HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 23-1993 . �
RESOLUTION HO. 23-93
AMENDIHG PERSOHNEL POLICY
WHEREAS, a comprehensive personnel policy governing the
managerial organization and operation affairs of the City of Brookings
employees has been adopted by the Brookinge City Commission.
WHEREAS, the Commission find that amendments to certain policies
as set forth in esid statement should be made.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brookings City Commission
that the personnel policy be amend to include the Department Head
Performance Appraisal for the City of Brookings as presented by L. J.
Drake. (see attached)
Passed and approved this 23rd day of March, 1993.
�,
ATT R �k�,�, ,
U=4o;PORAT�;°c�, . ,�-v' I .
��� M�� o Mayor
�_ � � � ---�
�-- -�
Finance Officer
_
� ■� L. J. Dral�e � Associates
� MANAGEMENT SERVICES
�� • Management Seminars
• Labor Relations
• Management Surveys
March 19, 1993
City Commission
City of Brookings
City Hali
Brookings , SD. 57006
SUBJECT: Department Head Performance Appraisal
Dear Commissioners :
Attached to this letter is a detailed report on a
proposed system by which the Commissioners can appraise
the performance of department heads .
This subject has been in the discussion stage for a
prolonged period of time . Efforts have been made to use
the system that is in place for appraising the rank and
file employees . This has not been effective because
performance factors must reflect the work people do.
Obviously the work of a department head is immensely
different from the work force they manage.
It also deserves to be mentioned that the Ad Hoc
Committee that was formed to study management compensation
also addressed the subject of Performance Appraisal for
managers . The concept discussed at that level related to
the use of quantitative objectives , which is highly complex
and will require several months to be put into practical
application.
In the interim, there should be no further delay in
establishing a system for departmenty heads . At their
March 9, meeting the department heads reviewed the attached
system and generally accepted it . Therefore,
IT IS RECOMMENDED:
That the system described in the attached report be
adopted as the Department Head Appraisal System for
the City of Brookings .
Sinc_ ely,
. , ��� �4--�
L.J. Drake, Labor Consultant
LJD/mas
1511 8th Street South#107, Brookings, South Dakota 57006, (605) 692-1895
DBPPiBTKENT HBAD P$RFORt�NC$ APPR�IS�I.
This system is designed to measure the basic tasks and
responsibilities of Department Heads. Purposely, there is
littie, if any, similarity with this system and the one used
for appraising the performance of rank and file personnei.
The Department Head system invoives four fundamentaiss
• Eiaht Performance Factors--Each of these factors
relate to a speciai task or responsibility that
goes with the job of top management. These are �
set forth on a form (Attached) .
• Points of Reference--These are descriptions of •
the Performance Factors. It is to aid the rater
in measuring the factors by defining the
terms. As an example, when the rater starts to
measure, say "Leadership Effectiveness , " he/she
refers to that reference point and uses the
description when making measurement. With raters
aii using the same reference points, the system
tende to be more objective. Obviousiy the person
being rated will be provided, in advance, a copy of
the system, inciuding the reference points, to
enabie him/her to fuily understand the results.
A copy of the Reference Points is enclosed.
• 'A Scale from 1 to 10--This form identifies the eight
Performance Factors and provides the scale to be
used by the rater. The rater circies the numericai
value that best refiects the performance. The rater
is aiso encouraged to make appropriate comments to �
explain the numericai rating in narrative form. The
sum total of the individuai factor ratings produce
the Overaii Rating.
• An Overail RatinQ--Based on the totai point count,
an overali rating is produced by adding the points
and appiying this to the "range. " The overaii
rating wiii be one of the foilowing:
--Unsatisfactory
--Below Expectations
--Satisfactory ,
--Exceeds Expectations
--Outstanding
, •
PBRFOB1riANCB Fl►CTORS--RBFBBBNCB POINTS
Leadership Bffectiveness: �
(1 ) . Is a positive exampie set for subordinates?
,
(2) . Are actions free of partiality and favoritism?
(3) . Are there practices of positive motivation; i .e. ,
deserved praise and recognition for exceptional
work?
(4) . Is corrective action taken when needed; i .e. ,
counseling, reprimand, discipiine?
(5) . Are actions firm and decieive?
Orqanization and Planninq �lbility: �
(1) . Are operations prioritized with the most import-
ant given the greatest attention?
(2) . Is there a minimum of backiog of criticai work?
(3) . Are peak periods anticipated in terms of staffing
and training?
(4) . To what extent is "passing the buck" practfced?
(5) .� Is delegation to subordinates ciear� and is there
foilow through to assure compietion?
Budget Preparation:
(1) . Are budget requests weil justified with workload
data and staffing requirements?
(2) . Are budget requests and data clear and free of
"fogging" or technicai gobbly gook?
(3) . Do budget requests anticipate and reflect the
future; i .e. , new laws and regulations , cost
indexes, inflationary trends, etc.?
Bndget Coatroi:
(1 ) . Are departmentai budget controi systems in piace
with monthiy and quarteriy targets and future
expenditure trends?
(2) . To what extent are budgetary "surprises" passed
on to the Board?
(3) . Are specific cost savings strategies practiced?
. ' • 2
8ffective Public Representation:
(1 � . What ie the pubiic "feed back" relative to the
service and ��treatment" received? Is the feed
back weli founded or a "resuit of regulatory re-
sentment?
(2) . Given the nature of the function, is a positive
pubiic image projected?
(3) . Is sufficient time sp�nt in explaining, to the
pubiic, the requirements of locai, state and
federai laws, ordinances, regulations, policies?
(4) . To what extent is tact and dipiomacy practiced?
Effective lianaqeaent of Ti�:
(1 ) . Is the operation "businessiike" with a minimum
of idieness and/or useless activity? '
(2) . To what extent does gossip, counter-productive
discussions and needless visiting occur?
(3) . Does the department head come to meetings and
sessions with a prepared "agenda" of subjects
- to be covered?
(4) . Is the lay-out of the office or field operation
weil thought through to conserve steps and
back and forth travei? .
(5) . Are coffee breaks and rest periods monitored and
regulated?
Personnei Training and Develop�ent:
(1) . To what extent doee� cross-training exist in the •
department operations?
(2) . Is someone trained, or being trained, to take
over in the absence (vacation, sickness or
retirement) of the department head?
(3) . Is the staff given opportunities and encouraged
to attend work related workshops and seminars?
(4) . Does it appear that the staff has a "spirit of
performance" or do staff inembers behave as if
they are stuck in a rut?
� 3
Comunication Skiii�:
(1) . Does the department head communicate elfectively
in writing and verbaily�
(2) . Is the department head an effective listener?
(3) . Is essentiai information t�reil documented for
future reference?
(4) . In conveying information, does the department
head put himseif/herseif in the "receiver's
shoes"?
(5) . Is communication, verbal and written, conveyed in
a timely fashion?
� • •. Name PBBFORMPiNCB F�CTORS Date
. �,
Leadership Bffectivenese
� a 3 4 g 6, 7 8 9 10
^ -
coaeate:
�ibility to Plan and Orqanize
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Co�ents:
Budget Preparation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 �_
Co�enta: �
Budget Controi
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-
Coaoents:
gffectiive Pubiic Representation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Com�entss
Bffective l�ianagesent of Ti�e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 _
Coanents:
Personnel Training S. Develop�ent
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Coa�ents:
Comunication Skiiis
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
Co�ents:
Total
. . � �+� •
Overali 8atinq
A
Department Head Date
Reason for Appraisai Check one:.
0 Compietion of Six Months Service
0 Re-Appraisai
0 Annuai Review
Range Total
Point Count Overaii Rating
8-16 Unsatisfactory
17-32 Below Expec`tations
33-48 Satisfactory
49-64 Exceeds Expectations
65-80 Outstanding
Total Point Count--This Rating
Overaii Rating
Comments:
Rater
I have reviewed this rating and have been encouraged to make
comments about it. I understand that these comaaents wiii be
attached to this appraisal.
Department Head
Department