HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Agendas (6)1
Special Meeting
September 13, 2004
Mayor Beecham called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. in the
Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Kishimoto, Morton (arrived 5:35 p.m.),
Mossar, Ojakian
ABSENT: Cordell, Freeman, Kleinberg
1. Oral Communications
None.
2. CAO Evaluation Process, Finalize Criteria and Schedule
Mayor Beecham turned the meeting over to Council Member Mossar,
Chair of the CAO Committee.
CAO Committee Chair Mossar stated the purpose of the meeting was
to review the work performed by John Shannon with input from the
Committee and the CAOs on the evaluation criteria and process, as
well as the schedule. She asked for questions from Council Members.
Mayor Beecham questioned the administrative procedures regarding
filing the annual performance evaluations and who has responsibility
for the various aspects of the procedures.
Chair Mossar stated the files would be kept in a locked cabinet in the
Mayor’s office and the Mayor and Vice Mayor would keep the keys.
The City Clerk would have the responsibility to pass on the keys to the
new Mayor and Vice Mayor, but would not have access to the cabinets.
John Shannon said he would include a section in the Performance
Evaluation System on the responsibilities of the Mayor.
Chair Mossar requested that Mr. Shannon prepare the administrative
procedures and preferred timeline for the CAO Committee to review.
Mayor Beecham noted the process should begin annually immediately
upon Council’s return from the summer break so it would be final by
2
the end of the year. The Clerk would be responsible for ensuring
continuity.
City Attorney Gary Baum pointed out the timeline is inconsistent with
management and professional performance evaluations, as well as the
CAO contracts.
Chair Mossar noted the timeline could be part of contractual
negotiations, but the Performance Evaluation System must be
approved tonight to stay on schedule.
Mayor Beecham said since the CAO evaluations are behind schedule,
this issue must be part of discussions with the CAOs and CAO
contracts could be amended to reflect the new schedule.
Mr. Shannon stated he would meet first with Council Members and
then the CAOs and prepare a summary of objectives identified by the
CAOs, as well as Council Members. He anticipated both activities
would be undertaken sequentially and would have this information to
Council Members prior to the performance evaluation with the City
Manager on October 19, 2004.
Mayor Beecham expressed concern regarding the relationship between
compensation and performance, as mentioned on Page 3, since it
leaves the entire compensation assessment wide open.
Mr. Shannon indicated the City already had a Variable Compensation
for City management and professionals. He noted also there are
prevailing practices, which are being collected as part of the survey by
Human Resources.
Council Member Kishimoto noted one element is market-based and
one is incentive-based, and only the market-based adjustment became
part of the CAO base salary, which could be used as a guide.
Chair Mossar said the intent is to create a bonus, which would be a
negotiation between the Council and the CAOs.
Mr. Baum stated the current practice for the Variable Management
Compensation is for 0-7 percent of the base salary.
Mayor Beecham requested there be consistency regarding the use of
the words “goals” and “objectives” throughout the Performance
Evaluation System.
3
Council Member Morton disagreed with the necessity of the facilitator’s
interview with individual Council Members regarding the CAOs. He
stated he would rather meet individually with the CAOs.
Chair Mossar confirmed the full Council would meet with each
individual CAO.
Mr. Shannon stated the interview process would allow the facilitator to
gather information from each Council Member and prepare a summary
evaluation, which would serve as the basis for Council’s decision, and
he thought the interview would be preferred over filling out a form.
Mayor Beecham said the purpose of the process is to develop a
consensus evaluation by the Council for each CAO.
Council Member Morton pointed out the Council would provide the
consensus and not the facilitator.
Vice Mayor Burch stated the process would be followed at this time,
and possibly some steps could be eliminated in the future.
MOTION: Chair Mossar moved, Vice Mayor Burch seconded, to
accept the draft CAO Performance Evaluation System Procedures,
Work Plan and Process and direct the facilitator to set the wheels in
motion.
MOTION PASSED 6-0
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.