Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-05-29 Council Appointed Officers Committee Summary Minutes Council Appointed Officers Committee SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 7 Special Meeting May 29, 2024 Chair Lauing called the meeting to order in the Community Meeting Room and by virtual teleconference at 3:30 P.M. Present In Person: Lauing (Chair), Burt, Kou Present Remotely: Absent: CALL TO ORDER Chair Lauing called the meeting to order. Chair Lauing announced that the Committee was to make recommendations to Council on the timing and process for CAO reviews for 2024. He noted there were four officers – the City Attorney, City Manager, City Auditor, and City Clerk. He stated the decision could be to do the same thing for all or something different for any of them. He discussed that there had been a bit of a bumpy a process last year, which he hoped to avoid this year. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak for any un-agendized items. ACTION ITEMS 1. Discussion Regarding Council Appointed Officers (CAO) Annual Performance Evaluation Process and Goal Setting PUBLIC COMMENTS Herb B. asked that goalsetting for Council appointed officers not be done in closed session to allow the public to speak intelligently to those specific goals. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 7 Sp. Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Summary Minutes 05/29/2024 Chair Lauing wanted the meeting to result in a process outcome but also that there be discussion about prior years. MRG Consultant Dan Rich introduced himself and noted that he was affiliated with RPMG and MRG. Council Member Burt asked if there had been a contract with MRG for 10 years. He noted that there had not been discussion related to MRG continuing to be the CAO review firm. He asked what the bounds of the contract were. He spoke of having an independent consultant in the past, which was a one-person firm. He was concerned that the current process was too cursory. He discussed not knowing the appropriate expectations of different CAOs and there not being guidance giving a point of reference and that it was important in accountability and goalsetting. He referenced a recent enlightening VTA meeting on the process. He had observed MRG's approach to be more cursory than the previous consultant and what had occurred at VTA. He wanted to know if the process could be opened to define what was being sought. He asked if MRG had to be used for the next year or if other options could be explored and, if so, if there would be consequences. He understood that there was latitude in terms of the depth of the current contract. He spoke of individual Council member feedback being compiled and provided to the body being valuable, which he had not experienced with MRG. HR Director Sandra Blanch would have to research how long there had been a contract with MRG, but they were in the second year of a three-year contract. She believed the last time an RFP was completed was prior to the last contract with MRG. The contract was to facilitate the CAO evaluation process and spoke to what was outlined in the document that would be reviewed by the Committee today. She could forward the Committee the scope of services. Regarding MRG and exploring other options and the consequences thereof, she would have to review the language under the contract terms tract. The scope of the contract spoke to the consultant interviewing each Council member, and each Council member could review the questionnaire that had been developed in the past and add to it or modify it as Council may direct. There could be input in the evaluation of each CAO and a conversation with each CAO and a discussion with Full Council in closed session to discuss modification to the questionnaire before the process would take place. For example, changes could be made to last year's process. Chair Lauing questioned what the VTA Board received as deliverable content and if a more scope of work/number of hours could be added to the MRG contract. Council Member Burt remarked that a good portion of the deliverable was agreeing on strategic and more granular goals and performance improvements, which were not different than what was in the current process but different in degree and depth. He queried if a facilitator being brought in by MRG for a project was at a fixed or hourly price. If it was a fixed price, there was incentive to truncate the process as the consultant may be asked to do more than they would SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 7 Sp. Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Summary Minutes 05/29/2024 be compensated for. He discussed wanting to go deeper, but not having enough time was an important matter and an issue. HR Director Blanch responded that the MRG contract spoke to the process and the project, not specific hours. The contract had an agreed upon rate specified for each CAO, which was $11,000 each for the City Manager and City Attorney and $14,600 each for the City Clerk and City Auditor. There was also a rate for additional services, which was $300 an hour. MRG Consultant Rich replied that he should check with the CEO, but he understood that this project was a fixed price, but he did not know that price. Council Member Burt discussed the cost being small and the matter being important. He was skeptical that the depth he had described could be provided for that cost. Council Member Kou outlined why she applauded Deborah Figoni with MRG. Since working with someone other than her, she had felt rushed in the process. She suggested starting with establishing a Council evaluation foundation. She stated that what was going to be evaluated this year was not being discussed. She requested a copy of the contract so the scope could be reviewed, a formalized foundational process discussed, and the Committee could address omitting or adding what may be needed to address what should be accomplished and what should be accounted for to the public in the evaluations. She noted that each facilitator with MRG may have a different style and suggested there be a facilitator to facilitate the entire process. She thought foundational goals needed to be developed related to performance. Chair Lauing thought the discussion should center around setting goals but that resource and contract could be discussed. Council Member Burt wanted Council members to be educated on best practices for a CAO review. He was concerned that there had not been continuity with MRG in the past three or four years since Deborah Figoni was the facilitator. He felt that the CEO of MRG had conducted the most cursory approach, which also concerned him. He wanted someone who had expertise in the review process (who would be hired by Council), a person to have independence to reflect the perspectives of the CAOC, and that the facilitator operate on behalf of and represent the viewpoints of the CAOC. Chair Lauing added, regarding continuity, that there had been three different people in three years, which he found to be an issue. He believed MRG Consultant Rich had been given a template by MRG showing how things should be done, which could be changed, and he proposed that MRG Consultant Rich be included in devising the right goals for the desired review. Council Member Kou recommended that MRG provide a number of candidates rather than a template being handed to one person. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 7 Sp. Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Summary Minutes 05/29/2024 MRG Consultant Rich stated that MRG had a template to use as a starting point, but he believed the Committee would decide the process, and he was not wed to any particular template or process. He was happy to work with the Committee to ensure that the process would meet desired objectives. He would not take offense to the Committee talking with other consultants, etc. He thought the goal was to do this fairly expeditiously, but the Committee needed to be comfortable with what was occurring. He would relay the Committee's direction to MRG. Council Member Kou asked who the consultant was for Mountain View when Dan Rich was City Manager. She stated that comments were perhaps diluted or not brought to the CAOC's attention after Deborah Figoni's retirement. She questioned who the 360 interview questions were posed to. MRG Consultant Rich answered that in his 14 years as a city manager in 2 cities, he was facilitated definitely once, maybe twice, so they were generally not facilitated by an outside consultant. Concerning the final review, he detailed what their process had been. Regarding Council Member Kou's statement related to comments being diluted or not being brought to the MRG's attention after Deborah Figoni's retirement, he discussed group writing and consensus not being easy. As a facilitator of the process, he saw his role as hearing Committee members and pulling out common themes and major points, not every comment said. He thought it was important that the Committee and Full Council be comfortable with the process and what was being asked by the CAOC in interviews and what was being asked of the appointees in their self-reports. His priority was to get clarity. Traditionally a 360 would include superiors, peers, and one's direct report, although it could be done any number of ways. He understood that a 360 would not be done this year. Chair Lauing added, regarding possible diluted or absent comments, that the interview process was a minimum of 25 hours and many hours put into writing a good document. HR Director Blanch remarked that the 360 was done on alternating years. Chair Lauing suggested discussing the objectives for the reviews relative to the CAO objectives and then discussing who could do it, how it would be selected, etc. He thought the contract was a minor detail at this point. Council Member Burt was interested in doing a cross-comparison to the current VTA process, and he could provide the document from VTA for side-by-side comparison. Chair Lauing inquired if without the document Council Member Burt could recall bigger objectives than their work plan and eventually elicit from the CAOs more about their jobs. Council Member Burt stated the first was the education and mentoring process of Council in terms of the process and proper expectations of a CAO's governing body and what would and SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 7 Sp. Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Summary Minutes 05/29/2024 would not be appropriate expectations, which would allow officials to be more informed and capable when going into the specifics of a review. Individual and group conversations could be cursory or intended to draw out information, which he elaborated on. He discussed scheduling enough time to have needed conversations. Chair Lauing inquired how objectives/goals not tied to Council objectives and work plans should be documented. He suggested, for example, that a department's 3-year strategic plan include subtitles, such as succession planning, etc. Council Member Burt explained why he wanted to examine reviews from previous years to answer Chair Lauing's question. Council Member Kou proposed there be more CAO meetings or a retreat to discuss the process for next year. She stated it may need to be done earlier in the year if the consultant should provide three or four candidates to interview. Related to the process, she suggested there be onboarding/review for Council members. Council Member Burt wanted there to be as much feedback as possible related to this year's process and then to build off that for next year. Chair Lauing requested MRG Consultant Rich speak to the process staying the same versus changing this year. MRG Consultant Rich suggested the Committee review the questions that had been drafted for the appointees to respond to and that Council Member Burt get information on the VTA process to share with the Committee members independently and then the Committee meet again and use the list MRG had as a starting point and the VTA process to create a modified process and list of questions. He acknowledged that he heard the conversation about MRG and the selection process, and the Committee could make a decision related to that. He did not want the Committee to feel compelled to use him or any templates MRG was starting with. If the scope changed dramatically, MRG would need the opportunity to object. Chair Lauing wanted to determine what was missing in the current process with respect to questions, strategy, etc. The Committee agreed to individual Committee members reviewing past materials, draft questions, etc., and then returning for a follow-up Committee meeting on June 14 to discuss modifications to the process. Chair Lauing asked if it would be an agenda or a consent item for Council if the Committee should reach a conclusion. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 7 Sp. Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Summary Minutes 05/29/2024 Council Member Burt did not think it would need to go to Council if it was generically the same but greater depth had been gone into. Assistant City Manager Kiely Nose voiced that if the scope of work should change, there needed to be Council approval for a revised contract with MRG. She suspected purchasing limits were being reached with the current, which would be a Council consent item. City Attorney Molly Stump explained why there was not time to put the item on consent for Council for June 17 or 18. Regarding governance, she summarized why she did not think Council approval was a legal requirement. Chair Lauing did not think doing something more thorough and robust would cause a lot of negative votes, so he did not believe it need to be put on consent. Council Member Burt expressed that the contract financials would need to go on consent. The June 14 meeting would give MRG an opportunity to determine the cost of a new scope. If there was to be cost adjustment, it could come back to Council after vacation. There was a question of MRG beginning interviews between June 14 and the when the possible contract ratification would occur. He noted there would be funds to do that portion of the review under an assumption that there would be willingness to increase the contract according to expanding the scope. Chair Lauing added that there was $14,600 in the contract that would not be used for the auditor. Assistant City Manager Nose commented that an approach could be that the Committee and Council identify the revised scope and price and have that discussion after the June 14 meeting and go to Council for affirmation. MRG could likely then start the normal process under the existing contract, including interviews, and then MRG could bring a contract amendment in August based on whatever Council may approve on consent in terms of the revised process. MRG could continue with the current scope through July and potentially expand the scope in August. This would assume using MRG as the consultant for this year. She recommended that Council affirm any changes of process after the June 14 meeting, and she would need to determine how that would be agendized. Council Member Burt remarked that could be discussed on June 14 and determined whether it be recommended as an agenda or a consent item. City Attorney Stump added that there was also the possibility of an information item. She thought Council colleagues would be interested in when materials would be received and feedback required. She underlined that CAOs wanted to ensure that their participation in the process would serve what Council would be looking for and facilitate the dialogue and feedback given to the CAO, and the key part was what the self-evaluation should look like. She had never SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 7 Sp. Council Appointed Officer’s Committee Meeting Summary Minutes 05/29/2024 gotten guidance on that, other than rarely hearing a comment from a Council member that the information provided was helpful, and she requested guidance related to what Council needed from a CAO. Council Member Kou suggested there be a formal evaluation of the facilitator after the process was completed, which could be valuable to the consultant also. Not necessarily tied to the CAO evaluations, she suggested that CAOs have one-on-one meetings with Council members to address demands on staff. She would appreciate knowing staff's thoughts about her and if she needed to make any improvements. She highlighted they should be able to freely evaluate Council members and that there be no repercussions. Council Member Burt mentioned that the City Manager had regular semiweekly one-on-one meetings, and he suggested that maybe each year one of those be a reflective conversation and not a conversation over immediate issues. Chair Lauing felt the conversation was constructive, and he intentionally made the agenda broad so there could be discussion about making the process better for the CAOs, which would help make it better for the City. Council Member Kou requested a copy of the contract. HR Director Blanch would forward that today. Chair Lauing would forward the draft questions and an example of the City Manager review with questions from last year with yellow edits that were new suggestions. MRG Consultant Rich added that the City Manager review document was a template from last year and included changes he added in yellow and strikeouts of things he changed. Chair Lauing requested that MRG Consultant Rich forward the document to City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun and that she distribute it. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P.M.