02 City Council (02/09/04) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular City Council Meeting February 9, 2004 Page 20 Councilman Bell asked if the evaluations were done years ago. The answer was no. Councilwoman Neeley said most cities are going to this evaluation and she thought it was a good idea. This is a way of saying how they are meeting Council's expectations. Mayor Fendley moved on to the subject of scoring. Councilman Bell said during the last evaluation, some people used a point scoring like 2.5 and 1.5. Some used whole numbers and some used decimals. Also, he indicated that the scoring was on a scale of 1 to 5 and asked if a total failure would need to be 0. He thought there needed to be more uniformity. Councilwoman Neeley said most rating systems use a scale of 1 to 10. She thought using decimal points was a good idea. Mayor Fendley asked if they wanted to stay with the 1-4 rating or use the 1-10 rating. Councilman Guest said he liked 1-10. City Attorney Schenk indicated the problem with that was they would need to revise the levels of performance to a different scale. Councilwoman Neeley felt they could just revise what points constituted each rating. Councilman Guest said, for instance, 90-100 could be exceeds requirements, 80-89 and so on, and any thing below 65 would be failing. Mayor Fendley suggested doing it on a scale of 1-10 and breaking it down, 8-10 exceeds, etc. Councilman Weekly suggested leaving it like it was. Councilwoman Neeley asked what would happen if they left the scoring like it was and went to decimals. Councilman Bell felt the decimals makes the scoring more flexible. Councilman Bell said he didn't care what was done, just so everyone ends up doing the same thing. Councilman Guest suggested using the decimal point on the 1-10 scale, setting failing at 6.5. Mayor Fendley felt like averaging would be unnecessary if the 1-10 scale was used. Councilman Plata didn't see why it was averaged, anyway. If someone