Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-05-14 Council Appointed Officers Committee Summary MinutesCOUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICERS COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 4 Special Meeting May 14, 2026 The Council Appointed Officers Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Community Meeting Room and by virtual teleconference at 3:30 p.m. Present In-Person: Lauing (Chair), Stone, Veenker Present Virtually: None Absent: None Call to Order Chair Lauing called the meeting to order. City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun called roll and declared all were present. Public Comments None Agenda Items 1. Review and discuss the Council Appointed Officers (CAO) performance evaluation process and timeline for FY26 and make a recommendation to the City Council; CEQA status – not a project Municipal Resource Group Consultant Dan Rich reviewed the proposed FY26 performance evaluation timeline, incorporating changes discussed during the Committee's November debrief. The proposed process and timeline would be presented to the City Council as a consent item. Consultant Rich recommended eliminating individual written feedback on draft evaluations in favor of collective discussion during the first closed session. The goal was to complete the evaluation process by the end of September. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 4 Sp. Council Appointed Officers Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/14/2026 Interviews would begin during the Council's summer recess and continue afterward. To minimize scheduling conflicts, Consultant Rich proposed holding 3 closed sessions on study session or special meeting nights. Draft evaluations would be reviewed during the first week of September, followed by the City Manager's evaluation during the week of September 21 and the City Attorney's and City Clerk's evaluations and compensation discussions during the week of September 28. The City Auditor would not be evaluated this year because prior feedback would be incorporated into her upcoming work plan, leaving no established work product to evaluate. Chair Lauing clarified that interviews would occur between July 21 and August 13, with draft evaluations distributed by September 3. Consultant Rich confirmed that the first closed session would include only the Councilmembers and Consultant Rich to review and provide feedback on the drafts before the Council Appointed Officers received their evaluations. Mayor Veenker supported the condensed timeline and elimination of individual written feedback, noting that the revised process would be more efficient and equitable for the Council Appointed Officers. Collective discussion of the draft evaluations would allow all Councilmembers to contribute equally and incorporate perspectives raised by colleagues. Vice Mayor Stone supported the condensed timeline, noting that August and September typically have lighter Council schedules before activity increases in October and November. Consultant Rich and Mayor Veenker agreed that completing the evaluations before ballots were distributed in early October would keep the process separate from the November election. Mayor Veenker supported committing to completing the evaluations in September while allowing flexibility in scheduling. Chair Lauing confirmed Committee consensus on the proposed timeline. Consultant Rich emphasized the importance of scheduling the 3 closed sessions early, including on non-regular meeting nights if necessary, and documenting that flexibility in the staff report. Consultant Rich reviewed proposed revisions to the self-evaluation prompt questions, noting that the City Attorney would report on accomplishments, anticipated issues, and proposed goals for the coming year rather than previously adopted goals, given his relatively recent appointment. Mayor Veenker suggested expanding the City Attorney's self-evaluation questions to address departmental needs, strengths, weaknesses, and potential organizational changes, including staffing and the use of outside counsel. Vice Mayor Stone recommended including questions about staff turnover following the leadership transition. Chair Lauing reported meeting with the City Attorney early in his tenure to discuss funded coaching opportunities and expectations for a future assessment of departmental operations. Consultant Rich agreed to revise the questions to solicit the City Attorney's observations and recommendations for organizational improvements. Mayor Veenker emphasized the value of SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 4 Sp. Council Appointed Officers Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/14/2026 the City Attorney's fresh perspective and experience with other organizations in identifying potential improvements to the City's legal services. Mayor Veenker suggested revising Question G of the self-evaluation prompts to address the quality of relationships between appointed and elected officials, including areas for improvement and opportunities for greater mutual support. Chair Lauing recommended expanding Question D to address the quality of direct reports' performance rather than productivity alone. Vice Mayor Stone questioned whether Question 9 of the City Manager's Council interview questions, which solicited feedback on departmental operations but excluded personnel- specific comments, was too restrictive. Consultant Rich explained that the language was intended to allow Councilmembers to raise performance concerns without interfering with the City Manager's authority over personnel. Mayor Veenker emphasized the importance of providing sufficiently specific feedback while respecting that authority. Consultant Rich suggested removing the parenthetical restriction from Question 9 to allow greater flexibility, which Mayor Veenker and Vice Mayor Stone supported. Consultant Rich agreed to expand the City Attorney's self-evaluation prompts and add a question requesting updates on the City Manager's previously identified areas for development, as directed by Council during the prior evaluation. Chair Lauing and Mayor Veenker recommended revising Question 6 of the City Manager's Council interview questions to include support provided by staff acting on the City Manager's behalf. Mayor Veenker explained that Councilmembers frequently interact with department staff rather than directly with the City Manager, making the quality of those interactions relevant to his performance evaluation. Consultant Rich emphasized that the City Manager remained accountable for staff performance without Council interfering in personnel management. The Committee agreed to add "and his staff" to Question 6 and remove the personnel-specific restriction from Question 9. Consultant Rich reviewed proposed revisions to the City Attorney's Council interview questions to reflect his relatively short tenure. Mayor Veenker recommended adding "spot and anticipate issues" to Question 6 to emphasize proactive identification of legal concerns. Mayor Veenker further suggested addressing the performance and expertise of the City Attorney's staff, including legal support during public meetings and closed sessions. Consultant Rich agreed to add a separate question addressing staff performance and support. Vice Mayor Stone recommended adding meeting management to Question 3 of the City Clerk's Council interview questions to reflect a key responsibility of the position. Consultant Rich agreed to incorporate it into the question. Mayor Veenker recommended placing greater emphasis on the City Clerk's interactions with the public and community, consistent with priorities established during the recruitment process. City Clerk Mahealani Ah Yun acknowledged community engagement as a key priority SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 4 Sp. Council Appointed Officers Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 05/14/2026 for her office and welcomed Council feedback on her performance in that area. Consultant Rich suggested creating a separate question to distinguish community engagement from internal leadership responsibilities, which the Committee supported. Chair Lauing further recommended adding a question addressing the performance of the City Clerk's direct reports. City Clerk Ah Yun noted the relevance of this addition given the new pilot Council support position reporting to her. Consultant Rich agreed to develop a question consistent with the proposed addition to the City Attorney's evaluation. Consultant Rich discussed incorporating key performance indicators (KPIs) into the CAO evaluation process, noting that Council priorities follow a calendar year while performance evaluations follow the fiscal year. Mayor Veenker supported establishing KPIs informed by Council priorities but emphasized that the City Manager's responsibilities extend beyond those priorities to broader operational and administrative functions. Consultant Rich clarified that KPIs should be measurable and appropriate to the goals rather than required for every objective. Chair Lauing suggested soliciting Councilmember feedback on the usefulness of performance metrics, recognizing that KPIs may differ among CAOs. Consultant Rich recommended asking each CAO to propose appropriate KPIs in their self-evaluation, with Council determining their applicability during closed-session discussions. Mayor Veenker supported this approach and suggested framing the question around Council priorities. Human Resources Director Sandra Blanch confirmed September 8 as the tentative date for presenting the Committee's recommendations to Council, including the proposed timeline and revisions to the evaluation questions. Consultant Rich agreed to finalize the proposed revisions with Chair Lauing before Director Blanch submitted the staff report for the September 8 Council meeting. Interviews would begin in July. MOTION: Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Stone, to recommend the City Council approve the proposed discussed FY 2026 evaluation timeline and process as modified by the comments made in this meeting. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:51 p.m.