Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-12 Council Appointed Officers Committee Summary MinutesCOUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICER COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 8 Special Meeting May 12, 2025 The Council Appointed Officers Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 4:09 PM. Present In-Person: Stone (Chair), Burt, Veenker Present Virtually: None Absent: None Call to Order Chair Stone called the meeting to order. City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun called the roll and declared all were present. Public Comment There were no requests to speak. Agenda Items 1. Discussion Regarding Council Appointed Officers (CAO) Annual Performance Evaluation Process Review and Goal Setting MRG Consultant Dan Rich expressed his main goals of this meeting were to get consensus on the timeline, the prompts for CAOs to use for self-evaluations, and the interview questions for the Committee. A memo had been provided to councilmembers with 8 suggestions to tweak the process based on last year's experience. A new version of the prompts and interview questions was also provided which showed suggested changes to better align the self- evaluation prompts with the interview questions. Direction was requested from the Committee in terms of changing the timeline for the interviews. It was suggested getting all the interviews done by mid-August. Guidance was also requested in looking at the salary comps. It was opined that the list of agencies used last year was very long, unwieldy and unnecessary. A proposal had been brought forward to align the salary comps with those that are used for other management SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 8 Sp. Council Appointed Officers Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/12/2025 employees, which would be 7 down from 17 or 18 on the current salary comps list. Direction was also requested from the Committee about how to develop the consensus report. It was asked if the Committee wanted more rigidity to make sure the consensus report truly reflected majority view. Another option could be a report on majority view and then another section of other items heard. Public Comment: Herb B. reviewed an email he had sent to the Committee. This commenter thought the new goals/priorities and key performance indicators should be identified to the public and that the public should be given an opportunity to speak about evaluations before the Committee goes into closed session to indicate how the public believes those goals are being met and to suggest other goals or measures. The commenter believed that having individual meetings with MRG Consultant Rich did not fall within the exception of a meeting and that was not an appropriate process. Chair Stone suggested to follow the order in the draft sent by MRG Consultant Rich and started with asking for comments about the interview timeline. Councilmember Burt noted that the proposed timeline showed the interviews of councilmembers to be after summer break, which would be from July 28 to August 8, and this was felt to be more appropriate. It was believed the September dates in the proposed timeline looked too compressed and it was questioned if it could be adjusted if needed. MRG Consultant Rich confirmed that no changes were made to the councilmember interview dates in the detailed timeline because it might have been challenging to have the interviews too early due to finishing the fiscal year. It would be up to the City Clerk and the City Manager in terms of agenda planning concerning closed sessions in regard to the compressed September dates. An alternative option was offered of having closed sessions on a different day or night separate from the regular Council meetings. Vice Mayor Veenker expressed that the July 28 to August 8 window for MRG Consultant Rich to speak to councilmembers may need to be pushed out because of councilmember schedules. Vice Mayor Veenker asked if MRG Consultant Rich did anything with the CAOs to make sure that things were communicated to the Committee in a way that was most helpful. It was wondered if there was any different content that would be helpful to streamline the process. MRG Consultant Rich stated that CAOs were communicated to via email or in person to make sure they were aware of the process and timeline or if there were questions. It was reminded that the prompts on self-evaluations needed to be finalized. It was expressed that KPIs needed to be built in at the beginning of the process. Chair Stone agreed on the proposed interview timeline and liked the Committee's interviews being after the summer recess as that was when their agenda seemed to be the lightest. City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun confirmed the summer break for 2025 is June 20 to August 3. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 8 Sp. Council Appointed Officers Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/12/2025 MRG Consultant Rich stated it was important to lock in some times for interviews in advance of summer break. The calendar could be adjusted 4 or 5 days out to give more flexibility, but it was encouraged that those who were in town take advantage of the early interview slots. Chair Stone moved the discussion to salary comps. Councilmember Burt said the 2 reference points of Berkeley and San Mateo were potentially valuable because of similarities to Palo Alto in terms of size, scope, and services. Both resident population and worker population were looked at as factors. MRG Consultant Rich stated Berkeley and San Mateo were slightly bigger in terms of population and that there were several larger cities already on the list. Human Resources Director Blanch reminded the Committee that a few other Palo Alto employee groups have Berkeley and San Mateo in their comparison benchmark studies. Vice Mayor Veenker questioned if there was a limit on the number of salary comps on the list. Vice Mayor Veenker agreed that it was helpful to have Berkeley on the list. MRG Consultant Rich said there was no limit on the salary comps list other than it was more effort and there were more chances of error. Chair Stone concurred with having Berkeley and San Mateo added to the salary comps list. Chair Stone moved the discussion on to the written consensus report. MRG Consultant Rich was queried about his process in creating the consensus report and about trying to gauge where the Council was in closed session discussions. MRG Consultant Rich said that it was before the closed session discussions and that the report was based on the councilmembers' interviews. Themes were looked at more than individual councilmember's answers for the consensus report. It was expressed that the report should be the consensus or majority view of the Council. Chair Stone questioned if MRG Consultant Rich was making a recommendation on how the consensus report was developed. MRG Consultant Rich answered that no specific recommendation about creating the consensus report was being made and that it was entirely up to the Committee. Suggestions were offered on scenarios where issues would or would not make it into the consensus report. The goal was to get to majority views. Councilmember Burt suggested that if MRG Consultant Rich is unclear on the concurrence on a theme, further information should be elicited. It was felt that when there was a majority support for a point of view, that should stand out. Councilmember Burt believed that a single councilmember having an outlying point of view does not belong in the report; however, if 2 or SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 8 Sp. Council Appointed Officers Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/12/2025 3 councilmembers had a view that was not held by the majority, that warranted at least a mention as a minority perspective. Chair Stone noted that he appreciated the report occasionally mentioning when a single councilmember had an outlying opinion because sometimes there were unusual circumstances. MRG Consultant Rich stated words would be used carefully in his consensus report to be clear when it was a few but not majority and also times when it was worthy of notation even when it was only one or two. Vice Mayor Veenker stated that if certain issues were resolved, then those issues could be removed from the consensus report and not linger. MRG Consultant Rich reminded that the goal of this report was to be consensus and to look at the totality of the year and not just what happened recently. It was asked if the Committee still wanted additional material about citizen's survey, goals, and the City's values shared in the self- evaluations again this year. Outreach would be done to the 2 new members before the process started so that they were comfortable with the process. Chair Stone said that the additional material in self-evaluations would be helpful. Chair Stone moved the discussion to writing questions for CAO evaluations. MRG Consultant Rich presented an updated list of self-evaluation prompts for CAOS, on Packet Page 9 titled "Question to Drive the Palo Alto CAO Evaluation Process." It was hoped these changes would better align with last year's process and the desire for KPIs. Councilmember Burt thought that Question D (How are your direct reports performing?) was of particular interest by the Council and wondered why that question was proposed to be deleted. Councilmember Burt did not want to overfocus on the Council priorities and still wanted to hear particularly from the City Manager about how department leadership was performing. MRG Consultant Rich answered that the goal was to streamline the questions and to ensure focus on the big picture and tie it more to the Council-adopted goals. Councilmember Burt was concerned about the word "purview" in the proposed change to Question F (What are the trends you see within your purview that the City needs to be thinking about?), which was believed could relate more to control. It was expressed that changes on the national level affected the state and regional changes this year more than normal. MRG Consultant Rich said the intent was not to fundamentally change the intent of Question F, that it was just to be clear about each individual role. Councilmember Burt cited another example given in Question G (What is your characterization of the effectiveness of Appointed Official/Elected Official relationships [availability, responsiveness, communications, etc.]?) could be open-mindedness to feedback. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 8 Sp. Council Appointed Officers Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/12/2025 Councilmember Burt asked if Question J (What is your compensation "ask?") was a change to the Council's past practice. MRG Consultant Rich stated that last year CAOs were asked about compensation but it was not part of the formal process. Vice Mayor Veenker thought it was important that the questions to the CAOs and the questions to the councilmembers were aligned so parallel feedback was elicited. Vice Mayor Veenker suggested a more objective work plan (i.e., milestones, goals, KPIs) to make it more objective for the CAOs and the Committee. Vice Mayor Veenker opined that Question A (What is your overall assessment of the state of the Palo Alto organization?) felt like a question more for the City Manager and wondered if the City Attorney needed to answer that. For Question B (What are your key achievements in the last fiscal year, particularly as called out in Council-identified priorities and the specific goals identified in your performance evaluation?), Vice Mayor Veenker would like "key achievements" to be replaced with "performance against goals and any key achievements." Vice Mayor Veenker commented that Question F may be able to be combined with Question A. On the questions to the councilmembers in regard to the City Auditor, Vice Mayor Veenker thought "are you satisfied with quality and timeliness" should say "how satisfied are you with quality and timeliness." On Item 4, Vice Mayor Veenker would prefer that "how strong do you feel the City Auditor's technical competencies are" say "how confident are you in the City Auditor's technical competencies." On 5, "how well does the City Auditor think strategically to identify and address key issues," Vice Mayor Veenker would insert "to anticipate, identify, and address." Chair Stone felt that it should be clarified to the CAOs that the perspective of each particular role was being sought. Chair Stone also liked Question D because it gives the Council the opportunity to discuss some of the department leads in a one-on-one private setting. It was thought that Question I (What do you need from the Council in the next fiscal year and beyond to be successful?) had value and it would be disappointing if it was removed because it gave candid feedback. MRG Consultant Rich confirmed that all councilmembers wanted to keep Question D and that the wording in Questions F and G would be fine tuned based on councilmember comments. Vice Mayor Veenker commented that Question H (What are your suggested priorities for the coming year, and how would you measure their success [KPIs]?) needed something more objective about performance and suggested wording it as "what are your priorities and goals." The example of "what was your performance against your goals, including key achievements" was given to make the question more holistic. MRG Consultant Rich stated that the wording in Question B would be tweaked. It was confirmed that the councilmembers wanted to keep Question I. Chair Stone moved the discussion to questions actually being asked by MRG Consultant Rich in his one-on-one interviews with councilmembers. It was believed that the questions concerning SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 8 Sp. Council Appointed Officers Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/12/2025 the City Auditor would be a little more challenging for MRG Consultant Rich because of the amount of detail from councilmembers serving on P&S. MRG Consultant Rich confirmed that all three councilmembers agreed with suggested changes made by Vice Mayor Veenker about questions pertaining to the City Auditor. It was stated that because there would be 4 appointees this year instead of 3, the interviews would be longer or may be broken up into 2 sessions. It was suggested asking the City Clerk, the City Manager, and the City Attorney their thoughts on the questions pertaining to their roles. City Clerk Ah Yun expressed that last year's interview questions pertaining to the City Clerk were helpful in guiding what was submitted for her self-evaluation. It was believed that allowing her to take the opportunity to highlight the accomplishments of herself and her department and add more detail was beneficial. Vice Mayor Veenker questioned if City Clerk Question 2 (How did the City Clerk do on achieving Council's priority goals and her stated priorities for FY 24-25?) should have the words "Council's priority goals" removed and should be the first question, while secondly asking about top strengths. It was expressed that questions should feel more holistic and not just about highlights. MRG Consultant Rich commented that "Council's priority goals as related to your position" could be added to City Clerk Question 2 to be more clear. Questions could be in either order. It was reminded that the councilmembers could ask the appointees for any feedback on the prompts that would be in their self-evaluations. Vice Mayor Veenker thought that the word "blindspots" in City Clerk Question 4 (Does the City Clerk have blindspots or areas for development that should be addressed to help her in this role?) seemed to expect people to have a problem. It was suggested to reword Question 4 to say "are there areas for development that should be addressed, including any blindspots." MRG Consultant Rich opined that there was a subtle distinction between a blindspot and an area of development. City Manager Ed Shikada stated he had no problem with the City Manager questions and assumed that the Committee's conclusions would be forward to the full Council on consent for approval. Concerning the KPIs, City Manager Shikada wanted to ensure consistency between the overall organizational KPIs with the KPIs identified through this process. It was expected that all KPIs would be in the public record so that all departments were operating on the same set of KPIs. MRG Consultant Rich stated that the process did not go to the full City Council last year and that the Chair of the Committee gave a verbal update at the full Council meeting about the process. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 8 Sp. Council Appointed Officers Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/12/2025 Human Resources Director Blanch suggested cleaning up the questions per the Committee's suggestions and taking the revisions and a timeline to the Council on consent. Councilmember Burt did not recall this format going to the Council as an action in the past. Human Resources Director Blanch confirmed that it was a consent item last year. Chair Stone said that process will remain the same. Councilmember Burt suggested adding "and challenges" to City Manager Question 6 (Does the organization face vulnerabilities that you can see?). For City Manager Question 8 (Please share your perception of the City Manager's leadership and how it effectively meets the needs of the organization and community [leading others, partnering, decisiveness/consensus decision making, developing a team, managing conflict, etc.]), it was recommended to add "vision and leveraging community assets" to the examples given. A discussion was recalled that the KPIs for the organization and the KPIs for a given CAO were not the same, although there was an alignment. MRG Consultant Rich said the KPIs were tied to the specific Council goals but not necessarily one for one. Vice Mayor Veenker expressed that City Attorney Question 2 (Are you satisfied with the verbal and written analysis provided by the City Attorney regarding active litigation, settlements and pending risk issues?) should say, "Are you satisfied with the verbal and written analysis and advice provided by the City Attorney?" Vice Mayor Veenker was curious about what the City Attorney thought about City Attorney Question 8 (Does the organization face legal vulnerabilities that you can see?) and wondered if it was wise to opine on this in nonprivileged conversations. City Attorney Molly Stump believed that City Attorney Question 8 asked in a performance context if any legal vulnerabilities were being spotted and offered to work with the consultant to refine that question. Councilmember Burt felt that "and challenges" should be added to City Manager Question 6 and City Attorney Question 8. City Attorney Stump expressed that KPIs for the City Attorney role were challenging to set up, that some of these KPIs may need to be confidential for the position, and that these KPIs may be more limited and may not have a corresponding KPI. Chair Stone recommended this matter be moved forward to Council on consent. NO ACTION SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 8 Sp. Council Appointed Officers Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/12/2025 Future Meetings and Agendas None. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:27 PM.