2004-057-RES APPROVING A NEW SYSTEM OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND ASSOCIATED EVALUATION INSTRUMENTS FOR USE IN EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, AND MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-057
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARIS,
PARIS, TEXAS, APPROVING A NEW SYSTEM OF PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION AND ASSOCIATED EV ALUA TION INSTRUMENTS FOR
USE IN EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CITY MANAGER,
CITY ATTORNEY, AND MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE; ESTABLISHING
A POLICY OF PERIODIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS FOR THE
CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, AND MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE;
REPEALING ALL PRIOR RESOLUTIONS AND EVALUATION
INSTRUMENTS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; MAKING OTHER FINDINGS
AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Paris, Paris, Texas, finds and determines that
the periodic evaluation of those employees reporting to the City Council, the same being the City
Manager, the City Attorney, and the Municipal Court Judge, is important to allow said employees
the opportunity for a fair and impartial assessment of their respective performances, highlighting
both the strengths and weaknesses in their job performance; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that only through such evaluation
process may said employees have the opportunity to improve their performance in those areas
requiring improvement to assure said employees the opportunity to maximize their respective job
performances; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that unless a fair and impartial policy
of performance evaluation with accompanying evaluation instruments is utilized in the evaluation
of the aforesaid employees, said employees do not have the opportunity to engage in effective
dialogue with the City Council regarding the performance of their respective job responsibilities;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that maintaining a continuous dialogue between the
Council as a body and the principal executive officers of the City administration is of primary
importance in maintaining effective and efficient municipal government in the City of Paris, and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the institution of a performance
evaluation process is critical to maintaining the aforesaid dialogue between the Council and the
City's principal executive officers; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has created a system of evaluation including appropriate
evaluation instruments to be used in the periodic evaluation of the City Manager, City Attorney,
and Municipal Court Judge; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Paris desires to approve the aforesaid
evaluation system and accompanying evaluation instruments and to require the periodic evaluation
of the City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Court Judge; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARIS, PARIS,
TEXAS:
Section 1. That the findings set out in the preamble to this resolution are hereby in all
things approved.
Section 2. That a system of evaluation for the City Manager, City Attorney, and
Municipal Court Judge, including associated evaluation instruments related to said evaluation
system, as the same are set out respectively in Exhibits A, B, and C to this resolution, is hereby
in all things approved.
Section 3. That the aforesaid evaluation instruments set out in Exhibits A, B, and C, shall
be and are hereby approved and authorized for use in the evaluation of the City Manager, City
Attorney, and Municipal Court Judge, respectively.
Section 4. That from and after the approval of this resolution, the City Manager, City
Attorney, and Municipal Court Judge shall be evaluated periodically, at least annually as otherwise
provided herein, and no more frequently than semi-annually, utilizing the system of evaluation
included herein.
Section 5. That the City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Court Judge shall be
evaluated at least once each year between the months of January and April of each year, said
process of evaluation to include discussions between the City Council as a body and the respective
executive officers, reviewing and discussing said officers, their activities and programs since the
previous evaluation; the completion and review of the attached evaluation instruments; and the
opportunity for each respective employee to discuss said evaluations with the individual members
of Council. Said evaluation process shall be conducted at a City Council meeting or a portion of
a meeting designated as a work session for purposes of said evaluations.
Section 6. That Resolution No. 2003-052, passed March 6, 2003, and the evaluation
instruments associated therewith, and all other prior resolutions and evaluation instruments in
conflict herewith, shall be and are hereby in all things repealed.
Section 6. That this resolution shall be effective from and after its date of passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 8th day of Marcp.,-I .
('
\ .
~:{, (
Curtis Fendl --
ATTEST:
~~~ ~f'<'..~\lltt{)
Mattie Cunningham, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Executive Being Evaluated: Citv Manaaer
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 beliefthe 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 anv specific performance category. the
evaluator must indicate by comments in the lines following that criteria specific instances iustifying
the low evaluation and suooested 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.
EXHIBIT A
Page 1 of 4
Score (1.0 to 5.0)
CITY OF PARIS CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE EVALUATION SHEET
Executive Being Evaluated City Manaaer
Evaluator
Date of Evaluation
PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
(1) COMMUNICATION SKILLS ... ability to communicate effectively (speaking
and writing skills).
(2) EQUITY AND FAIRNESS ... concern for fair treatment of citizens,
employees, and others.
(3) INTERPERSONAL SKILLS/ATTITUDE ... use of tact and consideration,
listens to others, exercises patience.
(4) CONFLICT RESOLUTION ... ability to avoid and/or resolve disputes, ability
to be assertive when necessary.
(5) WORK HABITS ... job dedication and motivation, ability to work effectively
under pressure.
(6) PLANNING SKILLS ... ability to anticipate and meet future problems and
issues facing local government.
Page 2 of 4
(7) SUPERVISORY SKILLS AND LEADERSHIP ... ability to effectively assign
duties and meet deadlines, ability to hold subordinates accountable.
(8) COUNCIL REQUESTS... effectiveness in responding to official requests of
the City Council as a bodv, respect for the views of the Council as a bodv.
(9) TOTAL BUDGET MANAGEMENT... preparation and adherence.
TOTAL SCORE
AVERAGE SCORE PER CATEGORY (Total Score) =
9
Page 3 of 4
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OVERVIEW
Employee Name Michael E. Malone
Title: City Manaaer
Performance Council Scoring by Council Person Total Average
Category (Initials for each Council Person) Points Points
per
Category
(1) Communication
Skills
(2) Equity and Fairness
(3) Interpersonal
Skills/Attitude
(4) Conflict Resolution
(5) Work Habits
(6) Planning Skills
(7) Supervisory Skills
& Leadership
(8) Council Requests
(9) Total Budget
Management
AGGREGATE TOTAL POINTS (Add total points for categories (1) through (9))
AVERAGE COMPOSITE EVALUATION RATING (Aaareaate Total Points) =
(9 cateaories 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.
Page 4 of 4
Executive Being Evaluated: City Attornev
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 demonstrqted 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 performan~e category. the
evaluator must indicate bv comments in the lines following that criteria specific int3tances iustifving
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.
EXHIBIT B
Page 1 of 4
Score (1.0 to 5.0)
CITY OF PARIS CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE EVALUATION SHEET
Executive Being Evaluated City Attornev
Evaluator
Date of Evaluation
PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
(1) COMMUNICATION SKILLS... ability to communicate effectively (speaking
and writing skills).
(2) EQUITY AND FAIRNESS ... concern for fair treatment of citizens,
employees, and others.
(3) INTERPERSONAL SKILLS/ATTITUDE ... use of tact and consideration,
listens to others, exercises patience.
(4) CONFLICT RESOLUTION ... ability to avoid and/or resolve disputes, ability
to be assertive when necessary.
(5) WORK HABITS ... job dedication and motivation, ability to work effectively
under pressure.
(6) PLANNING AND SUPERVISORY SKILLS AND LEADERSHIP ... ability to
anticipate and meet future problems and needs and effectively assign duties
and meet deadlines, ability to hold subordinates accountable.
Page 2 of 4
(7) COUNCIL REQUESTS... effectiveness in responding to official requests of
the City Council as a bodY, respect for the views of the Council as a body.
(8) TOTAL BUDGET MANAGEMENT... preparation and adherence.
TOTAL SCORE
AVERAGE SCORE PER CATEGORY (Total Score) =
8
Page 3 of 4
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OVERVIEW
Employee Name
Title: City Attornev
Performance Council Scoring by Council Person Total Average
Category (Initials for each Council Person) Points Points
per
Category
(1) Communication
Skills
(2) Equity and Fairness
(3) Interpersonal
Skills/Attitude
(4) Conflict Resolution
(5) Work Habits
(6) Planning &
Supervisory Skills
& Leadership
(7) Council Requests
(8) Total Budget
Management
AGGREGATE TOTAL POINTS (Add total points for categories (1) through (8))
AVERAGE COMPOSITE EVALUATION RATING (Aaareaate Total Points) =
(8 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.
Page 4 of 4
Executive Being Evaluated: 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 oiven in anv specific performance category. the
evaluator must indicate by comments in the lines following that criteria specific instances iustifYing
the low evaluation and suooested 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.
EXHIBIT C
Page 1 of 3
CITY OF PARIS CITY COUNCil
EXECUTIVE EVALUATION SHEET
Executive Being Evaluated Municipal Court Judae
Evaluator
Date of Evaluation
PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
Score (1.0 to 5.0)
(1) COMMUNICATION SKillS ... ability to communicate effectively (speaking
and writing skills).
(2) EQUITY AND FAIRNESS ... concern for fair treatment of citizens,
employees, and others.
(3) INTERPERSONAL SKillS/ATTITUDE ... use of tact and consideration,
listens to others, exercises patience.
(4) COUNCil REQUESTS... effectiveness in responding to official requests of
the City Council as a bodY, respect for the views of the Council as a body.
(5) TOTAL BUDGET MANAGEMENT... preparation and adherence.
TOTAL SCORE
AVERAGE SCORE PER CATEGORY (Total Score) =
5
Page 2 of 3
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OVERVIEW
Employee Name
Title: MuniciDal Court Judge
Performance CouncllScoringbyCouncllPe~on Total Average
Category (Initials for each Council Person) Points Points
per
Category
(1) Communication
Skills
(2) Equity and Fairness
(3) Interpersonal
Skills/Attitude
(4) Council Requests
(5) Total Budget
Management
AGGREGATE TOTAL POINTS (Add total points for categories (1) through (5))
AVERAGE COMPOSITE EVALUATION RATING (Aaareaate Total Points) =
(5 cateaories 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.
Page 3 of 3