12-G Evaluation InstrumentDRAFT
F:kAttorneykALICEhO. ESWORK\CURRENT\Evaluation System Res.wpd
February 27, 2003
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARIS,
PARIS, TEXAS, APPROVING A 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;
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 respectivej ob 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 of the City of Paris has established a City Council review
committee for the purpose of creating evaluation instruments to be used in evaluating the
performance of the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the Municipal Court Judge; and,
WHEREAS, the aforesaid City Council subcommittee has created a system of evaluation
including appropriate evaluation instruments to be used in the period 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 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 this resolution shall be effective from and after its date of passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 6th day of March, 2003.
Michael J. Pfiester, Mayor
ATTEST:
Mattie Cunningham, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Larry W. Schenk, City Attorney
Executive Being Evaluated:
Evaluator:
Evaluation Date:
City Manacler
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PERFORMANCE 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 Performance Evaluation Sheet:
Exceeds Requirements: Performance is well above the normal standards for this
position. Score with a numerical score of 4.
Satisfactorily Meets Requirements: Employee consistently demonstrates competent
performance in the specific job responsibility or criteria. Score with a numerical score of
3.
Requires Improvement: 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
2.
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.
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 or less is given in any specific performance category, the
evaluator must indicate by comments in the lines following that criteria specific instances
iustifyin,q the Iow 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 A
Pa~e I of 4
CITY OF PARIS CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SHEET
Executive Being Evaluated City Manaqer
Evaluator
Date of Evaluation
PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
Score (1 to 4)
(1)
JOB KNOWLEDGE ... technical knowledge of the issues facing local
government.
(2)
COMMUNICATION SKILLS ... ability to communicate effectively
(speaking and writing skills).
(3)
EQUITY AND FAIRNESS ... concern for fair treatment of citizens,
employees, and others.
(4)
INTERPERSONAL SKILLS ... use of tact and consideration, listens
to others, exercises patience.
(5)
CONFLICT RESOLUTION... ability to avoid and/or resolve disputes,
ability to be assertive when necessary.
EXHIBIT A
Page 2 of 4
(6)
WORK HABITS ... job dedication and motivation, ability to work
effectively under pressure.
(7)
PLANNING SKILLS ... ability to anticipate and meet future problems
and needs.
(8)
SUPERVISORY SKILLS AND LEADERSHIP ... ability to effectively
assign duties and meet deadlines, ability to hold subordinates
accountable.
(9)
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.
(10) TOTAL BUDGET MANAGEMENT... preparation and adherence__
TOTAL SCORE
AVERAGE SCORE PER CATEGORY (Total Score)
10
EXHIBIT A
Page 3 of 4
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OVERVIEW
Employee Name Title: City Manager
Performance Council Scoring by Council Person Total Average
Category (Initials for each Council Person) Points Points
per
Category
(1) Job Knowledge
(2) Communication
Skills
(3) Equity and
Fairness
(4) Interpersonal
Skills
(5) Conflict
Resolution
(6) Work Habits
(7) Planning Skills
(8) Supervisory
Skills &
Leadership
(9) Council Requests
(10) Total Budget
Management
AGGREGATE TOTAL POINTS (Add total points for categories (1) through (10))
AVERAGE COMPOSITE EVALUATION RATING (A~re~ate Total Points) =
(10 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 shows a need for improvement.
· A rating between 2.5 and 3.4 is satisfactory
· Any rating above 3.0 is more than satisfactory.
· A rating above 3.5 exceeds requirements.
EXHIBIT A
Pa~e 4 of 4
Executive Being Evaluated:
Evaluator:
Evaluation Date:
City Attorney
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PERFORMANCE 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 Performance Evaluation Sheet:
Exceeds Requirements: Performance is well above the normal standards for this
position. Score with a numerical score of 4.
Satisfactorily Meets Requirements: Employee consistently demonstrates competent
performance in the specific job responsibility or criteria. Score with a numerical score of
3.
Requires Improvement: 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
2.
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.
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 or less is ,qiven in any specific performance category, the
evaluator must indicate by comments in the lines followin,q that criteria specific instances
justifying the Iow evaluation and su,q,qested 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
Pa~e I of 4
CITY OF PARIS CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SHEET
Executive Being Evaluated City Attorney
Evaluator
Date of Evaluation
PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
Score (1 to 4)
(1)
JOB KNOWLEDGE ... technical knowledge of the issues facing local
government.
(2)
COMMUNICATION SKILLS ... ability to communicate effectively
(speaking and writing skills).
(3)
EQUITY AND FAIRNESS ... concern for fair treatment of citizens,
employees, and others.
(4)
INTERPERSONAL SKILLS ... use of tact and consideration, listens
to others, exercises patience.
(5)
CONFLICT RESOLUTION... ability to avoid and/or resolve disputes,
ability to be assertive when necessary.
EXHIBIT B
Pa~e 2 of 4
(6)
WORK HABITS ... job dedication and motivation, ability to work
effectively under pressure.
(7)
PLANNING SKILLS ... ability to anticipate and meet future problems
and needs.
(8)
SUPERVISORY SKILLS AND LEADERSHIP ... ability to effectively
assign duties and meet deadlines, ability to hold subordinates
accountable.
(9)
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.
(10) TOTAL BUDGET MANAGEMENT... preparation and adherence__
TOTAL SCORE
AVERAGE SCORE PER CATEGORY (Total Score)
10
EXHIBIT B
Pa~e 3 of 4
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OVERVIEW
Employee Name Title: City Attorney
Performance Council Scoring by Council Person Total Average
Category (Initials for each Council Person) Points Points
per
Category
(1) Job Knowledge
(2) Communication
Skills
(3) Equity and
Fairness
(4) Interpersonal
Skills
(5) Conflict
Resolution
(6) Work Habits
(7) Planning Skills
(8) Supervisory
Skills &
Leadership
(9) Council Requests
(10) Total Budget
Management
AGGREGATE TOTAL POINTS (Add total points for categories (1) through (10))
AVERAGE COMPOSITE EVALUATION RATING (A~re~ate Total Points) =
(10 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 shows a need for improvement.
· A rating between 2.5 and 3.4 is satisfactory
· Any rating above 3.0 is more than satisfactory.
· A rating above 3.5 exceeds requirements.
EXHIBIT B
Pa~e 4 of 4
Executive Being Evaluated:
Evaluator:
Evaluation Date:
Municipal Court Judge
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PERFORMANCE VALUATION 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 Performance Evaluation Sheet:
Exceeds Requirements: Performance is well above the normal standards for this
position. Score with a numerical score of 4.
Satisfactorily Meets Requirements: Employee consistently demonstrates competent
performance in the specific job responsibility or criteria. Score with a numerical score of
3.
Requires Improvement: 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
2.
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.
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 or less is ,qiven in any specific performance category, the
evaluator must indicate by comments in the lines followin,q that criteria specific instances
justifying the Iow evaluation and su,q,qested 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
Pa~e 1 of 4
CITY OF PARIS CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SHEET
Executive Being Evaluated
Evaluator
Score (1 to 4)
(1)
Municipal Court Judge
Date of Evaluation
PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
JOB KNOWLEDGE ... technical knowledge of the issues facing local
government.
(2)
COMMUNICATION SKILLS ... ability to communicate effectively
(speaking and writing skills).
(3)
EQUITY AND FAIRNESS ... concern for fair treatment of citizens,
employees, and others.
(4)
INTERPERSONAL SKILLS ... use of tact and consideration, listens
to others, exercises patience.
(5)
WORK HABITS ... job dedication and motivation, ability to work
effectively under pressure.
EXHIBIT C
Page 2 of 4
(6)
PLANNING SKILLS ... ability to anticipate and meet future problems
and needs.
(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 body, respect for the views of the
Council as a body.
(9) TOTAL BUDGET MANAGEMENT... preparation and adherence.__
TOTAL SCORE
AVERAGE SCORE PER CATEGORY (Total Score)
9
EXHIBIT C
Page 3 of 4
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OVERVIEW
Employee Name Title: Municipal Court Judge
Performance Council Scoring by Council Person Total Average
Category (Initials for each Council Person) Points Points
per
Category
(1) Job Knowledge
(2) Communication
Skills
(3) Equity and
Fairness
(4) Interpersonal
Skills
(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 (A~re~ate Total Points) =
(9 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 shows a need for improvement.
· A rating between 2.5 and 3.4 is satisfactory
· Any rating above 3.0 is more than satisfactory.
· A rating above 3.5 exceeds requirements.
EXHIBIT C
Pa~e 4 of 4