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

Home Browse Search

Regular City Council Meeting February 9, 2004 Page 21 made great in one category, they would really have to do bad in another to bring the overall average down. City Attorney Schenk explained the averaging meant different things to different people. He continued, averaging does not overshadow the individual score in each category. Mayor Fendley asked if the Council wanted to go to a 1-10 scoring, breaking it down into 6.5 and below, unsatisfactory, 6.6 to 7.4 requires improvement, 7.5 to 8.4 satisfactory, but needs improvement, 8.5 to 10, more than satisfactory or exceeds requirements. Finance Director Anderson said on the 10 point scale, with the 6.5 and above required for being good, a score of 2 would throw a wrench into it and a 6.5 floor would cause a lot of distortion. He felt they either needed to make something below 6.5 acceptable or go back to the 1-5 scale. He said having one as a floor cuts out a lot of distortion. Mr. Anderson felt that job knowledge should be application of job knowledge. Mayor Fendley asked which the Council wanted to do, go to a 1-5 scoring or a 1-10. Councilman Bell suggested using the 1-5 system with decimal points and 1 being the lowest score and 5 the maximum. Mayor Fendley said they would need to adjust the categories. He liked what was on the sheet Councilman Bell handed out, unsatisfactory, below average, good, very good, or outstanding. Councilwoman Neeley said that a category needs to be inserted between satisfactory and exceeds and she felt like category four, very good, should have the wording ~usually above standards." Mayor Fendley asked if the Attorney's Office could get a draft of the resolution for the Council, to make sure it states everything they decided. Councilman Bell asked when the evaluations would be done. Mayor Fendley indicated the resolution stated between January and April. He said employee