One Interview Questions 1. What are your reflections on the appointed official’s performance during the past year? 2. What is going well in your working relationship with him/her? 3. What could be going better (again, considering but not limiting yourself to the preceding factors)? 4. Should he/she be changing any of the priorities? 5. Are there other changes that he/she should make? What should he/she stop doing or start doing? 6. What concerns do you have, if any, about his/her oversight of the performance of the Department Directors and/or staff in their office? 7. What pitfalls have the greatest potential in the next year to compromise his/her effectiveness in dealing with the City Council and in dealing with all of his/her responsibilities: What do you think that he/she should do to avoid them? 8. What do I need to do as your facilitator to best ensure that our performance review meeting is as useful as possible to the Council and to the appointed official? 9. What outcomes of this meeting would lead you to conclude that your time was well spent? 10. Is there anything else that you would like to add or address?