Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Carr seconded Mr. Sharpe’s suggestion and also felt they would need to have a goal <br />developing study session. <br /> <br />Mr. Glickert asked if there was a time frame as to when the forms would be offered and when <br />they would need to be returned. Mayor Welsch noted that was something Council would have <br />to decide in this process. She suggested that members submit ideas and Council can put them <br />together and from this create a draft of how Council’s review process would be handled. <br /> <br />Mr. Glickert opened the discussion for the City Clerk’s two evaluation forms submitted: one <br />submitted by Sharpe/Glickert and one from Carr/Crow. <br /> <br />Mayor Welsch went on record again stating she preferred the one that looked both at the goals <br />that were set for the City Clerk last year and also evaluated how the City Clerk handles her daily <br />duties – this is in the Glickert/Sharpe form. She said the form was very specific about job <br />responsibilities that Council can comment on and then specifically asks about goals set out last <br />year. <br /> <br />Ms. Carr said both forms looked at tasks and goals and another problem she had with <br />Glickert/Sharpe form was that it only addressed nine of the goals and not all of them. In <br />addition she said it lumped a lot of things together. She stated if she had four criteria grouped in <br />an area on which to base her score, she may weight something more heavily that she felt <br />needed improvement instead of giving an individual score to each one. Ms. Carr said the <br />evaluation would not necessarily reflect the quality of all the work or tasks being evaluated. She <br />said both forms addressed both tasks and goals. <br /> <br />Mr. Glickert asked the City Clerk if there were eleven goals provided to her last year. Ms. <br />Pumm agreed and noted that she was told the other two goals were incorporated in previous <br />criteria questions. Mr. Glickert said that was true and they could put the other two goals back in <br />if that was what Council wanted if they chose this form. <br /> <br />Mr. Sharpe moved to accept the City Clerk’s appraisal form submitted by Glickert/Sharpe and <br />the motion was seconded by Mr. Kraft. <br /> <br />Mr. Price asked about a format issue, if the grouping could be separated and evaluated <br />separately. <br /> <br />Mayor Welsch said the difference she saw was in the other form the items were graded <br />separately and on Glickert/Sharpe form, items were grouped into categories to be graded as a <br />category. <br /> <br />Ms. Carr said that was a problem for her; the aggregating of items into categories. She noted <br />that one item may be weak and even though everything else was very strong she probably <br />would focus her rating on the one thing she thought was weak. Ms. Carr said by aggregating <br />and having one score for several criteria did not convey enough information to Council’s <br />employees. <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />