06 Revised Evaluation System
DRAFT
F:ALICEIRESWORKICURRENTI 2005/New Evaluation System - 2005
February 18, 2005
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARIS,
PARIS, TEXAS, 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; 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 ofthe 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 ofthe
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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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, 2003-057, passed March 8, 2004, 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 14th day of March, 2005,
Curtis Fendley, Mayor
ATTEST:
Janice Ellis, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Larry W, Schenk, City Attorney
Executive Being Evaluated:
Evaluator:
Evaluation Date:
Ton N. Williams Ci
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 iven in an s ecific erformance cate 0 the
evaluator must indicate b comments in the lines followin that criteria s ecific instances .usti in
the low evaluation and su ested actions to im rove 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.
CITY OF PARIS CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE EVALUATION SHEET
Executive Being Evaluated
Ton N. Williams Ci
Evaluator
Date of Evaluation
JOB RESPONSIBILITIES Perfonnance COMMENTS
I..eve1J1.Q . $.en
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:
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
procedures?
(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 Peñormance
(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 EVALUATION OVERVIEW - 2005
Employee Name Tonv N. Williams
Title: ~anaaer
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
M.A.F. K.W. R.P. S.B. C.F. D.W. J.B.
(A) City Council
Relationships
(B) Fiscal Management
(C) General & Personnel
Management
(D) 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.
Executive Being Evaluated: Lar Schenk Ci Attorne
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 iven in an s ecific erformance cate 0 the
evaluator must indicate b comments in the lines followin that criteria s ecific instances .usti in
the low evaluation and su ested actions to im rove 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.
CITY OF PARIS CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE EVALUATION SHEET
Executive Being Evaluated
Evaluator
~arrv Sc~ornev
Date of Evaluation
JOB RESPONSIBILITIES Performance COMMENTS
I..ev'I(1~Ø.... . 5.0J
Leaal Consultation
(1) Provides accurate and appropriate interpretations of
the law.
(2) Adheres to laws, procedures and ethics.
(3) Provides requested information to the Council, City
staff and community in a timely manner.
(4) Effectively performs administrative duties, such as
writing ordinances, resolutions consistent with council
decisions, preparing Council agendas, and handling
correspondence.
(5) Prepares and administers City Attorney's Office
budget and effectively manages employees supervised.
(6) Provides ongoing legal consultation to City officials
and staff, consistent with laws and court decisions in
order to minimize the City's liability in court actions.
(7) Communicates effectively with other City officials,
administrators, staff and community.
GENERAL COMMENTS BY RATER:
Rater's Signature
Date
Employee's Signature
Date
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OVERVIEW - 2005
Employee Name Larry W. Schenk
Title: Ci Attorne
Peñormance Council Scoring by Council Person 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
M.A.F. K.W. R.P. S.B. C.F. D.W. J.B.
(1) Legal interpretation
(2) Follows the law
(3) Responsiveness
(4) Administrative
performance
(5) Management of
budget and
personnel
(6) Practices preventive
law
(7) Communicates
effectively
AGGREGATE TOTAL POINTS (Add total points for categories (1) through (7))
AVERAGE COMPOSITE EVALUATION RATING 'Aaareaate Total Points) =
(7 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.
~
Executive Being Evaluated:
Evaluator:
Evaluation Date:
Thomas E. Hunt III Munici al Court Jud e
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 iven in an s ecific erformance cate 0 the
evaluator must indicate b comments in the lines followin that criteria s ecific instances .usti in
the low evaluation and su ested actions to im rove 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.
CITY OF PARIS CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE EVALUATION SHEET
Executive Being Evaluated
Thomas E. Hunt. III. Municipal Court Judae
Evaluator
Date of Evaluation
JOB RESPONSIBILITIES Perfonnance COMMENTS
I..ev8111.0.- 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
Citv.
(11) Communicates effectively with other City
administrators.
GENERAL COMMENTS BY RATER:
Rater's Signature
Date
Employee's Signature
Date
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OVERVIEW. 2005
Employee Name Thomas E. Hunt. III
Title:
Municipal Court Judge
Performance Council Scoring by Council Person 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
M.A.F. K.W. R.P. S.B. C.F. D.W. J.B.
(1) Fairness
(2) Follows the law
(3) Creates effective
punishments
(4) Expedites case load
(5) Peñorms
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.
~