13 Evaluation Forms for City Mgr & Mun Ct Judge
Executive Being Evaluated: Tony N. Williams. City Manager
Evaluator:
Evaluation Date:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATION OF EXECUTIVES
BY CITY OF PARIS CITY COUNCIL
Use the following guidelines to evaluate employee's performance for each performance category
listed on the Executive Evaluation Sheet:
Outstanding: Performance is well above the normal standards for this position. Score with a
numerical score of 4.5 - 5.0.
Very Good: Performance is usually above competent performance in the specific job
responsibility or criteria. Score with a numerical score of 3.5 - 4.4.
Good: Employee consistently demonstrates competent performance in the specific job
responsibility or criteria. Score with a numerical score of 2.5 - 3.4.
Below Average: Performance periodically or regularly falls short of normal standards. The
evaluation indicates the evaluator's belief the employee can and will make necessary
improvements in this performance category. Score with a numerical score of 1.5 - 2.4.
Unsatisfactory: Performance is clearly inadequate. Employee has demonstrated an inability
or unwillingness to improve or to meet standard performance levels. Score with a numerical score
of 1.0 - 1.4.
Evaluation forms should be completed by each individual Council Person, following careful
ind ividual consideration, and before the formal evaluation meeting, without collaboration with other
Council Persons in any way.
In the event an evaluation of 2.4 or less is given in any specific performance category, the
evaluator must indicate by comments in the lines following that criteria specific instances iustifying
the low evaluation and suggested actions to improve the evaluation.
After the Executive Performance Evaluation Sheet is completed by each Council Person the
Performance Evaluation Overview must be completed to determine the composite average in each
performance category and the overall Average Composite Evaluation Rating.
r"
CITY OF PARIS CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE EVALUATION SHEET
Executive Being Evaluated
Tonv N. Williams. City Manaaer
Evaluator
Date of Evaluation
JOB RESPONSIBILITIES Performance COMMENTS
Level (1.0 . 5.0)
A. City Council Relationships
(1) Does the City Manager effectively execute council
policies and instructions?
(2) Does the City manager keep you informed, in a timely
manner, of the things you want to know about?
(3) Does the City Manager report key plans and activities
to the City Council?
(4) Do reports provide adequate information and analysis
to help you make sound decisions?
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE LEVEL:
,..-
B. Fiscal Management.
(1) Is the City Manager effective in developing and
presenting the budget to meet organizational needs,
within limits of available funds and guidelines
established by the City Council?
(2) Is the City Manager effective in controlling costs
through economical utilization of human resources,
materials and equipment?
(3) Does the City Manager provide you with sufficient
information on the financial status of the City?
(4) Does the City Manager consider the City's bond
ratings when implementing fiscal policies?
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE LEVEL:
r
c. General and Personnel Management
(1) Does the City Manager develop and motivate
personnel so that they are increasingly effective in
performing their duties?
(2) Is the City manager effective at assuring that staff
makes a positive impression on citizens?
(3) Is the City Manager successful in guiding people to
work together as a team toward common objectives?
(4) Does the City Manager encourage staff to make
decisions within their own jurisdiction without City
Manager approval, yet maintains general control of
administrative operations?
(5) Does the City Manager seek to enrich the
organizational culture through diversity?
(6) Does the City Manager assure that current programs
are meeting objectives and does the City Manager seek
new programs or services to meet changing needs?
(7) Does the City Manager plan and organize effective
maintenance of city-owned facilities, systems, buildings
and equipment?
(8) Does the City Manager maintain knowledge of new
technologies, systems or methods relative to city
services?
(9) Does the City Manager actively participate in
municipal and professional organizations?
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE LEVEL:
,.
D. Community and Intergovernmental Relations
(1) Does the City Manager have appropriate visibility or
identity in the community through active involvement in
order to understand the needs and priorities of the
citizens?
(2) Does the City Manager provide a variety of
communications to effectively inform and educate the
community and represent City Council goals and
objectives accurately and effectively?
(3) Is the City Manager effective in responding quickly to
handle disputes, complaints and customer requests?
(4) Is the City Manager skillful with the news media and
in avoiding political positions and partnerships?
(5) Is the City Manager effective at representing the
City's interests in dealing with other agencies?
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE LEVEL:
E. Job Effectiveness
(1) Does the City Manager follow up promptly on City
Council requests for information or action?
(2) Does the City Manager have adequate knowledge of
municipal affairs?
(3) Does the City Manager exercise good judgment?
(4) Does the City Manager plan ahead, anticipate needs
and recognize potential problems, offering workable
alternatives when policy/ordinance proves impractical in
actual administration?
(5) Does the City manager have a good sense of timing
in bringing issues to the council for action?
(6) Does the City Manager follow through and complete
projects in a timely manner?
(7) Does the City Manager display good time
management and organizational skills, and does the City
Manager use good judgment in establishing priorities and
orocedures?
(8) Does the City Manager take initiative in finding new
ways of accomplishing tasks and does the City Manager
solve problems effectively and creatively?
(9) Does the City Manager develop and carry out short
and long-term goals and action plans?
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE LEVEL:
F. Job Performance
(1) Is the City Manager able to analyze problems or
issues and identify causes, reasons and implications?
(2) does the City Manager create an atmosphere in which
employees can enjoy working for the City?
(3) Is the City Manager honest and ethical?
(4) Is the City Manager easy to talk to?
(5) Is the City Manager a good listener?
(6) Does the City Manager show sensitivity to the
concerns of others?
(7) Does the City Manager anticipate problems and
develop effective approaches for solving them?
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE LEVEL:
GENERAL COMMENTS BY RATER:
Rater's Signature
Date
Employee's Signature
Date
PERFORMANCE EV ALUA liON OVERVIEW. 2007
Employee Name Tonv N. Williams
Title: City Manager
Performance Council Scoring by Council Person (Averages) Total Average
Category (Initials for each Council Person) Points Points per
0-1 0-2 0-3 0-4 0-5 0-6 0-7 Category
M.A.F. K.G. J.F. R.M. e.F. o.w. T.R.
(A) City Council
Relationships
(B) Fiscal Management
(C) General & Personnel
Management
(0) Community & Inter-
governmental relations
(E) Job Effectiveness
(F) Job Performance
AGGREGATE TOTAL POINTS (Add total points for categories (1) through (6))
AVERAGE COMPOSITE EVALUATION RATING (Aaareaate Total Points) =
(6 categories X 7 evaluators)
The Average Composite Evaluation Rating should be interpreted as follows:
· A rating below 1.5 is unsatisfactory.
· A rating between 1.5 and 2.4 is below average.
· A rating between 2.5 and 3.4 is good.
· A rating between 3.5 and 4.4 is very good.
· A rating between 4.5 and 5.0 is outstanding.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OVERVIEW. 2007
Employee Name Tonv N. Williams
Title: City ManaQer
Performance Council Scoring by Council Person (Averages) Total Average
Category (Initials for each Council Person) Points Points per
D-1 D-2 D - 3 D-4 D - 5 D-6 D-7 Category
MAF. K.G. J.F. R.M. e.F. D.W. T.R.
(A) City Council
Relationships
(8) Fiscal Management
(C) General & Personnel
Management
(0) Community & Inter-
governmental relations
(E) Job Effectiveness
(F) Job Performance
AGGREGATE TOTAL POINTS (Add total points for categories (1) through (6))
AVERAGE COMPOSITE EVALUATION RATING (Aaareaate Total Points) =
(6 categories X 7 evaluators) .
The Average Composite Evaluation Rating should be interpreted as follows:
. A rating below 1 .5 is unsatisfactory.
. A rating between 1.5 and 2.4 is below average.
. A rating between 2.5 and 3.4 is good.
. A rating between 3.5 and 4.4 is very good.
. A rating between 4.5 and 5.0 is outstanding.
r"
Executive Being Evaluated: Thomas E. Hunt. III. Municipal Court Judge
Evaluator:
Evaluation Date:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATION OF EXECUTIVES
BY CITY OF PARIS CITY COUNCIL
Use the following guidelines to evaluate employee's performance for each performance category
listed on the Executive Evaluation Sheet:
Outstanding: Performance is well above the normal standards for this position. Score with a
numerical score of 4.5 - 5.0.
Very Good: Performance is usually above competent performance in the specific job
responsibility or criteria. Score with a numerical score of 3.5 - 4.4.
Good: Employee consistently demonstrates competent performance in the specific job
responsibility or criteria. Score with a numerical score of 2.5 - 3.4.
Below Average: Performance periodically or regularly falls short of normal standards. The
evaluation indicates the evaluator's belief the employee can and will make necessary
improvements in this performance category. Score with a numerical score of 1.5 - 2.4.
Unsatisfactory: Performance is clearly inadequate. Employee has demonstrated an inability
or unwillingness to improve or to meet standard performance levels. Score with a numerical score
of 1.0 - 1.4.
Evaluation forms should be completed by each individual Council Person, following careful
individual consideration, and before the formal evaluation meeting, without collaboration with other
Council Persons in any way.
In the event an evaluation of 2.4 or less is given in any specific performance category. the
evaluator must indicate by comments in the lines following that criteria specific instances iustifying
the low evaluation and suggested actions to improve the evaluation.
After the Executive Performance Evaluation Sheet is completed by each Council Person the
Performance Evaluation Overview must be completed to determine the composite average in each
performance category and the overall Average Composite Evaluation Rating.
r..
CITY OF PARIS CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE EVALUATION SHEET
Executive Being Evaluated
Evaluator
Thomas E. Hunt. III. Municipal Court Judae
Date of Evaluation
JOB RESPONSIBILITIES Performance COMMENTS
Level (1.0 . 5.0\
Municipal Court Administration of Justice
(1) Presides fairly and proficiently over courtroom
litigation.
(2) Adheres to laws, procedures and ethics.
(3) Endeavors to create effective punishments,
particularly for juvenile defendants.
(4) Expedites case load.
(5) Effectively performs administrative duties, such as
issuance of arrest warrants, dismissals, appeals, and
correspondence.
(6) Prepares and administers court budget.
(7) Effectively performs magistrate functions.
(8) Protects integrity of the City's system of justice and
that of the bench.
(9) Ensures the court is helpful, courteous and sensitive
to its users.
(10) Establishes and maintains a liaison with non-
governmental organizations and groups involved in areas
of concern that relate to services and activities of the
City.
(11) Communicates effectively with other City
administrators.
r-
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OVERVIEW - 2007
Employee Name Thomas E. Hunt. III
Title: MuniciDal Court Judae
Performance Council Scoring by Council Person Total Average
Category (Initials for each Council Person) Points Points per
0-1 0-2 0-3 0-4 0-5 0-6 0-7 Category
M.A.F. K.G. J.F. R.M. e.F. o.w. T.R.
(1) Fairness
(2) Follows the law
(3) Creates effective
punishments
(4) Expedites case load
(5) Performs
administrative duties
(6) Manages budget
(7) Magistrate functions
(8) Integrity
(9) Courtesy
(10) Interrelationships
(11) Communicates
effectively
AGGREGATE TOTAL POINTS (Add total points for categories (1) through (11))
AVERAGE COMPOSITE EVALUATION RATING (Aaareaate Total Points) =
(11 categories X 11 evaluators)
The Average Composite Evaluation Rating should be interpreted as follows:
~ A rating below 1.5 is unsatisfactory.
~ A rating between 1.5 and 2.4 is below average.
~ A rating between 2.5 and 3.4 is good.
~ A rating between 3.5 and 4.4 is very good.
~ A rating between 4.5 and 5.0 is outstanding.
,..
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OVERVIEW. 2007
Employee Name Thomas E. Hunt. III
Title: Municipal Court JudQe
Performance Council Scoring by Council Person Total Average
Category (Initials for each Council Person) Points Points per
0-1 0-2 0-3 0-4 0-5 0-6 0-7 Category
M.A.F. K.G. J.F. R.M. C.F. O.W. T.R.
(1) Fairness
(2) Follows the law
(3) Creates effective
punishments
(4) Expedites case load
(5) Performs
administrative duties
(6) Manages budget
(7) Magistrate functions
(8) Integrity
(9) Courtesy
(10) Interrelationships
(11) Communicates
effectively
AGGREGATE TOTAL POINTS (Add total points for categories (1) through (11))
AVERAGE COMPOSITE EVALUATION RATING (Aaareaate Total Points) =
(11 categories X 11 evaluators)
The Average Composite Evaluation Rating should be interpreted as follows:
~ A rating below 1.5 is unsatisfactory.
~ A rating between 1.5 and 2.4 is below average.
~ A rating between 2.5 and 3.4 is good.
~ A rating between 3.5 and 4.4 is very good.
~ A rating between 4.5 and 5.0 is outstanding.
,...-