Monterey City Council
August 15, 2023

distancing regulations, adopting eviction protections, hosting blood drives, and providing food security.
o Offer COVID-19 vaccine and booster clinics to employees, seniors, students, vulnerable populations, and the general public.

Held 114 vaccine clinics and administered over 8,100 doses since January 2021.

Due to reduced demand and greater availability at other venues, vaccination clinics have been suspended at this time, however, two vaccination clinics for youth are scheduled for November and December at El Estero Park Center. o Support food security by working with community partners to provide meals and fresh produce to individuals and families in Monterey during the holiday season.

Planning Thanksgiving and Christmas Meal Kits will be distributed during the holiday season in partnership with the Food Bank for Monterey County and Kiwanis Club of Monterey. Target dates for the two events are Wednesday, November 23, 2022 and Thursday, December 22, 2022 at El Estero Park Center/Dennis the Menace Playground parking lot.
o Provide important nutritional services for Senior Citizens at Scholze Park Center.

Programs included Meals on Wheels and a weekly Produce Pick Up. o Continue to offer monthly Blood Drives at Hilltop Park Center in partnership with the American Red Cross.
o Continue to provide an annual Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) Report Published the latest HEAL Report in April 2022.
o Engage the public on a potential ordinance restricting smoking in multi-family housing units.

Policy issue put on hold due to the pandemic; may be scheduled for mid-2022. o Adopt an ordinance restricting the sale of flavored tobacco and vaping products.

Adopted by the City Council in August 2022. Takes effect on February 28, 2023. ● Recognize that public safety is a priority to ensure that our City is safe and welcoming to all, contributing to our economic vitality as a destination City. o Complete the Standards of Coverage and Community Risk Assessment Study.

Study was completed and presented to the City Council in May 2022. Future discussions about fire services and coverage may continue with the community in 2022 and 2023.
o Implement the new Police Records Management System (RMS) to be in compliance with State regulations.

Approved in 2021/22; anticipate 13 month implementation process for a go-live early 2023.
o Complete the Central Public Safety Facility Study to address the 1959 constructed, aging infrastructure at the Fire Administration Headquarters, Downtown Fire Station 11, Police Facility and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Campus.

Council approved funding the study in 2021, with additional funding allocated in 2022. The study will begin in fall 2022 and be completed by summer 2023.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 46, Packet Page 133 City of Monterey
Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, Strategic Priorities and Staff Work Plan Updated August 2022

o Develop a Local Roadway Safety Plan, a ‘crash data’ driven safety evaluation which develops and prioritizes systemic safety improvements.

Grant application to be submitted in Fall 2022.
o Replace aging Fire Department fleet.

Took delivery of two new Type 1 (structure) engines and one Type 3 (wildland) engine in 2021. Command vehicles ordered (backordered for indefinite period).

Truck order pending.
● Prepare for emergencies and community resiliency.
o Offer ongoing CERT training to community members.

Trained 28 new community members in basic CERT classes; training programs ongoing. New member class held in March 2022 and scheduled for September 2022.
o Adopt the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP).

Drafted the MJHMP in 2021 in collaboration with the Monterey County Office of Emergency Services. Plan adopted by City Council in June 2022 o Work with the California Department of Conservation to update tsunami signage and education to reflect the newly-adopted Tsunami Inundation Maps Staff began to work with the State in summer 2021; project ongoing. o Update the General Plan Safety Element.

City Council allocated City funds on July 19, 2022 to start the Safety Element.

The Element will be completed by 2023 in conjunction with the Housing Element update.
o Due to increased shark activity in the area, prepare signage and a Standard Operating Procedure for incidents involving sharks. Staff has researched information from the State as well and implemented signs for use during shark incidents on the Monterey Peninsula.
o Continue to look for grant funding to upgrade or repair existing infrastructure and maintain resiliency.

Ongoing.
o Continue Fuel Reduction efforts to remove invasive species and flammable understory in greenbelts within and adjacent to City neighborhoods.

In 2021, spent $300,000 in completing fuel reduction work. Efforts will continue in 2022.
o Engage and collaborate with the Monterey County Office of Emergency Services and the U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey on joint training exercises and communication efforts.

In summer 2022, Fire Department and EOC staff served as controllers and evaluators in the Monterey County Bronze Pelican EOC Functional Exercise. In August 2022, Monterey Police and Fire Departments participated in an active shooter exercise with the Presidio of Monterey.
o Collaborate with the U.S. Coast Guard on training exercises.

City of Monterey to co-sponsor an educational and training event with the U.S.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 47, Packet Page 134 City of Monterey
Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, Strategic Priorities and Staff Work Plan Updated August 2022

Coast Guard Station Monterey, U.S. Naval Air Station Lemoore, and other community partners at San Carlos Beach Park.
o Develop a Community Wildfire Protection Plan
RFP development underway. Plan expected to be completed by summer 2023. o Through executive training, build resiliency on emerging homeland security issues, including international and domestic threats and hazards, cyber and technology challenges, crisis and risk communication.

Police Chief and Assistant City Manager enrolled in the Center for Homeland Security and Defense (CHDS) Executive Leaders Program at Naval Postgraduate School, to conclude in late 2023.
● Foster opportunities for the public to stay physically and mentally active through activities and services in our parks, trails, beaches, campgrounds, sports center, and community centers.
o Install ADA parking and ADA portable restroom to provide access to disc golf at Ryan Ranch Park in partnership with the Stinging Jellies Disc Golf Club.

The Ryan Ranch Disc Golf course opened in July 2022.
o Resolve Pickleball discord and balance the needs of pickleball players, tennis players and neighbors at Via Paraiso Park.

City conducted a 3-month pilot program following multiple mediation between pickleball players and neighbors in May, June and July; program made permanent in August 2022.
o Conduct the Monterey Sports Center Operational Analysis.

Operational Analysis launched in July 2022 with consultant, Sports Facilities Companies. Scheduled for completion by late fall 2022.
o Organize summer camps and programs that provide opportunities for youth to stay active in City parks and facilities while also providing childcare for working parents. Outdoor camp programs for 2022 included Beach Volleyball, Challenger International Soccer, Flag Football, Basketball, Track and Field, and Summer Fun Playground Program. In addition, 2022 was a record summer for Monterey Sports Center’s Sports Camp! One of the largest summers yet with an attendance of nearly 100 campers each week for 8 weeks. This summer also marked the return of 6 weeks of Camp Quien Sabe overnight youth camp program at Toro Park and 7 weeks Whispering Pines Day Camp. These two camps completed the Summer 2022 season each serving approximately 50 campers each week. Total enrollment for all summer camps offered in the Parks & Recreation Department was approximately 1,858 campers. o Serve individuals and families of all ages at the Sports Center and community (park) centers by offering opportunities for both mental and physical activity.

In 2022, continued restoration of programs at El Estero, Scholze, and Hilltop , as well as other community center programs such as ceramics, fencing, gymnastics, dance classes, Pilates, and art classes, as well as specialty camps such as Gymnastics Camp, Tiny Tot Camp, Lego Camp, Chess Camp and Woodworking Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 48, Packet Page 135 City of Monterey
Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, Strategic Priorities and Staff Work Plan Updated August 2022

Camp. Opportunities for seniors include as well as opportunities to engage with others socially and physically with activities like Tai Chi, Chi Gong, Watercolor, Bridge and Line Dancing. The Sports Center continues to offer popular programs for youth including basketball clinics, volleyball lessons, martial arts, swimming lessons and more!
o Begin long-term planning and community engagement efforts for the future of the Old Capitol Site.

Feasibility Study funded in the 2022/23 NCIP. Expected to launch park planning efforts in early 2023 after RFP is developed and finalized. ● Provide learning opportunities and foster community connection through the Monterey Public Library.
o Provide programs for all ages – that inform, inspire, build community engagement, promote reading, celebrate Monterey’s rich past, and support community priorities of economic, mental and physical health, and social justice.

Ongoing.
o Identify funding source for Library facility renovation in conjunction with the Central Public Safety Facility Study.

No funding sources have identified or formal fundraising efforts begun. o Implemented a new RFID inventory and borrowing system using donated funds.

Launched the new system, with over 90,000 items tagged in summer 2021.

Updates to the automated checkout systems are expected in 2023. o Provide bookmobile services to neighborhoods to library services.

Resumed bookmobile services in August 2021. New bookmobile funded and scheduled to arrive in fall 2023. Existing bookmobile may increase hours of service in fall 2022.
o Onboard a new Library & Museums Director to the City team New director to begin in mid-August 2022.
o Work with local partner agencies to update the Children’s Reading and Learning Area with dedicated funds raised through Monterey County Gives.

Programs to run through summer 2022.
● Respond effectively to neighborhood concerns.
o Work with the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority to adopt a Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail Maintenance Strategy.

Draft strategy has been completed. The project’s environmental review is underway and is expected be completed by fall 2022.
o Conducting tree mapping and inventory to address the health of Monterey’s forests and greenbelts.

Tree mapping begun in 2021 and will continue in 2022.
o Continue efforts on the Small Cell Ordinance.

Efforts will continue in 2022.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 49, Packet Page 136 City of Monterey
Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, Strategic Priorities and Staff Work Plan Updated August 2022

o Respond to concerns regarding the Monterey Regional Airport’s expansion efforts and its impact on neighborhoods.

The City of Monterey prevailed in the lawsuit.
o Continue the implementation of North Fremont Corridor underground utility projects utilizing Rule 20a funding.

Planning and coordination efforts will continue in 2022. ● Fund projects for the betterment of Monterey’s neighborhoods through the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP).
o Continue funding the NCIP at 16% of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenues.

NCIP Committee meetings resumed in Jan 2022 to start the process to present recommended NCIP projects to City Council for approval in fall 2022 ______________________________________________
Value Driver #2: Protect and preserve our natural environment by addressing climate change through ecologically responsible and pragmatic solutions.

The City Council recognizes the necessity of bold, pragmatic, and thoughtful solutions to protect our natural environment for future generations. Community decisions on transportation, land use, sea level rise, coastal protection, forestry, and city government operations can have a positive impact on our environment locally, regionally, and globally.

Strategic Priorities:
● Protect the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and our environmental assets from pollution.
o Update the Local Coastal Plan (LCP)
Draft Coastal Land Use Plan is being prepared. Draft plan will be released for public review in 2022.
o Storm Water Trash Capture Project
Complete the project in 2022 in larger tributaries. Establish a priority method for complete capture and refine long-term maintenance strategies by Jan 2023. ● Develop a long-term strategy for Municipal Wharf No. 2 and a sustainable fishing industry.
o Support sustainable fishing activities
Provided an annual financial contribution to the Monterey Bay Fisheries Trust. ● Continue efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). o Support efforts to expand existing solar energy arrays on City buildings In 2022, develop a concept for East and West Garage and the City Hall Parking Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 50, Packet Page 137 City of Monterey
Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, Strategic Priorities and Staff Work Plan Updated August 2022

Lot
● Expand access to electric vehicle infrastructure and encourage sustainable transportation.
o Expand opportunities for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in the Waterfront Lot, parking garages, and parking lots.

In summer 2022, the City is exploring alternatives for an additional Tesla charging station in the City. The City will also upgrade EV charging stations to the ChargePoint network for more efficient use of charging stations and cost recovery.
o Continue to integrate low-emissions and electric vehicles into the City’s fleet.

Continue efforts in 2022.
______________________________________________
Value Driver #3: Serve as stewards of the City’s financial resources through sound economic vitality efforts, streamlining operations, reasonable revenue enhancements, visionary long-term planning, fiscal transparency, and community partnerships.

The City Council is committed to balancing economic activity by supporting Monterey’s economic drivers, including but not limited to hospitality, academia, health care, retail, military, and fisheries. The Council also recognizes that continued prudent fiscal discipline helps ensure the high quality of life and services for residents; strategies include appropriate service levels, optimizing City operations, driving innovation that leverages technology and business solutions, ensuring workforce compensation and benefit structures are both competitive and financially sustainable, ensuring appropriate municipal infrastructure needs are addressed, implementing appropriate revenue enhancement opportunities, providing reliable and timely fiscal reporting, and fostering community partnerships.

Strategic Priorities:
● Carefully manage City revenues and expenditures which support the delivery of City services.
o Codify repayment plans for long term interfund borrowing. Implement the plans to ensure interfund debt is repaid. Address inconsistencies in reporting between all debt service.

Complete by October 2022
o Review, clarify, update, and simplify the City’s business license processes including timely collection.

Complete by September 2022
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 51, Packet Page 138 City of Monterey
Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, Strategic Priorities and Staff Work Plan Updated August 2022

o Hire Business License Inspector to implement updated processes and canvas locations to ensure compliance and collection of all fees due to the City.

Complete by October 2022
o Review, improve and implement updated purchasing processes including monitoring outdated encumbrances
Ongoing
● Consider appropriate revenue enhancements to support City services and operations. o Continue the Cannabis Retail Roadmap Implementation.

Cannabis Tax to be considered in November 2022. City ordinances and plan amendments are being prepared in summer 2022. Environmental review will commence once the ordinances and plan amendments are finalized. o Contract with a service provider to perform Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) audits.

Audits are in process.
o Develop a comprehensive City-wide process for collection of fines and fees for issued citations.

Complete research in summer 2022. Implement in October 2022. ● Restore and establish City reserves at levels that provide fiscal resiliency and ability to address various economic and natural disasters
o Restore Fund for Economic Uncertainty to 16.6% of general fund operating expenses
Target to increase the Economic Uncertainty Fund to at least 20% of operating expenses by FY22/23 year-end.
o Establish a Conference Center Facilities Reserve Fund.

Target is $10M over next 8 years. Add additional contribution of $250,000 during FY 2023.Establish a Sports Center Facilities Reserve Fund.

Create policy to fund 10% annually of outstanding deferred facilities maintenance cost. Complete by September 2022. Establish a Pension Reserve Fund to address the unfunded Pension Liability and Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) Liability.

Total Pension and OPEB Liability is at $103,060,020 as of the last actuarial date of June 30, 2020. Continue to research current funding programs offered by CalPERS to determine ongoing funding solution. Complete research by September 2022.
o Establish a Sea Level Rise Contingency Fund (Tidelands).

Start with a Reserve level target of 25% of revenues collected. Implement by June 2022. Start with initial contribution of $750,000. Will revisit amount annually at close of fiscal year and determine contribution level based on available fund balance.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 52, Packet Page 139 City of Monterey
Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, Strategic Priorities and Staff Work Plan Updated August 2022

● Support business retention and business attraction efforts through partnerships with local business, business associations, and the chamber of commerce. o Launch efforts to collaborate with the business community on cleanup efforts in partnership with the Old Monterey Business Association
Began discussions with OMBA in 2022.
o Actively participate and engage with business organizations on a regular basis.

Continue participation in meetings with the Old Monterey Business Association, New Monterey Business Association, Fisherman’s Wharf Association, North Fremont Business Association, Cannery Row Business Association, and Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce.
● Support our military installations (U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey, Naval Support Activity Monterey, and U.S. Coast Guard Station Monterey) as significant economic drivers in the region.
o Provide base operations support for the Presidio of Monterey 2022 – Complete Intergovernmental Support Agreement (IGSA) negotiations o Complete the Monterey Bay Military Communities Compatible Use Plan in collaboration with the U.S. Navy and Army.

CUP planning efforts began in early 2021; will conclude in December 2022. o Continue to support the Monterey Bay Defense Alliance (MBDA) Facilitate an updated Economic Impact Study in 2022.
o Continue collaboration on State-level advocacy through the California Defense Communities Alliance (CDCA).

Ongoing. City to participate in California Defense Summit in Sacramento in August 2022.
● Identify and seek grant funding opportunities for City services and infrastructure, including parks, recreation, library, museums, public safety, fire prevention, and planning.
o Conduct facility repairs at the Monterey Sports Center utilizing California State Parks’ Per Capita Grant Funds.

Application submitted in January 2022; project to begin in late 2022. o Pursue California State Library grants.

Applications submitted in 2021 and will continue in 2022. o Pursue State and Federal transportation, infrastructure, and safety grants. Active Transportation Program grant request was submitted in June 2022. Other applications will be prepared and submitted in 2022
o Pursue FEMA Grant funds for Public Safety
Applied for and awarded an Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) for paramedic training for fire personnel; grant received and three personnel commenced training in July 2022
Applied for an Assistance to Firefighters Grant to replace emergency alerting system in fire stations.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 53, Packet Page 140 City of Monterey
Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, Strategic Priorities and Staff Work Plan Updated August 2022

o Utilize Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant Continue to utilize funds received in 2019 to partially pay for 2 firefighters’ salaries and benefits. Grant completed in February 2022 and being closed out. o Received Local Early Action Planning Grant (LEAP), Regional Early Action Planning Grant (REAP) and Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PHLA) Funds.

Funding received in 2021 to Fund the Housing Element Update and other housing efforts due by 2023. The City Council allocated these funds in July 2022 to start preparation of the Housing Element.
● Prioritize funding models and sources for facility rehabilitation, repair, and replacement.
o Implement a new Parks and Recreation Facility Fee, diverting 5% of related fees to be used exclusively for facility repair and rehabilitation.

Adopted in December 2021; took effect January 1, 2022
o Establish a Monterey Conference Center facility reserve Created a reserve as part of the FY 2022/23 adopted budget o Funded critical projects in the Monterey Sports Center Funded key projects including the dehumidifier, natatorium window tinting, water slide repairs, locker room floor rehabilitation, gymnasium floor resurfacing and Studio II windows.
● Track, monitor, and respond to ongoing pension liability costs. o Research options to address the City’s unfunded pension liability.

Efforts will continue in 2022; Council reviewed policy considerations in early 2022, and policy discussions will continue with the City Council in late summer 2022.
● Drive innovation through technology and business solutions that enhance productivity and effectiveness for staff, as well as customer service for the public. o Provide user-friendly, 24/7 access to registration for recreation programs, facility reservations, and Monterey Sports Center memberships through new recreation management software.

New software implementation to launch in late 2022.
o Complete the Cemetery Mapping and Software Enhancements Project.

Project began in early 2021; slated for completion in 2022. o Purchase and implement a new financial software (ERP) system. The system will be able to improve and streamline processes, improve budgeting functions, integrate with human resource function, and provide more robust reporting.

Start the RFP process in Spring 2023. Purchase and implementation commencing during the 2024 fiscal year.
o Implementation of new online permitting portal for Community Development.

Portal went online in early 2022 for pilot testing. Progress has slowed due to loss Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 54, Packet Page 141 City of Monterey
Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, Strategic Priorities and Staff Work Plan Updated August 2022

of staff in the Information Services Division. Once employees are hired, the City will re-initiate this effort.
o Implementation of new online service request portal and mobile friendly solution for reporting Citizen concerns.

Project soft launch in third quarter 2022 with completion expected end of first quarter 2023.
o Purchase and implement a new public computer time management, fee collection and printing solution at the Library.

Donated funds received. Project to begin in 2023.
o Continue implementation of new Parking technology solutions.

Projects began in 2021 and will continue through 2022.
o Continue the Citywide transition from Google Workspace to Microsoft 365.

Phase 1 completed in December 2021; Phase 2 completion planned for the fourth quarter 2022.
o Update the City Records Retention and Disposition Schedule.

Project began mid-2022, to be completed by year-end.
o Digitization and online storage of documents and forms in Finance, Human Resources, City Clerk, and Community Development Departments into the City’s enterprise document management system (OnBase) and DocuSign.

Project started in late 2020 and will continue through 2023. o Creation and implementation of a new contract management solution in OnBase.

Solution created with implementation planned for pilot testing in third quarter 2022 and completion in fourth quarter 2022.Purchase and implement a new event management solution for the Conference Center.

Implementation in progress with project completion in third quarter 2022 o Implement new GIS aerial photos of the City with flight occurring in March 2022.

Purchased in late 2021 through a collaborative purchase agreement with five local agencies. Aerial photos received with implementation planned in third quarter 2022.
o Purchase and implement new mobile computers for end of life equipment in Fire department vehicles.

Funding allocated in FY23 budget; purchase and install planned for first quarter 2023.
o Purchase and implement new office computers and upgrades for Police, Fire and Engineering to replace end of life or slow equipment.

Funding allocated in FY23 fiscal budget. Police and Fire system upgrades in progress with Engineering project completion planned for fourth quarter 2022. o Purchase and implement new network infrastructure equipment to replace end of life equipment, allow for staff mobility, and access to City resources.

Funding allocated in FY23 fiscal budget with implementation planned in late 2023.
o Continue implementation of a new backup internet connection.

Project completed in fourth quarter 2022.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 55, Packet Page 142 City of Monterey
Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, Strategic Priorities and Staff Work Plan Updated August 2022

o Evaluate, purchase, and implement a new efficient data storage and backup solution to replace end of life hardware.

Funding allocated in FY23 fiscal budget and approved by Council in July 2022.

Purchase in progress with implementation planned in fourth quarter 2022. o Continue implementation of mobile communications solution allowing critical business telephone lines to extend outside of the City network.

Project started in 2021 with estimated completion in late 2022. o Update the Police Department Body Worn Camera and In-Car Camera program to ensure contemporary technology.

Approved in 2021/22; BWCs were implemented in July 2022, In-Car cameras are anticipated for implementation in December 2022.
o Develop improved Public Records request log and administrative process that is more intuitive and streamlined for staff, using existing tools ($0 addt’l cost) Project to begin mid-2022 for utilization starting Jan. 2023 o Implement new secure remote access and mobility capabilities for employees and vendors to replace end of life equipment.

Funding allocated in FY23 fiscal budget. Implementation in progress with completion in third quarter 2022.
o Implement new Police telephone call recording system to replace end of life equipment. Funding allocated in FY23 fiscal budget.

Purchase and implementation planned for first quarter 2023. o Implement new Fire inspection and pre-planning solution.

Project started in fourth quarter 2021 with project completion planned in third quarter 2022.
o Implement new cybersecurity awareness training for all employees.

Project started in third quarter 2022 with project completion planned fourth quarter 2022.
______________________________________________
Value Driver #4: Provide sufficient resources and support to develop, retain, and recruit a high quality city workforce.

The Council knows that the quality of city services correlates directly with the quality of city employees. For that reason, the Council is committed to supporting strategies that ensure Monterey can consistently attract, develop and retain employees capable of delivering services consistent with their vision for the future of the City including providing employees with the tools and resources they need to be successful in serving the public.

Strategic Priorities:

Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 56, Packet Page 143 City of Monterey
Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, Strategic Priorities and Staff Work Plan Updated August 2022

● Recognize that our workforce is our greatest resource for providing the service that our community deserves by providing city staff with the tools, resources, coaching, and feedback they need to perform well.
o Revamp employee performance, coaching, and feedback for City employees through a new process and workflow system.

Project will begin in early 2022 and be implemented by fall 2022. ● Support the City workforce through the COVID-19 pandemic including the implementation of citywide staffing and operational retooling, return-to-work protocols, COVID-19 contact tracing and notifications, and phase-in of the Reopening and Rehiring Fund.
o Carefully manage and implement sound, science-based vaccine and face covering policies for City employees and visitors to City facilities.

Revised policy for visitors took effect August 2021; employee safety protocols and policy took effect July 2020, updated October 2021, January 2022 and mandatory vaccination policy took effect September 2021. ● Implement best practices in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) through training, performance, hiring, and recruitment efforts.
o Begin DEI training for all City employees using a reputable consulting firm.

Completed DEI training for City staff in January 2022; will begin second phase of DEI implementation by mid-2022.
● Foster employee safety and wellness, including provision of a robust safety program, employee-centric and employee-led Safety Committee, frequent safety tailgate meetings, an efficient vehicle fleet management program, and other efforts. o Complete 12-month employee safety training calendar and finalize position specific training requirements index.

To complete in 2022.
o Continue biennial AB 1825 Harassment Prevention Training.

To be completed by all employees, volunteers, boards and commission members and City Council by December 31, 2022.
● Provide fair, competitive, and market-rate compensation and benefits to employees through effective labor negotiations.
o Complete labor negotiations for the City’s bargaining units that are fair, competitive, and market-driven.

Discussions began in 2021; slated for completion by June 2022. ______________________________________________
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 57, Packet Page 144 City of Monterey
Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, Strategic Priorities and Staff Work Plan Updated August 2022

Value Driver #5: Champion regional and local efforts to secure adequate, affordable, and sustainable water sources for the city, now and into the future.

The Council recognizes that access to a dependable supply of fresh water is a significant gating factor that impacts the City’s ability to provide affordable housing and promote economic vitality consistent with the goals described in the City’s General Plan.

Strategic Priorities:
● Continue to advocate and lobby on behalf of the City of Monterey’s interests on regional water issues, with an emphasis on securing water for affordable housing projects. o Submit letters to encourage the State Water Resources Control Board to open up water allocations for affordable housing projects.

Letters sent in 2020 and 2021; ongoing. The SWRCB responded in July 2022 that water allocations can not given until a replacement water supply is provided. o Collaborate with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
AMBAG adopted the new RHNA in early 2022 which will serve as the foundation of the Housing Element preparation in 2022-2023. ______________________________________________
Value Driver #6: Support efforts and policies that provide equitable access to affordable housing in Monterey and the region.

The Council embraces efforts that provide equitable access to affordable housing, including balanced approaches to increase housing supply, rental resources and assistance, and housing rehabilitation grants to homeless, low-income, senior and disabled individuals.

Strategic Priorities:
● Support affordable housing through modern zoning policies/ordinances, ADU policies, housing grants, review of density requirements, and consideration of City-owned sites for affordable housing.
o Approve residential uses on mixed-use, ground-floor locations.

Ordinance adopted in late 2021.
o Complete City-owned Potential Affordable Housing Sites Exclusive Negotiating Agreements.

Hosted two Council meetings on this topic. In July 2022, the Council ultimately directed staff to enter into a ENA with MidPen Housing for a potential affordable housing development behind City Hall.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 58, Packet Page 145 City of Monterey
Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, Strategic Priorities and Staff Work Plan Updated August 2022

o Provide Council with the requested update on rental units in the City of Monterey The City Council was provided an update on rental units and a possible rental registry.
● Address homelessness through programs and partnerships such as the Multidisciplinary Outreach Team (MDOT) and continued support of homeless service agencies through the City’s Community Development Block Grant program such as but not limited to Gathering for Women and Community Human Services. o Coordinate with homeless advocacy organizations (e.g. Gathering for Women) to provide COVID-19 vaccines to unhoused population
o Seek and receive funding for provided via the CDBG Public Service Grant process.

Completed in summer 2022.
o The MPD’s Multi-Disciplinary Outreach Team (MDOT) will continue to work sideby-side with various governmental and non-governmental organizations to offer, provide and find solutions for those who are unhoused.

In 2021, - the MPD and MDOT offered information on services in every contact they had with those who were unhoused, this resulted in services being provided by MDOT 293 times, in various ways.
______________________________________________
Value Driver #7: Expand opportunities for people of all ages and abilities to bike and walk safely through active transportation, accessibility, and safety initiatives.

The Council is committed to developing policies and supporting plans that create an environment where people, bicycles, buses, trolleys, and motor vehicles can move through the community safely and efficiently. The City Council also prioritizes pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility over driver convenience, and continues to value “Vision Zero” strategies of education, equity, engineering, evaluation, and enforcement.

Strategic Priorities:
● Maintain and repair core street, roadway, and storm drain infrastructure. o Continue implementation of the Traffic Signal Adaptive System in order to have all arterials running on the SCOOT system which reduces greenhouse gas emissions and enhances quality of life.

Munras Avenue and Foam Street corridors are now running on an adaptive system. Efforts will continue in 2022.
o Seek grants to fund safety enhancements for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.

Efforts will continue in 2022.Active Transportation Grant submitted in June 2022.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 59, Packet Page 146 City of Monterey
Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, Strategic Priorities and Staff Work Plan Updated August 2022

o Continue implementation of road rehabilitation, storm drain infrastructure, funded through SB 1, Measure P and S, and Measure X.

For FY 21/22, the City received approximately $800K in funding through Fuel taxes/SB 1, $11 M in funding from Measure P and S, and $1.1 M in funding for Measure X.
● Provide and deploy effective parking facilities, programs, and enforcement tools that support resident, business, and visitor access to various business districts and neighborhoods.
o Complete Waterfront Parking Expansion Project.

Phase 2 scheduled for completion in 2023 and Phase 3 at a later date. ● Continue supporting planning and construction efforts for regional trail networks. o Support efforts for the Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway (FORTAG).

Staff continues to seek grant opportunities for projects that connect to FORTAG within the City of Monterey, along North Fremont Street and Laguna Grande Regional Park.
o Seek grant funding and finalize design for the North Fremont “Gap” Project that connects the City’s bike and pedestrian network to FORTAG.

Staff will continue to apply for grants in 2022.
● Continue to enhance mobility for people of all ages and abilities. o Complete an update to the City’s ADA Transition Plan.

Scheduled completion by late 2022.
o Continue the implementation of ADA compliant curb ramps funded by Measure P/S.

Ongoing.
o Continue to implement APS (Audible Pedestrian Signal) installation at signalized intersections.

Ongoing.
o Continue to look for opportunities to enhance the transportation network to include pedestrian and bike facilities.

Efforts will continue through 2022.
o Continue to procure grants in order to provide safety education and encourage programs such as Safe Routes to School to encourage more walking and biking.

Efforts will continue in 2022.
______________________________________________
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 60, Packet Page 147 City of Monterey
Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, Strategic Priorities and Staff Work Plan Updated August 2022

Value Driver #8: Preserve, promote, and maintain our City’s historic and cultural resources through responsible stewardship and historic preservation that highlights the contributions and perspectives of all people who are a part of Monterey’s diverse history.

The City Council is committed to support policies and plans that ensure the protection, appropriate development, and use of the City’s historic and cultural assets. The City Council also recognizes the importance of sharing the City’s diverse history through the lens of the Native Americans, Latinx, Euro-Americans, African Americans, and Asian American/Pacific Islander communities who have contributed to the Monterey community.

Strategic Priorities:
● Ensure that the community’s history is interpreted and presented from a social justice lens.
o Develop a social justice and equity framework for the City’s Museums Division in collaboration with the Museums & Cultural Arts Commission.

Project not yet started; scheduled to be considered following review of the Citywide Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Framework. o Seek grant funds to pilot historic walks outlined in the draft Path of History Master Plan that tell our history from the perspective of first peoples and diverse ethnic groups that shaped Monterey’s past and present.

Grant funds awarded in summer 2022; staff developing RFP for consultant in fall 2022; draft Master Plan to be adopted in 2023.
● Preserve and protect Monterey’s maritime history.
o Work with the U.S. Coast Guard, Breakwater Cove, and Western Flyer Foundation to bring the restored Western Flyer fishing boat chartered by John Steinbeck to Monterey.

Discussions with the Western Flyer began in 2019; expected to arrive in late 2022.
______________________________________________
Value Driver #9: Foster a local government that is transparent and collaborative; and solicits, welcomes and appreciates input from all.

The City Council is committed to transparency, collaboration, and engagement with all of our residents, neighborhoods, businesses, and community partners through robust channels of communication including in-person, technology-based, and media outreach efforts. The City Council is also committed to providing core services to the community, and partnering with business, nonprofit, military, and government partners where appropriate.

Strategic Priorities:

Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 61, Packet Page 148 City of Monterey
Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, Strategic Priorities and Staff Work Plan Updated August 2022

● Maintain and expand methods for the public to engage and interact with their city government using a variety of engagement tools including media outreach, digital communications, and in-person engagement.
o Transition the City from at-large elections to district-based elections for City councilmembers, in compliance with the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA).

Council adopted Ordinance with Council districts map and election sequencing in February 2022. First district-based election will be held November 8, 2022 for Council districts 1 and 2, and at-large Mayor.
o Conduct open and inclusive appointment process to fill at-large Council vacancy.

Planning for fall 2022.
o Provide a robust and welcoming onboarding process to support newly elected official(s).

Begins December 2022 with swearing in of the new Council. ● Provide information and access to tools and resources through the City’s website. o Launch new City website and Content Management System (CMS).

New website launched in summer 2021; new features to be added through 2022. ● Understand City leaders’ values and priorities by facilitating annual discussions about the City Council’s Value Drivers and Strategic Priorities. o Council to update Value Drivers and Strategic Priorities; and review City Staff Work Plan.

New vision, mission, and value drivers adopted in December 2021; to review Staff Work Plan in January 2022.
● Recognize that City government’s role is to provide core services to the public, and partnerships with nonprofit, military, business, and other government agencies can be an effective means of supporting the public good.
o Continue ongoing positive working relationships with Montage Health, Middlebury Institute of International Studies, Monterey Peninsula College, Naval Support Activity Monterey, U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey, Coast Guard Station Monterey, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Monterey Peninsula Unified School District, and other stakeholders.

Ongoing.
______________________________________________
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 11., Item Page 62, Packet Page 149 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Prepared by: Clementine Bonner Klein, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Adopt a City Council Policy on Governance (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council review current policies on governance topics, provide direction to staff on any desired revisions, and adopt a resolution approving the Council Policy on Governance.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Foster a local government that is transparent and collaborative; and solicits, welcomes and appreciates input from all.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

It is appropriate for the Council to review its policies regularly to ensure their relevance.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no fiscal impact associated with discussing or providing guidance on Council policies.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The Council could choose not to discuss governance policies.

Date: 8/15/2023
Item No.: 12.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 1, Packet Page 150 DISCUSSION:

Background
City Councils have the authority, within certain parameters, to set processes and procedures on how they would like to conduct business. These processes are commonly known as ‘Governance’ topics. A discussion on governance with the City Council at its August 15, 2023 meeting will enable the City Council to discuss a variety of topics, discuss commonly accepted standards, and clarify the City Council’s policy. Clear guidance will be valuable for the City Council, staff, and members of the public.

The Council adopted Resolution No. 15-009 C.S. on January 20, 2015 (Attachment 2), approving policy guidelines relating to the following governance topics: Appointments to outside agencies and committees, Council meetings (questions for staff), Communication with staff, and the “Council Comments” portion of Council regular meetings. The guidelines adopted by Resolution No. 15-009 C.S. have been minorly edited for clarity and are incorporated into the draft resolution attached to this agenda report. They are not recommended for discussion at this time, due to the fact that the guidelines are sound and work well for the Council and staff to the present date.

The current Council policies on appointments to boards, commissions, and committees, and the process by which individual Councilmembers may request to agendize a matter of business, were approved by minute action on June 4, 2019, and January 22, 2020, respectively. These topics have been brought up by the Council recently as topics for further discussion. The appointment policy has been lightly revised to bring it up-to-date with current business practices.

Both policies have been incorporated into the draft resolution attached to this agenda report and are recommended for discussion below.

Recommendation
It is recommended that the Council discuss and provide direction to City staff on the following governance policy items, which are broken down into specific potential discussion points with policy/practice details when applicable.

1. Agendizing of Council Items by Individual Councilmembers Current policy (Adopted January 22, 2020; see Attachment 3):

1. Councilmember submits agenda report (< 350 words) to City Clerk outlining a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda.

2. At the Council meeting when the request is agendized, Councilmember delivers the request verbally (< 3 minutes).

3. Open public comment.

4. Council works toward a majority vote on whether the matter warrants being heard at a future date. Excessive discussion is not recommended so as not to discuss the matter itself.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 2, Packet Page 151

2. Appointing Members to Boards, Commissions, and Committees o Interviews and Recommendations. Currently, the Mayor interviews applicants and provides recommendations to the Council, which then, as a body, makes the appointments.

3. City Budget
o Public Engagement

4. Councilmember Participation at Conferences, Trainings, and Events o Criteria. The Purchasing Manual applies to all employees and the Mayor and Councilmembers, and states that “all expenses related to travel should be limited to those deemed “reasonable and necessary.”
o Budget. “Council Travel & Meetings” is budgeted for FY 2023-24 at $7,500 total, or approximately $1,500 per councilmember per year.

5. Letterhead Policy: Letters of Support or Opposition From Individual Members Versus the City Council as a Whole
o Staff recommends a policy stating there should be consensus among the Council before a legislative position is submitted by a councilmember on letterhead, an online portal, or e-mail. Position letters from individual councilmembers can undermine the City’s formal position. If councilmembers wish to take a position individually, they may use their own personal letterhead and clearly state in the correspondence and applicable form(s) that the position is from a personal perspective, and not necessarily the position of the City.

6. Strategic Planning and the City Staff Work Program
o Frequency of Check-Ins. The City Council reviews the Value Drivers and Strategic Priorities in-depth every four to five years. The City Staff Work Program, which are specific efforts sorted by Value Driver and Strategic Priorities, are presented to the City Council twice a year in January and August.

Policy Options: Council may choose to maintain status quo, or receive updates on a different interval.

7. City Manager and City Attorney Annual Performance Evaluation o Process and Timeline. The evaluation of the City Manager and City Attorney are historically conducted annually and are proctored by the Human Resources Director. The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) advises elected boards to use an outside consultant to facilitate evaluations of appointed officials (see ICMA Manager Evaluations Handbook, Attachment 3).

Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 3, Packet Page 152

8. Reconsideration Policy
o The City’s policy regarding reconsideration of previous decisions, adopted in 2022, reads: “Any Councilmember who voted with the majority may move for reconsideration of any action at the same meeting or at the next regular meeting.”
o Staff recommends that the City follows Rosenberg’s Rules of Order for reconsideration motions, which states that a motion to reconsider requires a majority vote to pass, the motion must be made at the meeting where the item was first voted upon, and a motion may be made only by a member who voted in the majority on the original motion (see Attachment 4, Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, pg. 6)

9. Councilmember Interactions with Labor Unions When Negotiations are Pending o Staff will facilitate a discussion regarding potential conflicts and issues related to councilmember interactions with labor unions when negotiations are pending.

10. Ex Parte Contacts in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings
o Existing Policy reads: “Councilmembers should avoid taking positions on issues that may come before them in their quasi-judicial capacity, until they have heard all the evidence and arguments at the public hearing on the issue.” o Staff will facilitate a discussion regarding legal concerns and fair procedures when there may be ex parte communications between councilmembers and certain parties prior to or a hearing or proceeding. Attachment 5, The Limits and Disclosure Requirements of Ex Parte Contacts in the Public Hearing Context, provides background and examples of other cities’ policies.

Staff recommends that the City Council discuss each of the items individually, and provide clear direction by way of a motion for each item. During the meeting, staff would type the directed policy into the resolution (Attachment 1) in areas highlighted in yellow, and the City Council would adopt the updated Resolution at the end of the meeting.

HU/nr/cbk
Attachments:

1. Draft Resolution with Exhibit A, City Council Policy on Governance

2. Resolution 15-009 C.S.

3. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, January 22, 2020

4. International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Manager Evaluations Handbook (2013)

5. Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, Revised 2011

6. The Limits and Disclosure Requirements of Ex Parte Contacts in the Public Hearing Context, League of California Cities
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 4, Packet Page 153 Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 5, Packet Page 154 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№09/22

ADOPTING A CITY COUNCIL GOVERNANCE POLICY
WHEREAS, it is an adopted value driver of the Council to foster a local government that is transparent and collaborative, and solicits, welcomes, and appreciates input from all; WHEREAS, it is prudent to develop and adopt governance policies to ensure mutual understanding among the members of Council; communicate expectations clearly for the benefit of the Council, staff, and public; and demonstrate professionalism and transparency in the conduct of the City’s business;
WHEREAS, the Council adopted Resolution No. 15-009 C.S. on January 20, 2015, approving policy guidelines relating to the following governance topics: Appointments to outside agencies and committees, Council meetings (questions for staff), Communication with staff, and the “Council Comments” portion of Council regular meetings; WHEREAS, the guidelines adopted by Resolution No. 15-009 C.S. are appropriate, it is the Council’s intent to continue to abide by them, and those guidelines have been incorporated into the Council Policy on Governance that is attached as Exhibit A; WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to rescind its policy on appointments to boards, commissions, and committees, which was approved by minute action on June 4, 2019; WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to rescind its policy on the process by which individual Councilmembers may request to agendize a matter of business, which was approved by minute action on January 22, 2020;
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council held a detailed discussion and provided direction regarding the following general governance topics: Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees; Councilmember Participation at Conferences, Trainings, and Events; Letterhead Policy; Agendizing of Council Items by Individual Councilmembers; City Budget; Strategic Planning and the City Staff Work Program; and City Manager and City Attorney Annual Performance Evaluations;
WHEREAS, the direction provided on August 15, 2023 is incorporated into the Council Policy on Governance that is attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 6, Packet Page 155 2 excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that:

1. It hereby adopts the City Council Policy on Governance which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A.

2. All other prior Council resolutions, including but not limited to Resolution No. 15-009, and policies, including but not limited to those adopted by minute action described in the recitals, in conflict with this resolution are hereby rescinded.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 7, Packet Page 156

EXHIBIT A
PURPOSE:

To set forth standards and requirements to ensure that that the Council, staff, and public can all easily understand the processes by which the Council’s business is conducted, to foster a local government that is transparent and collaborative; and solicits, welcomes, and appreciates input from all.

POLICY:

A. Agendizing of Council Items by Individual Councilmembers.

1. A Councilmember may submit an agenda report to City Clerk’s Office outlining a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda. This agenda report should, in no greater than 350 words, describe what, how, and why the matter of business should be heard before the City Council. The City Clerk’s Office will add the item to an upcoming agenda.

2. At the Council Meeting where the request is considered, the Councilmember who submitted the request will deliver a verbal report consistent with the agenda report.

This verbal report should not exceed three minutes.

3. Public comment will be received.

4. In discussing the matter, the City Council shall try to focus on whether or not the item warrants being heard at a future date and not discuss the item itself. The Council shall work toward a majority vote on whether to agendize the item.

Members of the Council should avoid excessive follow-up questions because it encourages discussion about the topic that should be reserved for a time should the requested item be agendized.

B. Appointing Members to Boards, Commissions, and Committees (“CouncilAppointed Bodies”)

1. Maddy Act Report. Each December, the City Clerk’s office will prepare and publish to the City website a Local Appointments List (“Maddy Act report”) in compliance with Government Code section 54972-54973.

Interviews and Recommendations.

2. Appointment Procedures.
a. Expiring Regular Terms.
i. The City Clerk’s office will notify each member of a Councilappointed body prior to the expiration of their term and advise them to submit a new application in order to be considered for a new term. ii. Advisory body liaison staff will provide to the City Clerk’s office a factual report on potential re-appointees, which will include attendance records and participation information.
b. Outreach for All Vacancies.
i. The City Clerk’s Office maintains an email list of residents interested in learning about vacancies on Council-appointed bodies. Residents may subscribe to the list anytime by following the link at City Council Policy:

Governance
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 8, Packet Page 157

EXHIBIT A
2 https://monterey.org/subscribe. Email notifications are sent to this list to solicit applications for every vacancy, whether it is an expiring regular term or an unscheduled vacancy. The City Clerk’s office may advertise more broadly via social media and other avenues to reach more residents.
ii. The City Clerk’s office will post a vacancy notice in the agenda posting case and on the City website in compliance with Government Code section 54974.
c. Applications, Interviews, Recommendations, and Appointments. i. Following the noticed application deadline or priority review cutoff date, the elected Mayor will conduct applicant interviews. The appointed Vice-Mayor will serve as an alternate in the instance of any conflict that does not allow the Mayor to perform the interviews. ii. The City Clerk’s office will assist the Mayor in arranging and scheduling interviews with the applicants. The Mayor will be provided with all applications and factual reports to assist in evaluation of the applicants.
iii. The Mayor will interview the applicants and formulate recommendations based on each applicant’s interests and skills, as well as the specific needs of the body at the time of appointment. iv. The Mayor’s appointment recommendations will be published in the City Council agenda packet, together with all applications and factual reports.
v. Appointments will be made at the City Council meeting by majority vote of the City Council.

C. Appointments to Outside Agencies and Committees. Councilmembers serve the City on outside agencies in roles that fall into Voting Member or Liaison/Observer capacities.

Annually, the Council reviews and makes appointments to the boards of outside agencies, and to City committees. Throughout the year as they attend these outside board meetings, Councilmembers can report back to the entire Council or staff with a summary or during “Council Comments” on the Council agenda.

D. City Manager and City Attorney Annual Performance Evaluation. The evaluation of the City Manager and City Attorney are conducted annually, and are proctored by the Human Resources Director.

E. Communication with Staff. The Charter section 4.7 requires the Mayor and Councilmembers to deal directly through the City Manager or City Attorney, who will direct questions, requests, issues, and concerns to appropriate staff members. Elected officials cannot commit staff time and resources outside of public meetings without a majority vote.

Elected officials receive personal contacts, communications, and emails from the public, which is a vital role in open government and transparency. In replying to the request or issue, the Council explains that their concerns will be passed on to the City Manager and staff. Through the City Manager, the staff keeps the Council and citizens informed on progress. This aligns with the City Charter, allows the Council to be responsive to the public, and refers the public requests to the staff as administrators. This form of communication lets the public know that its concerns have been heard, and that the City is responding.

These procedures also apply to Board Members and Commissioners.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 9, Packet Page 158

EXHIBIT A
3 F. Council Comments. The City Council agenda states:

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmembers may ask a question for clarification or make a brief announcement or make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, Council may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any City matter (G.C. 54954.2).

This is an opportunity to express appreciation, note upcoming community activities and events, and report about meetings of outside agencies.

G. Council Meetings. Questions for the staff are directed to the City Manager, who will assign a staff member to provide answers.

H. Councilmember Interactions with Labor Unions when Negotiations are Pending.

I. Councilmember Participation at Conferences, Trainings, and Events. The Purchasing Manual applies to all employees including Mayor and Councilmembers, and states that “all expenses related to travel should be limited to those deemed “reasonable and necessary.” J. Ex Parte Contacts in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings. Councilmembers should avoid taking positions on issues that may come before them in their quasi-judicial capacity, until they have heard all the evidence and arguments at the public hearing on the issue.

K. Letterhead Policy. The Mayor and Councilmembers can individually author or sign letters of support or opposition on regional, state, or federal legislative matters without a City Council vote as long as the correspondence or form clearly states the position is from the individual and not the City of Monterey or City Council. In many instances, legislative matters will be brought to the entire City Council before the Mayor or a Councilmember takes a position.

L. Reconsideration of Previous Council Decisions.

M. Strategic Planning and the City Staff Work Program. The City Council reviews the Value Drivers and Strategic Priorities every four to five years. The City Staff Work Program, which are specific efforts sorted by Value Driver and Strategic Priorities, are presented to the City Council twice a year in January and August.

Adopted by Resolution No.:

Amended by Resolution No.: N/A
Effective Date:

Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 10, Packet Page 159 RESOLUTION NO. 15-009 C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

ADOPTING CITY CHARTER GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, On December 16, 2014, the Monterey Mayor and City Council held a detailed discussion regarding the City Charter, City Council Governance, and Appointments to Outside Agencies; and
WHEREAS, The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378), In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project; and WHEREAS, the discussion included requirements for outside agency participation, Council-staff communications, Brown Act, closed session confidentiality, Monterey Charter provisions, City Council agendas and proceedings, and Council and Commission subcommittee appointments; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council members agreed that some important values relating to public service include responsibility, trustworthiness, respect, and fairness;" and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council members desire that the Monterey's processes and proceedings be fair and transparent;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby adopts the following City Charter Governance Guidelines:

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 11, Packet Page 160

CITY CHARTER GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES
As elected representatives of the people of Monterey, the Mayor and Council Members have a wonderful opportunity to serve the residents. "Some important values relating to public service include responsibility, trustworthiness, respect and fairness, a reflection of that overarching quest for public accountability and trust." (Ethics workshop) The City Charter states:
"Sec. 4.7 Interference With or By City Manager.

Neither the Council nor any of its members shall in any manner dictate the appointment or removal of any City administrative officers or employees whom the City Manager or any of his/her subordinates are empowered to appoint, but the Council may express its views and fully and freely discuss with the City Manager anything pertaining to appointment and removal of such officers and employees.

The Council or its members shall deal with City officers and employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the City Manager or the City Attorney solely through the City Manager or the City Attorney, and neither the Council nor its members shall give orders to any subordinate officer or employee, either publicly or privately." To be in compliance with the Charter, the "Constitution" of the city, the council adopts the following policy guidelines.

1. Appointments to Outside agencies and committees.

Council members serve on many outside agencies. The appointment can be a Voting Member on the Board because of its by-laws or it is a JPA. The appointment to "Outside Agencies List" indicates this role with a "V", voter. Other appointments are as a liaison, in which case the council member is an observer who can bring information to the entire council or staff.

That is listed on the list as "L", liaison. The council member can report to the City with a written summary or during "Council Comments" on the council agenda. "Don't take positions on issues that may come before you in your quasi-judicial capacity, until you hear all the evidence and arguments at the hearing on the issue." (Ethics workshop)

2. Council Meetings.

Questions for the staff are directed to the City Manager who assigns the staff member for answers.

3. Communication with Staff.

The Charter requires the Mayor and Council members to deal directly through the City Manager or City Attorney who will direct questions, requests, issues, and concerns to appropriate staff members. Elected officials cannot commit staff time and resources outside of public meetings without a majority vote.

Elected officials receive personal contacts, communications, and emails from the public, which is a vital role in open government and transparency. In replying to the request or issue, the Council explains that their concerns will be passed onto the city manager and staff.

Through the City Manager, the staff keeps the council and citizens informed on progress. This aligns with the City Charter, allows the Council to be responsive to the public, and refers the public requests to the staff as administrators. This form of communication lets the public know that its concerns have been heard, and that the City is responding.

Communication with staff procedures also apply to Board Members and Commissioners. 2 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 12, Packet Page 161 Mayor of sal-Welty

4. Council Comments. The City Council agenda states:

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmembers may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, Council may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any City matter, or direct staff to place a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda (G.C. 54954.2).

This is an opportunity to express appreciations, note upcoming community activities and events, and report about meetings of Outside Agencies.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 20th day of January, 2015, by the following vote:

AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Downey, Haifa, Smith
NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barrett, Roberson
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APPROVED:

ATTEST:

City Clerk thereof
C
3 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 13, Packet Page 162

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING

COUNCIL WORKSHOP

CITY OF MONTEREY
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
4:00 PM

HILLTOP PARK CENTER

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson

Absent: None
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Public Works Director, Police Chief, Finance Director, Fire Chief, Human Resources Director, Parks and Recreation Director, Acting City Clerk, Dir. of Information Resources/City Clerk, Library Director

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Roberson called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m., introduced Hilltop Park Center staff, and shared history about the park center.

COUNCIL WORKSHOP

1. Adopt a New Process for Councilmembers’ Requests to Agendize a Matter of Business on a Future Agenda (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: The Council adopted a process by which individual Councilmembers may request to agendize a matter of business, as outlined in the staff recommendation, and as amended to reflect a maximum of 350 words in the agenda report Mayor Roberson introduced the topic. He said it was important for a Councilmember to provide background information when presenting a request to agendize an item.

Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira shared that staff's recommendation is to follow the following process:

1. Councilmember submits agenda report to City Clerk’s Office outlining the request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda. This agenda report should, in no greater than 1,000 words, describe what, how, and why the matter of business should be heard before the City Council. The City Clerk’s Office will add the item to an upcoming agenda.

2. At the Council Meeting where the request is considered, the Councilmember who submitted the request delivers a verbal report consistent with the agenda report. This verbal report should not exceed three minutes.

3. In discussing the matter, the City Council shall focus on whether or not the item warrants being heard at a future date and not discuss the item itself. The Council shall work toward a majority vote on whether to agendize the item. Members of the Council should avoid excessive follow-up questions because it encourages discussion about the topic that should be reserved for a time should the requested item be agendized.

It was commented by Council that a shorter agenda report would have the potential to lead to a quicker vote, and further discussion could be saved for the agendized matter. It was recommended that the agendizing process could be added to the Council’s governance DocuSign Envelope ID: C67C4667-206F-4FE2-91C8-8B90BA29590E ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 14, Packet Page 163 City Council Minutes January 22, 2020
2 document. It was noted that 300-350 words, or about one page, would make more sense for a report. It was proposed that the agenda report could be delivered to the City Manager.

City Attorney Davi shared a legal perspective relating to the Brown Act.

Mayor Roberson opened public comments. Nina Beety said that the proposed process is overlong and could delay important discussions, and referred to other cities' agendas that allow for items to be added after publication of the agenda. She expressed concerns about transparency relating to Council Workshops. Esther Malkin said that the meeting should be recorded and shared on Nextdoor. Susan Nine said that a clearer process will be useful and expressed concern that the proposed process could take too long.

Council addressed the public commenters, saying that starting a meeting at 4 p.m. is on the cusp of being available to people who work, and that there would surely be tweaks along the way to improve the process. It was suggested to hold a future discussion regarding what is considered an emergency. It was noted that State law allows emergency agendizing by a 4/5 vote.

On consensus, Council agreed to limit a written request to agendize to one page or 350 words.

On a motion by Councilmember Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the Council adopted the following process by which individual Councilmembers may request to agendize a matter of business:

1. Councilmember submits agenda report to City Clerk’s Office outlining the request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda. This agenda report should, in no greater than 350 words, describe what, how, and why the matter of business should be heard before the City Council. The City Clerk’s Office will add the item to an upcoming agenda.

2. At the Council Meeting where the request is considered, the Councilmember who submitted the request delivers a verbal report consistent with the agenda report. This verbal report should not exceed three minutes.

3. In discussing the matter, the City Council shall focus on whether or not the item warrants being heard at a future date and not discuss the item itself. The Council shall work toward a majority vote on whether to agendize the item. Members of the Council should avoid excessive follow-up questions because it encourages discussion about the topic that should be reserved for a time should the requested item be agendized.

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)

2. Establish City Council Goals and Priorities for 2020 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Discussed, provided feedback, received public comment City Manager Uslar asked Council to review its priorities from the October 2019 Council workshop, and advise staff if there should be any changes for moving into 2020.

The Council discussed the listed priorities.

It was stated that the priority “Multimodal Plan” might be too narrow, and that “Transportation Safety and Alternatives” might be a broader replacement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C67C4667-206F-4FE2-91C8-8B90BA29590E ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 15, Packet Page 164 City Council Minutes January 22, 2020
3 It was stated that “Expand Marina/Wharf 2” might be too narrow, and “Revitalize Waterfront” might be a broader replacement, and could include planning for long-term sea level rise and addressing environmental issues that relate to Monterey Bay. It was clarified that the intent behind identifying “Expand Marina/Wharf 2” as a priority was to support the commercial Wharf 2 enterprises and fishing industry, and could include actions such as improving truck access and including a breakwater. It was suggested that an alternate description for the priority could be:
“Continue to Implement Waterfront Master Plan.” On question, Community Development Director Cole said that she could bring to Council a status update on the Waterfront Master Plan.

Regarding “Fiscal Accountability,” on question, City Manager Uslar said that if Measure G does not pass on March 3, 2020, staff would come to Council with a recommendation on areas for service reduction and staffing eliminations. He said that by June 30, 2020, staff needs to present a balanced budget. On question, Finance Director Lai addressed planning by staff to address budget deficits. City Manager Uslar said that the hybrid approach to balancing the projected deficits includes reducing operating expenses and the attempt to increase revenue through the sales tax measure. He emphasized the need to support staff in finding ways to do business in a different way as well as avoiding taking on new programs. It was noted by Council that it would be beneficial to work toward a healthier reserve that would enable addressing bigger picture goals. It was stated by Council that it would be difficult to do much more through a successful Measure G than make the City whole.

Police Chief Hober noted that safety is not listed in the Council's priorities, and asked if “Keeping a Small Town Feeling” could include "keep the community quaint and safe.” He also noted that staff is not listed on the priorities list. It was commented by Library Director Waite that staff could be added into the “Fiscal Accountability” priority. It was commented by Council that public safety is part of both “Neighborhood Preservation” and “Keeping a Small Town Feeling.” It was noted by Council that it would be good to have actionable goals relating to the neighborhood and small town priorities. It was commented by Council that maintaining staff morale and/or respecting their work will be important. It was commented by Parks and Recreation Director Larson that infrastructure would be a good addition to the priorities. It was suggested by Council that "quaint" could be replaced with "safe." It was commented by Council that there should be a priority that reflects the need for Residential/Business Balance, because without business vitality the City will not be able to achieve its #1 goal of “Fiscal Accountability.” Finance Director Lai suggested that “Fiscal Accountability” could be replaced with “Fiscal Accountability and Sustainability” and noted that the description could be expanded to include fiscal health.

The Council discussed setting maintenance funds aside so that the can is not kicked down the road. City Manager Uslar said that as noted by the Mayor, Sports Center fees should be updated to cover ongoing maintenance.

The Council continued to discuss. It was requested to hear from staff regarding any contradictions they may see in the priorities list. It was commented that neighborhood presentation and small town feel should be fleshed out. It was stated that there should be a balance of neighborhood presentation/small town feel and affordable housing. It was requested that staff let the Council know what certain budget cuts will mean to the City's programs. City Manager Uslar provided examples of ways that the City could reduce costs, and said that there should be frank discussions about realistic service levels. Human Resources Director Hauck said that there is an existing morale issue and that employees are worried that the City is without a plan and so many unmet needs. She said that a long term plan addressing the DocuSign Envelope ID: C67C4667-206F-4FE2-91C8-8B90BA29590E ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 16, Packet Page 165 City Council Minutes January 22, 2020
4 CalPERS unfunded liability will help with employee morale. She said that facilities that are aging and need maintenance is degrading to employee morale.

Mayor Roberson opened public comments. Susan Nine spoke in favor of public safety appearing on the list of priorities; suggested categories that would include issues such as environmental, undergrounding, homelessness; and expressed concern about how priorites could be used when an issue comes up that isn't on the list. She expressed concern about unfilled positions and overworking staff. She said considering increasing revenue will be important and suggested that the Monterey Museum of Art could pay more than $1 per year.

Nina Beety cited recent street work and landscaping that she said was unnecessary given discussions about public safety staffing. She said that policies like Window on the Bay seem nice but the tenant on Del Monte should have been held responsible for environmental cleanup expenses. She said that fire safety should be included in the priorities and expressed concerns about a lack of sufficient tree maintenance being done on behalf of PG&E. She expressed concern about the Technology priority and said the City should emphasize wired and safe technologies.

Esther Malkin said that the hybrid approach presented at the October 2019 workshop was to include all income possibilities but nobody is talking about increasing transient occupancy tax (TOT). She said that “Neighborhood Preservation” and “Keeping a Small Town Feeling” would be supported by an increase to TOT by way of the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP).

Mayor Roberson closed public comments.

3. Review, Discuss, and Adopt City Council Vision, Mission, and Value Drivers (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Discussed, provided feedback, received public comment The Council discussed the value drivers. It was suggested to add a value driver regarding affordable housing, or to add language to the "provide an adequate housing and water supply” value driver with an emphasis on affordable housing.

It was suggested to add language to the “providing sufficient resources” value driver focusing on staff and retention, to add a feeling of job security and encourage employees to find innovations and technologies that won’t replace people’s jobs. It was suggested to add the word “train” so that the driver reads “support to develop, train and retain” a high quality City workforce. The language “fostering innovation while retaining staff” was mentioned, as was the desire to maintain employees by promoting them from within, to make them more likely to stay with the organization. It was noted by Library Director Waite that the organization is facing really big cuts, which for the Library means staff positions, and it is not realistic for staff to feel they will never be laid off. It was noted by Council that this would be a cultural shift, and if staff moves around a bit more, they can help come up with innovations to be more efficient. Dir. of Information Resources/City Clerk Gawf shared that the history in the organization is to move people around in these situations so that they don't lose their jobs. Public Works Director Wittry said that college graduates see their career growth moving in a direction of "three years up or out" and that the City needs to plan for how to manage the workforce with cross training to weather the storm.

It was stated by Council that City staff over-delivers when it comes to personnel. It was stated that the word "capable" needs to be replaced and that overall a look at modernizing the DocuSign Envelope ID: C67C4667-206F-4FE2-91C8-8B90BA29590E ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 17, Packet Page 166 City Council Minutes January 22, 2020
5 language would be helpful. It was questioned whether the wording resonates with new graduates, and noted that words such as “innovation” and “respect” are missing.

Mayor Roberson opened public comments. Esther Malkin said that it looks better to the public if salary increases for top paid employees are frozen versus laying off lower paid employees.

Mayor Roberson suggested discussing value drivers at the next Council Workshop.

ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Clyde Roberson
Acting City Clerk Mayor
DocuSign Envelope ID: C67C4667-206F-4FE2-91C8-8B90BA29590E ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 18, Packet Page 167 Manager Evaluations
Handbook
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 19, Packet Page 168 ICMA advances professional local government worldwide. Its mission is to create excellence in local governance by developing and advancing professional management of local government. ICMA, the International City/County Management Association, provides member support; publications, data, and information; peer and results-oriented assistance; and training and professional development to more than 9,000 city, town, and county experts and other individuals and organizations throughout the world. The management decisions made by ICMA’s members affect 185 million individuals living in thousands of communities, from small villages and towns to large metropolitan areas.

ICMA
777 North Capitol Street, NE
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20002-4201
202-289-ICMA (4262)
icma.org
Copyright ©2013 by the International City/County Management Association. All rights reserved, including rights of reproduction and use in any form or by any means, including the making of copies by any photographic process, or by any electrical or mechanical device, printed, written, or oral or recording for sound or visual reproduction, or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system or device, unless permission in writing is obtained from the copyright proprietor.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 20, Packet Page 169 ICMA MANAGER EVALUATIONS HANDBOOK iii
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................iv Members of the Task Force on Manager Evaluations........................................................iv Preface............................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 2 Successful Evaluation Tips ...............................................................................................3 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 4 The Purpose of Manager Evaluations................................................................................ 4 Basic Process .................................................................................................................... 4 How to Initiate ................................................................................................................4 How to Proceed ...............................................................................................................5 Frequency and Timing of Manager Evaluations .................................................................7 What Others Are Doing: Survey Results ........................................................................... 9 Failure to Undertake Evaluations ......................................................................................9 Lack of a Credible Evaluation Process ............................................................................. 10 Lack of Knowledge of the Council-Manager Form of Government ..................................... 10 Lack of Communication ................................................................................................. 10 Supplemental Approaches .............................................................................................. 10 Self-Evaluations ............................................................................................................. 11 Periodic Check-ins ......................................................................................................... 11 360-Degree Assessments ................................................................................................ 11 Conversation Evaluation System .....................................................................................12 Data-gathering/Software Resources ............................................................................... 12 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 13 Sample Evaluation Forms for Local Government CAOs .................................................. 13 Other Resources .............................................................................................................. 13 Contents
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 21, Packet Page 170 Definition of Terms
• The term local government, as used in this handbook, refers to a town, village, borough, township, city, county, or a legally constituted elected body of governments. • The term manager refers to the chief executive officer (CEO) or chief administrative officer (CAO) of any local government who has been appointed by its elected body to oversee dayto-day operations. • The terms elected officials, elected body, and board refer to any council, commission, or other locally elected body, including assemblies, boards of trustees, boards of selectmen, boards of supervisors, boards of directors, and so on.
• The term manager evaluation refers to the appraisal or assessment conducted by the elected body of the manager’s performance in achieving organizational goals and implementing policy.

Members of the Task Force on Manager Evaluations
Peter B. Austin
McHenry County, IL
Chair
Kay James
Canandaigua, NY
Vice-Chair
John J. Caulfield
Lakewood, WA
Scott M. Coren
Darien, IL
Richard J. Downey
Kronenwetter, WI
John J. Duffy
Matanuska-Susitna, AK
Mark A. Kunkle
Ferguson Township, PA
Michele E. Meade
Livingston Township, NJ
Nancy E. Novak McMahon
Vienna, VA
Richard J. Schuettler
Harrisburg, PA
James R. Stahle
Alamogordo, NM
Greg R. Sund
Ellis County, KS
Kevin D. Trease
Dewey, OK
Brian J. Valentino
Hazlet, NJ
AJ Wilson
Fallbrook, CA
Amanda Relyea
Nolensville, TN
Staff Liaison
Jane C. Cotnoir
Portland, ME
Editor
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 22, Packet Page 171 ICMA MANAGER EVALUATIONS HANDBOOK 1
Preface
The evaluation of the manager is a key component of any well-run local government, yet the value of a quality evaluation process and the responsibility for that activity is often overlooked.

Even in communities that are considered to be professionally governed, the performance evaluation of the local government manager can be an afterthought.

The 2012–2013 Executive Board of the International
City/County Management Association (ICMA), led by
President Bonnie Svrcek, acknowledged the need for
local government managers and their elected bodies
to put more focus on the manager evaluation process.

Accordingly, it created a task force of managers from
around the United States, representing over a dozen
communities, to develop a Manager Evaluations Handbook that would assist managers and their boards in this critical task.

Managers are encouraged to review this handbook
with an eye toward working with their elected bodies
to develop formal, mutually agreed-upon processes
for their own evaluations. This handbook, however,
is also intended to highlight the value of a formal
manager evaluation process and to assist local elected
officials in the design of an effective evaluation tool.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 23, Packet Page 172 2 ICMA MANAGER EVALUATIONS HANDBOOK
Executive Summary
The periodic evaluation of the local government
manager by the elected body is an important
component of a high-performance organization.

The evaluation should contain performance goals, objectives, and targets that are linked to the elected body’s established strategic plans, goals, and priorities, and it should focus on the manager’s degree of progress toward organizational outcomes. To be fair, it must be based on criteria that have been communicated to the manager
in advance. Sample or generic evaluation forms, if used, should be customized to reflect these criteria.

The purpose of the evaluation process is to
increase communication between the members of the
elected body and the manager concerning the manager’s performance in the accomplishment of assigned duties and responsibilities, and the establishment
of specific work-related goals and objectives for the
coming year. Thus, all members of the elected body
should participate in the process, both by individually completing the rating instrument and by discussing
their ratings with the other board members in order to
arrive at a consensus about performance expectations.

There is no one correct way to conduct a manager
evaluation. The key is to ensure that the evaluation
takes place in a regular, mutually agreed-upon manner
and is viewed by all as an opportunity for communication between the elected officials and the manager.

It may be useful, particularly if the members of
the elected body are inexperienced in the performance
evaluation process, to use a consultant to help the
elected body prepare for and conduct the manager’s
evaluation.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 24, Packet Page 173 Performance evaluations will allow you to
A. Recognize the accomplishments of the manager and
show appreciation for the unique contributions to
the organization
B. Clearly identify areas where the manager is
doing well
C. Clearly identify areas where the manager can
improve his or her performance
D. Specify definite actions that will allow the manager to make additional value-added contributions to the
organization in the future.

E. Obtain the manager’s own opinions on progress and
his or her individual contribution to collective actions and achievements.

Discussing tasks that the manager performs well
• Gives the manager insight into self-awareness, interests, and motivation • Gives the manager recognition and appreciation for
achievements
• Creates a positive climate for the remainder of the
review.

Reminders:
• Listen intently.
• Reinforce the manager’s performance.
• Emphasize facts; provide concrete examples and
specific descriptions of actions, work, and results.
• Give only positive feedback during this part of the
evaluation.
• Acknowledge improvements that the manager has
made.
• Praise efforts if the manager has worked hard on
something but failed because of circumstances
beyond his or her control.
• Describe performance that you would like to see
continued.

Discussing areas that need improvement
• Gives insight into how the manager feels about
change, improvement for growth
• Allows you to express any concerns you have about
the manager’s overall performance and performance
in specific areas
• Lets you challenge the manager to higher levels of
achievement.

Reminders:
• Keep the discussion focused on performance.
• Describe actions and results that do not meet
expectations.
• Describe areas where the manager can make a
greater contribution.
• Describe any situation or performance observed
that needs to be changed; be specific.
• Tell the manager what needs to be done if a specific
change of behavior needs to take place.
• Focus on learning from the past and making plans
for the future.
• Keep this part of the discussion as positive and
encouraging as possible.

Do’s and Don’ts
DO:
• Spend a few minutes warming up in which the
agenda is laid out so everyone is reminded about
what to expect. Give an overview.
• Always start with the positives. Be specific.
• Explain the ratings in all areas: Talk about how the
consensus was arrived.
• Be honest. Tell it like it is.
• Be a coach, not a judge. Managing employees is a
lot like being an athletic coach. Effective coaching
involves a lot more than just score keeping. Simply
providing the score at the end of the game doesn’t
improve performance.
• Discuss with the manager his or her reactions to the
ratings, making clear that you are interested in his or her feelings and thoughts.
• If appropriate, develop an improvement plan that
includes areas of deficiency, developmental needs.

DON’T:
• Rate the manager without the facts. Ratings should
be on actual results.
• Be too general.
• Sidestep problems. Document performance problems and clearly identify what needs improvement. • Be vague or generalize the reasons for the performance scores. Clear and specific examples of results should be available.
• Ambush the manager by identifying deficiencies or
problems that have never been addressed in informal discussions prior to the formal evaluation. • Minimize the manager’s concerns or discount his or
her feelings.

Successful Evaluation Tips1
ICMA MANAGER EVALUATIONS HANDBOOK 3
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 25, Packet Page 174 4 ICMA MANAGER EVALUATIONS HANDBOOK
Introduction
There is some irony in the fact that managers’
evaluations are often less formal and less structured than those of the managers’ employees.

While the manager may oversee the evaluation of
hundreds of employees within an organization, his or
her own performance evaluation becomes the task of
elected leaders who are often not formally trained in the evaluation process or who have narrow or conflicting
definitions of good performance. The fact that an elected body with numerous members is charged with the task
of evaluating the manager makes the need for a clear
and agreed-upon evaluation process even more important. And a thoughtful and structured evaluation process that is supported by all involved parties enhances the
ongoing communication that is fundamental to effective
board/manager relationships.

A manager’s evaluation should contain performance
goals, objectives, and targets that are linked to the
elected body’s established strategic plans, goals, and
priorities and should focus on whether the manager has
achieved the desired organizational outcomes.

Sometimes the tone of a performance review can
be unduly influenced by the manager’s last success or
failure. Judging performance on the basis of a single
incident or behavior is a common problem that can
arise in any organization. But a single incident or
behavior should not be the sole focus of a performance
evaluation. That is not to discount the importance
of how a manager handles high-stress, higher-profile
issues, which is an important aspect of a manager’s
responsibility. However, day-to-day leadership, which is also a key responsibility of the manager, can sometimes go unnoticed even though it provides the foundation in
which high-stress, high-profile issues are handled.

ICMA has developed a list of 14 Practices for
Effective Local Government Leadership that is
recommended to members who are considering their
own professional development needs and activities. The
core areas represent much of what local government
managers are responsible for on an everyday basis,
and competency by the manager in these practices is
central to an effective, high-performing, professionally managed local government. It is therefore the
recommendation of ICMA’s Task Force on Manager
Evaluations that competency in the ICMA Practices also
be considered in the manager’s performance evaluation.

There is no one way, let alone one single correct
way, to conduct an effective manager evaluation.

This Manager Evaluations Handbook will present
traditional evaluation approaches that have proven to
be successful, along with some alternative methods that may be good for your local government. Again, the key
is to ensure that the evaluation takes place in a regular, mutually agreed-upon manner and is viewed by all as
an opportunity for communication between the elected
officials and the manager.

The Purpose of Manager
Evaluations
High-performance local governments embrace an
ethos of continual improvement. Conducting regular
appraisals of the manager’s work performance is part
of the continual improvement process.

The purpose of the evaluation process is to
increase communication between the members of the
elected body and the manager concerning the manager’s performance in the accomplishment of his or her assigned duties and responsibilities and the establishment of specific work-related goals, objectives, and performance measures for the coming year. The evaluation process provides an opportunity for the elected body to have an honest dialogue with the manager
about its expectations, to assess what is being accomplished, to recognize the manager’s achievements and contributions, to identify where there may be performance gaps, to develop standards to measure future performance, and to identify the resources and actions
necessary to achieve the agreed-upon standards.

Keeping the focus on “big picture” strategic goals and
behaviors rather than on minor issues or one-time
mistakes/complaints leads to better outcomes.

Given that good relationships promote candor
and constructive planning, the performance appraisal
also provides a forum for both parties to discuss and
strengthen the elected body–manager relationship,
ensuring better alignment of goals while reducing misunderstandings and surprises. When elected bodies conduct regular performance appraisals of the manager, they are more likely to achieve their community’s goals and objectives.

Basic Process
Ideally, the performance appraisal process for a manager is the natural continuation of the hiring process.

How to Initiate
Prior to the recruitment of candidates, the elected
body typically develops the goals and objectives for
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 26, Packet Page 175 ICMA MANAGER EVALUATIONS HANDBOOK 5
the position of manager. Then, during the selection
process, the candidate and the hiring body meet to
discuss these items along with the long- and shortterm needs and issues of the community. Through these conversations, the basic tenets of the manager’s
performance evaluation are identified. At this point,
the performance appraisal process just needs to be
formalized. When the employment offer has been
accepted, the employment agreement should include
the requirement and schedule for the manager’s
evaluation.
(Excellent tools for preparing the employment
agreement are contained in the ICMA Recruitment
Guidelines for Selecting a Local Government Administrator and the ICMA Model Employment Agreement.) The employment agreement should stipulate that
the performance evaluation will be a written document
and that all parties will meet to discuss the contents in person. It should also identify the frequency with which evaluations will take place (e.g., annually, semi-annually). By including this information in the employment agreement, the hiring body ensures that communications between the manager and the elected body will be consistently scheduled, and that initiatives and objectives can be reviewed and updated on a regular basis.

It is especially critical for the elected body to come
to consensus on the initial expectations of the newly
hired manager so that priorities can be assigned and
progress measured. Those issues that were important
during the hiring process will logically factor into the initial evaluation process. Then, in the succeeding
years, the document can be revised to reflect the latest accomplishments and newest challenges.

Of course, priorities may shift during the year. If
that happens, make it clear to the manager that new
or changed priorities are being added into the evaluation process.

If, with the passage of time, elections have taken
place and the board that is conducting the evaluation is not the same board that did the hiring, it is important that the newly elected officials immediately
be introduced to the established performance goals,
measures, and evaluation process. This can be done as
part of the orientation process for new board members, included in the discussion of the form of government and the role of the manager. If a new member has no experience in conducting performance evaluations, he or she will need to receive training before participating in this process.

If performance evaluations were not discussed
during the hiring process, either the manager or the
elected body may request that an evaluation process be instituted, and the specifics for conducting the evaluation can then be agreed upon outside of
the provisions of the employment agreement. If the
request is made by the elected body, it is important to emphasize that the purpose of the evaluation process
is to serve as a tool for organizational improvement,
not as a means of punishing the manager or setting
the stage for termination. While elected officials, especially those newly elected, may sometimes wish for a change in management, the performance evaluation
process should not be used to effect such a change.

How to Proceed
A number of issues should be considered when preparing for the evaluation process, including how to develop the rating instrument (and whether to use an
outside consultant), how to use the rating instrument,
and whether the evaluation should be conducted in
private or in public.

Developing the Rating Instrument
Unlike most employee performance evaluations, in
which the employee is evaluated by a single executive
or supervisor, the manager’s evaluation is conducted
by a group of individuals acting as a body. As each
elected official likely has different expectations, the board members must first come to a consensus on
measures and definitions to be used.

Using a consultant. If the members of the elected
body are inexperienced in the performance evaluation process, it might be helpful at this point to use an independent consultant to assist in preparing for and
conducting the manager’s evaluation. A consultant
could be used in a variety of ways.

When designing the evaluation instrument, a consultant should solicit each elected official’s full participation by asking for examples and details for each rating category. Whether this is accomplished by interviewing
each official individually or by facilitating a group session, it is important to ensure that all voices are heard.

Use of an independent consultant is especially helpful if there is a lack of cohesion among elected officials.

Once the consultant has collected the information,
the elected body and manager should meet in person
to discuss the findings. It is recommended that the
in-person conversation with the manager to review the
evaluation be conducted by the elected body with the
assistance of the consultant but not by the consultant
alone.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 27, Packet Page 176 6 ICMA MANAGER EVALUATIONS HANDBOOK
If funds are limited, a consultant could be used in
a limited engagement to prepare an evaluation system
and then train the elected officials on how to conduct
an evaluation, which the officials may manage themselves after the first year.

If the elected body decides to use a consultant, the
Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM)
may be a source of referrals, as may be state municipal leagues or the local government’s regular employment consulting firms. If a recruiter was used to assist with the hiring process, the recruiter’s agreement
could be extended to include the setup of the initial
evaluation process.

It is recommended that the evaluation process NOT
be facilitated by the local government’s corporation
counsel, municipal clerk, or human resources director
because these individuals are not independent parties.

In almost all cases, their positions have either a reporting or a cooperating relationship with the manager, so involving them in the manager’s evaluation may damage relationships that are necessary for the effective and efficient operation of the local government
Proceeding without a consultant. If a consultant
is not used to facilitate the development of the
evaluation instrument, the elected body may wish to
begin by reviewing the format and process used for
the other local government employees and considering
the same or a revised method. It is important to
understand, however, that a manager is evaluated
in additional ways. Because of this key difference,
flexibility is needed to add any necessary components
intended to assess varied goals and objectives and to
facilitate a dialogue between the elected body and the
manager.

To be fair, the evaluation must be outcome based,
using criteria that have been previously communicated
to the manager and that incorporate the elected
body’s priorities. The use of a prefabricated generic
evaluation form (even the sample forms found at the
end of this handbook) is not recommended without
some customization to reflect these priorities.

Measure observable behaviors and progress
toward goals
The manager’s job is to achieve the organization’s
goals and implement the policies that have been determined by the elected body. Evaluating the manager’s effectiveness in achieving the goals necessarily means
that the elected body must have determined and
communicated the goals to the manager in advance,
ideally through a strategic planning process.

The members of the board must be in agreement
about their expectations of the manager. Furthermore,
both the manager and the board must understand
what the expectations are.

The performance criteria established by the board
for each of the prioritized functional areas need to be The manager’s success in achieving the
goals set by the elected body is related to
his or her competencies and behaviors with
respect to the specific functions identified as
the responsibility of the manager. Defining
the strengths of the manager and identifying
areas for improvement are part of the
evaluation process. ICMA has a list of 14 core
areas critical for effective local government
management and leadership. While this
list, the ICMA Practices for Effective Local
Government Leadership, was developed
for the purpose of ICMA’s Voluntary
Credentialing professional development
program, the elected body might find it
helpful for identifying the specific observable
behaviors to be used in the manager
evaluation. It is suggested that the elected
body select what it believes to be the most
important areas for achieving its goals and
evaluate the manager’s performance in these
areas. The ICMA Practices are as follows (click
here for descriptions):

1. Personal and Professional Integrity

2. Community Engagement

3. Equity and Inclusion

4. Staff Effectiveness

5. Personal Resiliency and Development

6. Strategic Leadership

7. Strategic Planning

8. Policy Facilitation and Implementation

9. Community and Resident Service

10. Service Delivery

11. Technological Literacy

12. Financial Management and Budgeting

13. Human Resources Management and
Workforce Engagement

14. Communication and Information
Sharing
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 28, Packet Page 177 ICMA MANAGER EVALUATIONS HANDBOOK 7
specific and observable by the members of the elected
body. If the criteria are quantifiable, they should
be expressed in objective, measurable terms. For
example, the manager saved 10% on the new project.

If the criteria are qualitative and subjective, they can be expressed in terms of the desired outcome. For
example, members of the community and employees
frequently commented on the manager’s fairness during this evaluation period.

Using the Rating Instrument
The usefulness of any performance evaluation
depends almost entirely upon the understanding,
impartiality, and objectivity with which the ratings
are made. In order to obtain a clear, fair, and accurate rating, an evaluator must clearly differentiate between the personality and performance of the manager being
rated, making an objective and unbiased assessment
on the basis of performance alone. Fairness requires
the ability to identify both the strengths and weaknesses of the manager’s performance and to explain these constructively to the manager.

When an evaluation is completed by a group of
people, it is important that it reflect the consensus
opinion of all members. All members of the elected
body should participate in the manager evaluation
process in order to arrive at a consensus. This consensus can be accomplished by having each member individually rate the manager, followed by a group
discussion to arrive at a final consensus rating for
each measure. Alternatively, if consensus cannot be
reached, each member can individually complete the
rating form, and then one member (or the consultant,
if one is used) can collect the forms and compile the
results and comments into one document, followed
by group discussion. It is important that each member’s ratings, whether positive or negative, be backed up with specific comments and examples so that the
whole group understands the reasoning behind them.

If individual comments—those that do not necessarily represent the sentiments of the elected body as a whole—are to be included in the final document that
will be discussed with the manager, the board should
decide in advance whether those comments will be
anonymous or attributed to the individuals making
them.

It is important to keep in mind that performance
evaluation is just one part of the communication
toolbox between the manager and elected officials. It is intended to enhance that communication, not to result
in a periodic written “report card” that is an end in
itself. In addition, nothing in the evaluation ought ever to be a surprise. Ongoing conversations should be held
throughout the year (assuming that the evaluation is
done annually) to help the manager understand if he
or she is on course or if any midseason corrections are necessary. Ideally, the items in the evaluation will have already been touched on in these conversations, so the
evaluation will serve as a written summary of them.

Public versus private evaluations
When deciding whether to conduct the evaluation
process in a public or an executive/closed session, the elected officials, manager, and legal counsel should
review state law. When possible, it is recommended
that the performance evaluation process occur in executive/closed session between the elected body and manager; however, many states have specific regulations about whether and when the public may be excluded
from attending a meeting involving the elected body or
from having access to certain records involving a public employee. Such “sunshine” laws were first created to
increase public disclosure by governmental agencies.

The purpose is to promote accountability and transparency by allowing the public to see how decisions are made and how money is allocated.

While all states have such laws, the exact provisions of those laws vary. For example, specific legislation may require that all government meetings be open to the public or that written records be released
upon request. In many states, all local government
records are available for review by the public, including evaluation documents and notes, unless they are specifically exempted or prohibited from disclosure by
state statutes.

Regardless of whether the evaluation is conducted
in a public or an executive/closed session, each state’s statute will dictate certain procedures for meeting
notification, recording of minutes, and disclosure of
decisions made. These procedures should be reviewed
by the elected officials, manager, and legal counsel
and followed throughout the evaluation process.

However, all final decisions or actions related to
the manager’s performance (e.g., employment agreement changes, compensation) should be made in a public setting.

Frequency and Timing of
Manager Evaluations
As previously noted, the manager evaluation process,
including the frequency and timing of the evaluations,
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 29, Packet Page 178 8 ICMA MANAGER EVALUATIONS HANDBOOK
will ideally have been discussed as part of the employment agreement at the time of the manager’s hiring. It is recommended that the initial formal evaluation not
take place until the elected officials and the manager
have worked together for a year; however, short,
less formal evaluations are recommended on a quarterly basis. After that, at least one formal evaluation (still with quarterly informal evaluations) should be
conducted per year, as longer intervals create a higher likelihood of miscommunication and surprises.

It is further recommended that the formal evaluation be scheduled during the least busy time of year for both the manager and the elected officials, avoiding both the budget preparation season (particularly if the manager’s compensation is tied to the evaluation)
and the election season (lest the manager’s evaluation become an election issue). The scheduling should also allow adequate time for newly elected members
of the board to become familiar with the manager’s
performance.

Relationship of Evaluation to Compensation
The primary purposes of a manager’s performance
evaluation are

1. To provide a tool for communication between the
elected body and the manager

2. To provide an opportunity for the elected body to
specifically indicate levels of satisfaction with the
manager on mutually identified and defined performance priorities

3. To provide an opportunity for the manager to learn
and improve

4. To allow for fair and equitable compensation
adjustments based on a review of performance in
achieving mutually identified priorities and on the
elected body’s level of satisfaction with the manager’s overall performance.

Performance evaluations that are tied directly to
compensation decisions are often distorted by those
decisions and therefore result in less-than-honest communication between the elected body and the manager. This happens primarily because

1. Elected officials wishing to offer upward compensation adjustments may feel obliged to embellish the evaluation in a positive manner to justify the
compensation decision to the public.

2. Elected officials not wishing to adjust compensation may feel obligated to justify their decision with negative comments about performance matters that actually are not a major concern to them.

3. The manager may be reluctant to seek full clarification on issues raised in the evaluation for fear it could result in a reconsideration of the compensaBenefits of executive session/closed meeting to evaluate manager’s performance
• Provides a venue for handling issues that are
best discussed in private, and ensures confidentiality until a decision is made regarding the manager’s performance
• Provides a forum that is not unduly influenced
by outside sources
• Promotes a free-flowing discussion of comments by the elected body and manager • Ensures the respect and privacy of personnel dealings between the elected body and manager
• Improves communication between the elected
body and the manager
• Reduces opportunity to politicize the performance evaluation process • Provides a forum for the elected body and
the manager to talk openly about topics that
warrant special attention, such as succession
planning, senior staff performance, and executive compensation • Enables elected officials to challenge the manager without fear of undermining his or her authority in the community
Benefits of an open session/meeting to
evaluate manager’s performance
• Can build transparency and trust by enabling
members of the public to view the process
• Can reduce claims of inappropriate agreements and “secrets” • Can improve elected body, manager, and
citizen relationships
Benefits of providing a public summary once
the process is completed
• Lets the public know how the elected body
evaluates and views the manager
• Ensures transparency and public accountability
• Promotes the embodiment of ICMA’s commitment to openness in government • Provides the organization with another opportunity to earn the public’s trust ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 30, Packet Page 179 ICMA MANAGER EVALUATIONS HANDBOOK 9
tion decision.

To avoid these distortions in communication, a balanced evaluation is necessary. That is, the evaluation should provide the opportunity for open communication and at the same time be used for compensation decisions related to identified performance achievement and corrective actions by the manager. To this end, a balanced evaluation would

1. Establish a clear set of performance expectations
prior to the evaluation period.

2. Include a midterm evaluation without any consideration of compensation in order to focus on clarity of communication and performance to date.

This evaluation would allow the manager to take
steps to address areas of performance that were of
concern to the elected body; it would also help to
eliminate misunderstandings and miscommunication between the elected body and manager.

3. Use a full-term evaluation to evaluate the level of
performance satisfaction for the entire performance
period and thus provide the basis for a fair and
equitable compensation decision.

Often, factors other than the performance evaluation form the basis of compensation decisions. These nonperformance considerations include

1. The economic climate of the community and
region

2. The general status of compensation decisions in
the private sector of the community

3. The compensation decisions for other employees of the local government

4. A general review of the competitive position
of the local government in the local government’s
market area

5. A comparative salary review.

In summary, the performance evaluation of a
professional manager can provide input into compensation decisions by the local elected body. However, the communication value of an evaluation is best
served by a periodic evaluation not directly tied to
compensation.

The Evaluation Results
The evaluation serves as the written, formal record
of the conversation between the manager and elected
body and consists of two important sections. The first
section is the elected body’s appraisal of the manager’s performance with respect to the previously agreed-upon goals for the period under review as well
as the general performance of the organization. The
second section contains an agreed-upon list of the
goals to be accomplished during the next appraisal
period as well as any specific performance areas identified for improvement.

What Others Are Doing:

Survey Results
In developing this handbook, the task force surveyed
a sample of local government managers within the
United States to obtain information on current evaluation practices. The key findings of the survey suggest that the evaluation process is a problem for a sizeable number of managers. Fortunately, though, most respondents did not report problems with their evaluations and took the time to comment on key aspects of successful appraisals. These comments provide clues
to the common pitfalls related to the evaluation process and, more importantly, suggestions for improving the process. This section of the handbook describes
these survey findings.

The most common challenges managers and
elected bodies face with the evaluation process revolve around four general areas: failure to undertake evaluations, lack of a credible appraisal process, lack of knowledge of the council-manager form of government, and lack of communication. Each of these topics is briefly discussed below.

Failure to Undertake Evaluations
Employee appraisals are a standard feature of most
workplaces. They serve as a means of enhancing
employee performance as well as the overall effectiveness of the organization. Indeed, employee appraisals serve similar purposes as performance measures of programs and services. In both cases, we seek to
identify opportunities for continual improvement.

Yet people avoid completing performance appraisals,
most likely because properly completed appraisals
require time and effort. Other reasons for avoidance
may include fear of criticism or the underlying stress
associated with the appraisal process. Neglecting to
undertake regular performance appraisals, however,
can lead to underachievement. Worse yet, failing to
complete appraisals on a regular basis can lead to
unfounded assumptions that all is well when it is not.

It is therefore important to establish a regular pattern of appraisals.

The survey responses identified two methods to
help ensure that appraisals are conducted on a regular
basis. The most common method is to place a requireATTACHMENT 4 Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 31, Packet Page 180 10 ICMA MANAGER EVALUATIONS HANDBOOK
ment for an annual evaluation within the employment
contract. The requirement should also specify a time
of year—often a time that is less busy than others.

The other method is to establish an appraisal time at a regularly scheduled annual meeting, such as a board
retreat. But while this method achieves the goal of a
scheduled appraisal, it is a less satisfactory approach because it may easily dilute the focus necessary for a
good appraisal.

Lack of a Credible Evaluation
Process
Another common challenge that survey respondents
noted is the lack of a credible evaluation process. Problems include lack of structure, little to no preparation, and limited understanding of appraisals, both purpose
and process. Process issues may be addressed through
formal training of both the manager and council. Training can be accomplished through work sessions with human resource professionals. Another approach is
to team up with CEOs and board members of locallybased institutions that have the same challenge and jointly sponsor training programs. Although not as
effective as training, the use of standard evaluation
forms, customized to a community’s goals, is another
way of ensuring a more structured process. Lastly, most managers who are satisfied with their appraisal processes noted that one member of the elected body, typically the mayor, provided active oversight of the process and kept discussions on point and on track.

Lack of Knowledge of the
Council-Manager Form of
Government
Lack of knowledge about the community’s form of
government and/or the day-to-day work of the manager is another factor that was cited as hindering quality appraisals. In this case, providing information as early as possible to newly elected officials about
the form of government is recommended. This can
include meeting with those officials and discussing the manager’s duties and responsibilities as well as taking them on field visits. Another approach is to partner
with the statewide municipal league and/or municipal
clerks association to provide seminars on the form
of government. Managers can also use opportunities
such as community functions to inform the general
public about its form of government. Some jurisdictions use the “policy governance” model, whereby the explicit roles of the manager, elected body, and
other key staff such as attorney are clearly defined and documented. Removing misunderstandings and filling
informational voids about the form of government can
greatly improve appraisals because such efforts clarify the duties and responsibilities of both the manager
and the board.

Lack of Communication
Perhaps the most important ingredient for successful appraisals is effective means of communications between manager and elected officials. As in any
human relationship, effective communication is key
to understanding and removing faulty assumptions.

Achieving superior levels of communication requires
active listening and regularity. And the benefits of
such attention are high. For instance, survey respondents noting the most satisfaction with the appraisal process use a wide variety of means to regularly communicate with their elected bodies. They meet with elected officials on an individual basis and talked with them regularly via telephone. These same managers
provide regular written and verbal reports, typically
at each board meeting, that discuss the progress on
council goals and objectives, strategic plans, and
prior evaluation topics, as well as on operational and
special topic issues. More detailed reports are provided on a quarterly basis. In addition, many managers meet
with their elected bodies more than once a year with
a single-issue focus to discuss progress, redefinition, and resourcing of established goals and objectives,
strategic plans and efforts, etc. These additional meetings provide time to focus on progress and reduce the probability of end-of-year surprises.

Creating an effective organization takes time and
effort. It also requires regular evaluation of services and operations. Evaluating employee performance,
especially the manager’s, is a vital element of successful organizations. Objective appraisals can be achieved with an accurate understanding of the manager’s and
elected officials’ duties and responsibilities. Communicating regularly and effectively through a variety of means is a vital element of successful organizations
and employee appraisals.3
Supplemental Approaches
The basic process for evaluations may be supplemented or expanded by using other tools, such as self-evaluations, periodic check-ins, 360-degree assessments, and conversation evaluations.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 32, Packet Page 181 ICMA MANAGER EVALUATIONS HANDBOOK 11
Self-Evaluations
It is recommended that a self-evaluation component be
included in whatever type of evaluation is used. The
purpose of a self-evaluation is for the manager to reflect upon his or her level of performance in achieving the
organizational objectives, including both internal and
external accomplishments and challenges in handling
specific tasks and taking organizational direction. In a public setting, process and perception can be as important as outcomes, and managers should include all three in a self-evaluation. Thus, a manager’s self-evaluation should make clear to elected officials the process by which the manager pursued individual goals, and
the perceptions of both the manager and stakeholders
of the manager’s success or failure in meeting those
goals. A manager’s self-evaluation should be customized to the needs of each governmental entity.

Periodic Check-ins
There is a management philosophy that says there
should be no surprises during an evaluation. Managers
should be continually evaluating, assessing, measuring, and communicating with employees. Providing this type of continuous evaluation is a greater challenge, however, for elected boards because it requires the participation of all board members—since the
manager reports to a group and not a single individual
supervisor. If a process is in place for formal evaluations of the manager, such evaluations likely occur just once per year. The annual evaluation can be a
stressful time for all involved, and it can also be a
challenge to remember all that has occurred over the
past year. Moreover, it is easy for annual assessments
to skew toward recent events, challenges, and successes while deemphasizing activities that occurred nine or ten months ago. In reality, an elected body’s
perception of a manager’s job performance is often
viewed through lenses crafted by the “crisis of the
day” or by how smoothly the last board meeting went.

A more workable alternative is periodic check-ins.

Periodic check-ins, such as once per quarter, can
help reduce the stress and minimize the surprises that
can come when a manager’s performance is evaluated
only annually. A periodic review of a manager’s work
plan can help remind the elected body of the manager’s
long-term goals (as set by the organization) so that both parties can evaluate the manager’s progress toward
meeting those agreed-upon goals. If progress on the work plan has slowed down or other challenges have arisen
along the way, a quarterly check-in offers the manager
an opportunity to self-reflect on his or her performance as well as a forum to explain delays. It can also provide the manager the opportunity to remind the board of the
14 core areas noted in the ICMA Practices for Effective Local Government Leadership that are critical and are
part of operating effectively on a day-to-day basis.

A periodic check-in on the manager’s work plan is
also important when faces on the elected board change,
such as after an election, resignation, or reassignment of committees. By apprising the new board members of
the manager’s work plan, the manager is making certain that the new officials understand and are supportive of the projects or goals that he or she is working on. 360-Degree Assessments
Another form of appraisal process is the 360-degree
assessment, which is sometimes referred to as a “selfdevelopment” tool. Generally speaking, the 360-degree assessment consists of an employee obtaining feedback from supervisors, subordinates, and peers. In this case, the manager completes a self-evaluation as well,
with a sample of the workforce providing the subordinate feedback. In some instances, feedback is also obtained from those outside the organization, such as
citizens who have frequently worked with the manager and use the jurisdiction’s services regularly.

Some jurisdictions include the 360-degree assessment as part of the manager’s appraisal process. The ICMA Voluntary Credentialing Program also uses this
method as part of maintaining the credential; however,
ICMA’s assessments ask only behavioral questions.

They do not cover progress toward organizational goals.

In most cases a 360-degree assessment is conducted digitally via the Internet. Raters are provided evaluation forms that are returned to an independent
third party via the Internet in order to ensure anonymity and confidentiality.

One of the chief benefits of the 360-degree assessment process is that it provides feedback on competencies that are not regularly seen and therefore are not discussed in the typical performance appraisals.

For instance, line staff will see behaviors that elected officials do not see and vice versa. Thus, a manager’s
performance may be improved because it is evaluated
from several different perspectives. However, if the
360-degree assessment is used as part of the appraisal
process, caution should be taken so that the evaluation doesn’t become a measure of the manager’s popularity with staff or the public. The manager works for the elected officials and should be evaluated by them
on the basis of their stated expectations.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 33, Packet Page 182 12 ICMA MANAGER EVALUATIONS HANDBOOK
Conversation Evaluation System4
This version of an evaluation is a conversational
session between the manager and the elected officials. For situations where there is tension among the elected officials or between the manager and the
elected body, a facilitator can be used.

Step #1: Create Factors
The elected officials divide themselves into subgroups—normally an equal number of officials in each. The number of groups should be small, so for
a board with 7 members, there would be a group
of 3 people and a group of 4 people. With larger
boards—say a county board with 20 people—there
might be more groups. Where the situation involves a
mayor and other elected officials, the mayor can move
between the two groups or can be part of one group.

The manager makes up his or her own group.

The elected official groups are given a single question that they can respond to with a number of factors:
“What should members of the elected body expect
of the manager?” The groups place their answers on
a flipchart page. The manager also gets a question:
“What do you think the elected body ought to expect
of the manager?,” to which he or she can also respond
with a number of factors listed on a flipchart page.

Step #2: Reach Consensus on the Factors
The subgroups come back together and discuss each
of the factors they listed. They work to combine their
lists to arrive at between 10 and 15 factors.

Step #3: Assign Weight Values for the Factors
The group divides again, and the subgroups assign
points to each of the factors from Step #2. They are
given a total of 300 points and may assign from 10 to
30 points to each factor, but each factor must be given an even number of points. More points are given to
those items that are a higher priority.

Step #4: Reach Consensus on Weight Values for
the Factors
The subgroups come back together again with the
point values they have from their discussions. During this conversation, the entire group tries to come to a consensus on how the point values from Step #3
should be allocated.

Step #5: Assign Rating to Each Factor for the
Actual Performance of the Manager
The elected officials distribute points to each of the
factors on a 1–5 scale, on which 5 is far exceeds
expectations, 4 is exceeds expectations, 3 is achieves
expectations, 2 is below expectations, and 1 is far
below expectations. For example, a 30-point factor
would have the following scale:
30–28 Far exceeds expectations (5)
28–26 Exceeds expectations (4)
26–24 Achieves expectations (3)
24–22 Below expectations (2)
22–20 Far below expectations (1)
These points are totaled, and then added to the
points from the section below.

Step #6: Select Goals
The board—collectively and in consultation with the
manager—comes up with the list of goals for the manager. Together they then assign another 100 points to the goals for the year. So, for example, 50 points could be assigned to Goal #1, Goal #2 could get 20 points,
and Goal #3 could get 20 points, leaving 10 points for
Goal #4.

The points from the above 5 steps would be added
to the 100 points possible from step number 6 and
would be totaled for an overall score using the chart
below:
400–360 Far exceeds expectations
359–320 Exceeds expectations
319–280 Meets expectations
279–240 Below expectations
239–200 Far below expectations
In summary, this is a conversational evaluation.

The evaluators review the factors each year and
everybody owns them. From year to year the factors
are revised as necessary to reflect the feelings of the elected body, which can change each year.

Data-gathering/Software
Resources
Performance evaluation software can be an effective
tool for the elected body to prepare manager evaluations. A wide variety of programs are available, enabling elected bodies to have as much or as little
input into the rating categories as they wish. Some
programs come with rating categories already provided
for a variety of positions, some allow the customer to
provide the categories, and some are a hybrid. This
flexibility allows the elected officials to create a customized rating tool that works best for them.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 34, Packet Page 183 ICMA MANAGER EVALUATIONS HANDBOOK 13
Some evaluation software programs allow for multiple raters and some for a single rater. If the program only allows for a single rater, all elected officials convene to discuss each category, agree on the rating, and offer comments, while one elected official enters the rating
and comments into the software program. In this case,
there needs to be trust among the elected officials that all opinions are being heard and recorded. It is then important that all elected officials review the final draft and offer feedback before it is given to the manager.

If a multiple-rater system is used, elected officials
will be completing the evaluation away from the rest
of the elected body, so it is recommended that there
be group discussion beforehand to ensure consistency
in the meaning of the rating categories as in opinions
about the manager’s performance. The elected officials
should also meet after they have entered their ratings
because the evaluation is a group activity, not a multiple individual activity.

A word of warning regarding the multiple-rater
system: It may be difficult to make sure that everyone
fully participates in the process. Elected officials won’t be informed by each other’s comments, and consensus
can be hard to achieve. Thus, if some elected officials provide more commentary than others, it could skew
the overall evaluation.

Even with the use of performance evaluation software, an in-person conversation between the elected body and the manager is needed to review the evaluation and discuss the results.

As noted above, a wide variety of software programs are available, including • Online survey tools such as Survey Monkey
• Performance evaluation software (SHRM can
recommend)
• NeoGov online performance evaluation module
Conclusion
Communication. That is the essential element to maintaining a good relationship between an elected board and the appointed manager. Communication comes in
many forms, but the board’s evaluation of the manager is a formalized method of communication that should not be overlooked.

The task force that was formed to develop this
handbook compiled and considered the best practices
for manager evaluations. The group shared numerous
ideas and learned a great deal from each other. The
final product demonstrates that just as each manager
and board are unique, so too must be the evaluation
process for each manager. While there are common
methods of evaluation, the tools and methods used
to evaluate one manager in one community may not
be appropriate for another manager in a neighboring
community. To maximize legitimacy and effectiveness
and to enhance communication, a manager’s evaluation needs to be tailored to the issues and stated goals of the elected body.

That said, the task force also agreed that there
are some standard elements—notably, the ICMA
Practices for Effective Local Government Leadership—
that would enhance any evaluation. These 14 core
competencies are the framework for what a manager
does on a day-to-day basis, and they warrant
acknowledgment in the evaluation process.

Finally, while this handbook offers a variety of
ideas on the manager evaluation process, the most
important takeaway is that the evaluation must take
place and that the process must be mutually agreed
upon. There are many ways to get this done, but the
manager and the board both deserve the structured
communication that the evaluation provides.

Sample Evaluation Forms for
Local Government CAOs
• Sample Appraisal of Performance
• Sample Manager Evaluation Form
• Sample Manager Performance Evaluation
• Sample County Administrator Performance Evaluation
Other Resources
• ICMA Practices for Effective Local Government
Leadership
• Recruitment Guidelines for Selecting a Local
Government Administrator
• ICMA Model Employment Agreement
• ICMA Code of Ethics with Guidelines
Notes
1 Adapted from City Manager Performance Review, Successful Evaluation Tips, City of Mountlake Terrace, WA
2 Integrity is not simply concerned with whether the manager’s behavior is legal; it also addresses the issue of personal and professional ethics: “Demonstrating fairness, honesty, and ethical and legal awareness in personal and professional relationships and activities.” ICMA members agree to abide by the ICMA Code of Ethics.
3 Perkins, Jan. “Case Study: It’s (Gulp) Evaluation Time.” PM, July 2005. http://icma.org/Documents/Document/Document/3602
4 Adapted and used with permission from Lewis Bender, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, [email protected]
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 35, Packet Page 184

INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
777 N. Capitol St NE, Ste. 500, Washington, DC 20002
202.289.4262 | 202.962.3500(f) | icma.org

ABOUT ICMA
ICMA advances professional local government worldwide. Its mission is to create excellence in local governance by developing and advancing professional management of local government.

ICMA, the City/County Management Association, provides member support; publications, data, and information; peer and results-oriented assistance; and training and professional development to more than 12,000 city, town, and county experts and other individuals and organizations throughout the world. The management decisions made by ICMA’s members affect 185 million individuals living in thousands of communities, from small villages and towns to large metropolitan areas.

ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 36, Packet Page 185 Rosenberg’s Rules of Order
REVISED 2011
Simple Rules of Parliamentary Procedure for the 21st Century By Judge Dave Rosenberg
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 37, Packet Page 186 ii
MISSION and CORE BELIEFS
To expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.

VISION
To be recognized and respected as the leading advocate for the common interests of California’s cities.

About the League of California Cities
Established in 1898, the League of California Cities is a member organization that represents California’s incorporated cities.

The League strives to protect the local authority and automony of city government and help California’s cities effectively serve their residents. In addition to advocating on cities’ behalf at the state capitol, the League provides its members with professional development programs and information resources, conducts education conferences and research, and publishes Western City magazine.
© 2011 League of California Cities. All rights reserved.

About the Author
Dave Rosenberg is a Superior Court Judge in Yolo County. He has served as presiding judge of his court, and as presiding judge of the Superior Court Appellate Division. He also has served as chair of the Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee (the committee composed of all 58 California presiding judges) and as an advisory member of the California Judicial Council. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Rosenberg was member of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, where he served two terms as chair. Rosenberg also served on the Davis City Council, including two terms as mayor. He has served on the senior staff of two governors, and worked for 19 years in private law practice. Rosenberg has served as a member and chair of numerous state, regional and local boards. Rosenberg chaired the California State Lottery Commission, the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, the Yolo County Economic Development Commission, and the Yolo County Criminal Justice Cabinet. For many years, he has taught classes on parliamentary procedure and has served as parliamentarian for large and small bodies.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 38, Packet Page 187 1 Table of Contents
About the Author............................................................................................................ii Introduction....................................................................................................................2 Establishing a Quorum...................................................................................................2 The Role of the Chair......................................................................................................2 The Basic Format for an Agenda Item Discussion........................................................2 Motions in General.........................................................................................................3 The Three Basic Motions................................................................................................3 Multiple Motions Before the Body.................................................................................4 To Debate or Not to Debate............................................................................................4 Majority and Super-Majority Votes ...............................................................................5 Counting Votes................................................................................................................5 The Motion to Reconsider..............................................................................................6 Courtesy and Decorum ..................................................................................................7 Special Notes About Public Input..................................................................................7 ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 39, Packet Page 188 2 Establishing a Quorum
The starting point for a meeting is the establishment of a quorum.

A quorum is defined as the minimum number of members of the body who must be present at a meeting for business to be legally transacted. The default rule is that a quorum is one more than half the body. For example, in a five-member body a quorum is three.

When the body has three members present, it can legally transact business. If the body has less than a quorum of members present, it cannot legally transact business. And even if the body has a quorum to begin the meeting, the body can lose the quorum during the meeting when a member departs (or even when a member leaves the dais). When that occurs the body loses its ability to transact business until and unless a quorum is reestablished.

The default rule, identified above, however, gives way to a specific rule of the body that establishes a quorum. For example, the rules of a particular five-member body may indicate that a quorum is four members for that particular body. The body must follow the rules it has established for its quorum. In the absence of such a specific rule, the quorum is one more than half the members of the body.

The Role of the Chair
While all members of the body should know and understand the rules of parliamentary procedure, it is the chair of the body who is charged with applying the rules of conduct of the meeting. The chair should be well versed in those rules. For all intents and purposes, the chair makes the final ruling on the rules every time the chair states an action. In fact, all decisions by the chair are final unless overruled by the body itself.

Since the chair runs the conduct of the meeting, it is usual courtesy for the chair to play a less active role in the debate and discussion than other members of the body. This does not mean that the chair should not participate in the debate or discussion. To the contrary, as a member of the body, the chair has the full right to participate in the debate, discussion and decision-making of the body. What the chair should do, however, is strive to be the last to speak at the discussion and debate stage. The chair should not make or second a motion unless the chair is convinced that no other member of the body will do so at that point in time.

The Basic Format for an Agenda Item Discussion
Formal meetings normally have a written, often published agenda.

Informal meetings may have only an oral or understood agenda. In either case, the meeting is governed by the agenda and the agenda constitutes the body’s agreed-upon roadmap for the meeting. Each agenda item can be handled by the chair in the following basic format:

Introduction
The rules of procedure at meetings should be simple enough for most people to understand. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case. Virtually all clubs, associations, boards, councils and bodies follow a set of rules — Robert’s Rules of Order — which are embodied in a small, but complex, book. Virtually no one I know has actually read this book cover to cover. Worse yet, the book was written for another time and for another purpose. If one is chairing or running a parliament, then Robert’s Rules of Order is a dandy and quite useful handbook for procedure in that complex setting. On the other hand, if one is running a meeting of say, a five-member body with a few members of the public in attendance, a simplified version of the rules of parliamentary procedure is in order.

Hence, the birth of Rosenberg’s Rules of Order.

What follows is my version of the rules of parliamentary procedure, based on my decades of experience chairing meetings in state and local government. These rules have been simplified for the smaller bodies we chair or in which we participate, slimmed down for the 21st Century, yet retaining the basic tenets of order to which we have grown accustomed. Interestingly enough, Rosenberg’s Rules has found a welcoming audience. Hundreds of cities, counties, special districts, committees, boards, commissions, neighborhood associations and private corporations and companies have adopted Rosenberg’s Rules in lieu of Robert’s Rules because they have found them practical, logical, simple, easy to learn and user friendly.

This treatise on modern parliamentary procedure is built on a foundation supported by the following four pillars:

1. Rules should establish order. The first purpose of rules of parliamentary procedure is to establish a framework for the orderly conduct of meetings.

2. Rules should be clear. Simple rules lead to wider understanding and participation. Complex rules create two classes: those who understand and participate; and those who do not fully understand and do not fully participate.

3. Rules should be user friendly. That is, the rules must be simple enough that the public is invited into the body and feels that it has participated in the process.

4. Rules should enforce the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. The ultimate purpose of rules of procedure is to encourage discussion and to facilitate decision making by the body. In a democracy, majority rules. The rules must enable the majority to express itself and fashion a result, while permitting the minority to also express itself, but not dominate, while fully participating in the process.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 40, Packet Page 189 3 Ninth, the chair takes a vote. Simply asking for the “ayes” and then asking for the “nays” normally does this. If members of the body do not vote, then they “abstain.” Unless the rules of the body provide otherwise (or unless a super majority is required as delineated later in these rules), then a simple majority (as defined in law or the rules of the body as delineated later in these rules) determines whether the motion passes or is defeated.

Tenth, the chair should announce the result of the vote and what action (if any) the body has taken. In announcing the result, the chair should indicate the names of the members of the body, if any, who voted in the minority on the motion. This announcement might take the following form: “The motion passes by a vote of 3-2, with Smith and Jones dissenting. We have passed the motion requiring a 10-day notice for all future meetings of this body.”
Motions in General
Motions are the vehicles for decision making by a body. It is usually best to have a motion before the body prior to commencing discussion of an agenda item. This helps the body focus.

Motions are made in a simple two-step process. First, the chair should recognize the member of the body. Second, the member of the body makes a motion by preceding the member’s desired approach with the words “I move … ”
A typical motion might be: “I move that we give a 10-day notice in the future for all our meetings.”
The chair usually initiates the motion in one of three ways:

1. Inviting the members of the body to make a motion, for example, “A motion at this time would be in order.”

2. Suggesting a motion to the members of the body, “A motion would be in order that we give a 10-day notice in the future for all our meetings.”

3. Making the motion. As noted, the chair has every right as a member of the body to make a motion, but should normally do so only if the chair wishes to make a motion on an item but is convinced that no other member of the body is willing to step forward to do so at a particular time.

The Three Basic Motions
There are three motions that are the most common and recur often at meetings:

The basic motion. The basic motion is the one that puts forward a decision for the body’s consideration. A basic motion might be: “I move that we create a five-member committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser.”
First, the chair should clearly announce the agenda item number and should clearly state what the agenda item subject is. The chair should then announce the format (which follows) that will be followed in considering the agenda item.

Second, following that agenda format, the chair should invite the appropriate person or persons to report on the item, including any recommendation that they might have. The appropriate person or persons may be the chair, a member of the body, a staff person, or a committee chair charged with providing input on the agenda item.

Third, the chair should ask members of the body if they have any technical questions of clarification. At this point, members of the body may ask clarifying questions to the person or persons who reported on the item, and that person or persons should be given time to respond.

Fourth, the chair should invite public comments, or if appropriate at a formal meeting, should open the public meeting for public input.

If numerous members of the public indicate a desire to speak to the subject, the chair may limit the time of public speakers. At the conclusion of the public comments, the chair should announce that public input has concluded (or the public hearing, as the case may be, is closed).

Fifth, the chair should invite a motion. The chair should announce the name of the member of the body who makes the motion.

Sixth, the chair should determine if any member of the body wishes to second the motion. The chair should announce the name of the member of the body who seconds the motion. It is normally good practice for a motion to require a second before proceeding to ensure that it is not just one member of the body who is interested in a particular approach. However, a second is not an absolute requirement, and the chair can proceed with consideration and vote on a motion even when there is no second. This is a matter left to the discretion of the chair.

Seventh, if the motion is made and seconded, the chair should make sure everyone understands the motion.

This is done in one of three ways:

1. The chair can ask the maker of the motion to repeat it;

2. The chair can repeat the motion; or

3. The chair can ask the secretary or the clerk of the body to repeat the motion.

Eighth, the chair should now invite discussion of the motion by the body. If there is no desired discussion, or after the discussion has ended, the chair should announce that the body will vote on the motion. If there has been no discussion or very brief discussion, then the vote on the motion should proceed immediately and there is no need to repeat the motion. If there has been substantial discussion, then it is normally best to make sure everyone understands the motion by repeating it.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 41, Packet Page 190 4 First, the chair would deal with the third (the last) motion on the floor, the substitute motion. After discussion and debate, a vote would be taken first on the third motion. If the substitute motion passed, it would be a substitute for the basic motion and would eliminate it. The first motion would be moot, as would the second motion (which sought to amend the first motion), and the action on the agenda item would be completed on the passage by the body of the third motion (the substitute motion). No vote would be taken on the first or second motions.

Second, if the substitute motion failed, the chair would then deal with the second (now the last) motion on the floor, the motion to amend. The discussion and debate would focus strictly on the amendment (should the committee be five or 10 members). If the motion to amend passed, the chair would then move to consider the main motion (the first motion) as amended. If the motion to amend failed, the chair would then move to consider the main motion (the first motion) in its original format, not amended.

Third, the chair would now deal with the first motion that was placed on the floor. The original motion would either be in its original format (five-member committee), or if amended, would be in its amended format (10-member committee). The question on the floor for discussion and decision would be whether a committee should plan and put on the annual fundraiser.

To Debate or Not to Debate
The basic rule of motions is that they are subject to discussion and debate. Accordingly, basic motions, motions to amend, and substitute motions are all eligible, each in their turn, for full discussion before and by the body. The debate can continue as long as members of the body wish to discuss an item, subject to the decision of the chair that it is time to move on and take action.

There are exceptions to the general rule of free and open debate on motions. The exceptions all apply when there is a desire of the body to move on. The following motions are not debatable (that is, when the following motions are made and seconded, the chair must immediately call for a vote of the body without debate on the motion):

Motion to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the body to immediately adjourn to its next regularly scheduled meeting. It requires a simple majority vote.

Motion to recess. This motion, if passed, requires the body to immediately take a recess. Normally, the chair determines the length of the recess which may be a few minutes or an hour. It requires a simple majority vote.

Motion to fix the time to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the body to adjourn the meeting at the specific time set in the motion. For example, the motion might be: “I move we adjourn this meeting at midnight.” It requires a simple majority vote.

The motion to amend. If a member wants to change a basic motion that is before the body, they would move to amend it. A motion to amend might be: “I move that we amend the motion to have a 10-member committee.” A motion to amend takes the basic motion that is before the body and seeks to change it in some way.

The substitute motion. If a member wants to completely do away with the basic motion that is before the body, and put a new motion before the body, they would move a substitute motion. A substitute motion might be: “I move a substitute motion that we cancel the annual fundraiser this year.”
“Motions to amend” and “substitute motions” are often confused, but they are quite different, and their effect (if passed) is quite different.

A motion to amend seeks to retain the basic motion on the floor, but modify it in some way. A substitute motion seeks to throw out the basic motion on the floor, and substitute a new and different motion for it. The decision as to whether a motion is really a “motion to amend” or a “substitute motion” is left to the chair. So if a member makes what that member calls a “motion to amend,” but the chair determines that it is really a “substitute motion,” then the chair’s designation governs.

A “friendly amendment” is a practical parliamentary tool that is simple, informal, saves time and avoids bogging a meeting down with numerous formal motions. It works in the following way: In the discussion on a pending motion, it may appear that a change to the motion is desirable or may win support for the motion from some members. When that happens, a member who has the floor may simply say, “I want to suggest a friendly amendment to the motion.” The member suggests the friendly amendment, and if the maker and the person who seconded the motion pending on the floor accepts the friendly amendment, that now becomes the pending motion on the floor. If either the maker or the person who seconded rejects the proposed friendly amendment, then the proposer can formally move to amend.

Multiple Motions Before the Body
There can be up to three motions on the floor at the same time.

The chair can reject a fourth motion until the chair has dealt with the three that are on the floor and has resolved them. This rule has practical value. More than three motions on the floor at any given time is confusing and unwieldy for almost everyone, including the chair.

When there are two or three motions on the floor (after motions and seconds) at the same time, the vote should proceed first on the last motion that is made. For example, assume the first motion is a basic “motion to have a five-member committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser.” During the discussion of this motion, a member might make a second motion to “amend the main motion to have a 10-member committee, not a five-member committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser.” And perhaps, during that discussion, a member makes yet a third motion as a “substitute motion that we not have an annual fundraiser this year.” The proper procedure would be as follows:

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 42, Packet Page 191 5 Motion to close nominations. When choosing officers of the body (such as the chair), nominations are in order either from a nominating committee or from the floor of the body. A motion to close nominations effectively cuts off the right of the minority to nominate officers and it requires a two-thirds vote to pass.

Motion to object to the consideration of a question. Normally, such a motion is unnecessary since the objectionable item can be tabled or defeated straight up. However, when members of a body do not even want an item on the agenda to be considered, then such a motion is in order. It is not debatable, and it requires a two-thirds vote to pass.

Motion to suspend the rules. This motion is debatable, but requires a two-thirds vote to pass. If the body has its own rules of order, conduct or procedure, this motion allows the body to suspend the rules for a particular purpose. For example, the body (a private club) might have a rule prohibiting the attendance at meetings by non-club members. A motion to suspend the rules would be in order to allow a non-club member to attend a meeting of the club on a particular date or on a particular agenda item.

Counting Votes
The matter of counting votes starts simple, but can become complicated.

Usually, it’s pretty easy to determine whether a particular motion passed or whether it was defeated. If a simple majority vote is needed to pass a motion, then one vote more than 50 percent of the body is required. For example, in a five-member body, if the vote is three in favor and two opposed, the motion passes. If it is two in favor and three opposed, the motion is defeated.

If a two-thirds majority vote is needed to pass a motion, then how many affirmative votes are required? The simple rule of thumb is to count the “no” votes and double that count to determine how many “yes” votes are needed to pass a particular motion. For example, in a seven-member body, if two members vote “no” then the “yes” vote of at least four members is required to achieve a two-thirds majority vote to pass the motion.

What about tie votes? In the event of a tie, the motion always fails since an affirmative vote is required to pass any motion. For example, in a five-member body, if the vote is two in favor and two opposed, with one member absent, the motion is defeated.

Vote counting starts to become complicated when members vote “abstain” or in the case of a written ballot, cast a blank (or unreadable) ballot. Do these votes count, and if so, how does one count them? The starting point is always to check the statutes.

In California, for example, for an action of a board of supervisors to be valid and binding, the action must be approved by a majority of the board. (California Government Code Section 25005.) Typically, this means three of the five members of the board must vote affirmatively in favor of the action. A vote of 2-1 would not be sufficient. A vote of 3-0 with two abstentions would be sufficient. In general law cities in Motion to table. This motion, if passed, requires discussion of the agenda item to be halted and the agenda item to be placed on “hold.” The motion can contain a specific time in which the item can come back to the body. “I move we table this item until our regular meeting in October.” Or the motion can contain no specific time for the return of the item, in which case a motion to take the item off the table and bring it back to the body will have to be taken at a future meeting. A motion to table an item (or to bring it back to the body) requires a simple majority vote.

Motion to limit debate. The most common form of this motion is to say, “I move the previous question” or “I move the question” or “I call the question” or sometimes someone simply shouts out “question.” As a practical matter, when a member calls out one of these phrases, the chair can expedite matters by treating it as a “request” rather than as a formal motion. The chair can simply inquire of the body, “any further discussion?” If no one wishes to have further discussion, then the chair can go right to the pending motion that is on the floor.

However, if even one person wishes to discuss the pending motion further, then at that point, the chair should treat the call for the “question” as a formal motion, and proceed to it.

When a member of the body makes such a motion (“I move the previous question”), the member is really saying: “I’ve had enough debate. Let’s get on with the vote.” When such a motion is made, the chair should ask for a second, stop debate, and vote on the motion to limit debate. The motion to limit debate requires a two-thirds vote of the body.

Note: A motion to limit debate could include a time limit. For example: “I move we limit debate on this agenda item to 15 minutes.” Even in this format, the motion to limit debate requires a twothirds vote of the body. A similar motion is a motion to object to consideration of an item. This motion is not debatable, and if passed, precludes the body from even considering an item on the agenda. It also requires a two-thirds vote.

Majority and Super Majority Votes
In a democracy, a simple majority vote determines a question. A tie vote means the motion fails. So in a seven-member body, a vote of 4-3 passes the motion. A vote of 3-3 with one abstention means the motion fails. If one member is absent and the vote is 3-3, the motion still fails.

All motions require a simple majority, but there are a few exceptions.

The exceptions come up when the body is taking an action which effectively cuts off the ability of a minority of the body to take an action or discuss an item. These extraordinary motions require a two-thirds majority (a super majority) to pass:

Motion to limit debate. Whether a member says, “I move the previous question,” or “I move the question,” or “I call the question,” or “I move to limit debate,” it all amounts to an attempt to cut off the ability of the minority to discuss an item, and it requires a two-thirds vote to pass.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 43, Packet Page 192 6 Now, exactly how does a member cast an “abstention” vote? Any time a member votes “abstain” or says, “I abstain,” that is an abstention. However, if a member votes “present” that is also treated as an abstention (the member is essentially saying, “Count me for purposes of a quorum, but my vote on the issue is abstain.”) In fact, any manifestation of intention not to vote either “yes” or “no” on the pending motion may be treated by the chair as an abstention. If written ballots are cast, a blank or unreadable ballot is counted as an abstention as well.

Can a member vote “absent” or “count me as absent?” Interesting question. The ruling on this is up to the chair. The better approach is for the chair to count this as if the member had left his/her chair and is actually “absent.” That, of course, affects the quorum. However, the chair may also treat this as a vote to abstain, particularly if the person does not actually leave the dais.

The Motion to Reconsider
There is a special and unique motion that requires a bit of explanation all by itself; the motion to reconsider. A tenet of parliamentary procedure is finality. After vigorous discussion, debate and a vote, there must be some closure to the issue. And so, after a vote is taken, the matter is deemed closed, subject only to reopening if a proper motion to consider is made and passed.

A motion to reconsider requires a majority vote to pass like other garden-variety motions, but there are two special rules that apply only to the motion to reconsider.

First, is the matter of timing. A motion to reconsider must be made at the meeting where the item was first voted upon. A motion to reconsider made at a later time is untimely. (The body, however, can always vote to suspend the rules and, by a two-thirds majority, allow a motion to reconsider to be made at another time.)
Second, a motion to reconsider may be made only by certain members of the body. Accordingly, a motion to reconsider may be made only by a member who voted in the majority on the original motion. If such a member has a change of heart, he or she may make the motion to reconsider (any other member of the body — including a member who voted in the minority on the original motion — may second the motion). If a member who voted in the minority seeks to make the motion to reconsider, it must be ruled out of order. The purpose of this rule is finality. If a member of minority could make a motion to reconsider, then the item could be brought back to the body again and again, which would defeat the purpose of finality.

If the motion to reconsider passes, then the original matter is back before the body, and a new original motion is in order. The matter may be discussed and debated as if it were on the floor for the first time.

California, as another example, resolutions or orders for the payment of money and all ordinances require a recorded vote of the total members of the city council. (California Government Code Section 36936.) Cities with charters may prescribe their own vote requirements. Local elected officials are always well-advised to consult with their local agency counsel on how state law may affect the vote count.

After consulting state statutes, step number two is to check the rules of the body. If the rules of the body say that you count votes of “those present” then you treat abstentions one way. However, if the rules of the body say that you count the votes of those “present and voting,” then you treat abstentions a different way. And if the rules of the body are silent on the subject, then the general rule of thumb (and default rule) is that you count all votes that are “present and voting.” Accordingly, under the “present and voting” system, you would NOT count abstention votes on the motion. Members who abstain are counted for purposes of determining quorum (they are “present”), but you treat the abstention votes on the motion as if they did not exist (they are not “voting”). On the other hand, if the rules of the body specifically say that you count votes of those “present” then you DO count abstention votes both in establishing the quorum and on the motion. In this event, the abstention votes act just like “no” votes.

How does this work in practice?
Here are a few examples.

Assume that a five-member city council is voting on a motion that requires a simple majority vote to pass, and assume further that the body has no specific rule on counting votes. Accordingly, the default rule kicks in and we count all votes of members that are “present and voting.” If the vote on the motion is 3-2, the motion passes. If the motion is 2-2 with one abstention, the motion fails.

Assume a five-member city council voting on a motion that requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass, and further assume that the body has no specific rule on counting votes. Again, the default rule applies.

If the vote is 3-2, the motion fails for lack of a two-thirds majority. If the vote is 4-1, the motion passes with a clear two-thirds majority. A vote of three “yes,” one “no” and one “abstain” also results in passage of the motion. Once again, the abstention is counted only for the purpose of determining quorum, but on the actual vote on the motion, it is as if the abstention vote never existed — so an effective 3-1 vote is clearly a two-thirds majority vote.

Now, change the scenario slightly. Assume the same five-member city council voting on a motion that requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass, but now assume that the body DOES have a specific rule requiring a two-thirds vote of members “present.” Under this specific rule, we must count the members present not only for quorum but also for the motion. In this scenario, any abstention has the same force and effect as if it were a “no” vote. Accordingly, if the votes were three “yes,” one “no” and one “abstain,” then the motion fails. The abstention in this case is treated like a “no” vote and effective vote of 3-2 is not enough to pass two-thirds majority muster.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 44, Packet Page 193 7 Appeal. If the chair makes a ruling that a member of the body disagrees with, that member may appeal the ruling of the chair. If the motion is seconded, and after debate, if it passes by a simple majority vote, then the ruling of the chair is deemed reversed.

Call for orders of the day. This is simply another way of saying, “return to the agenda.” If a member believes that the body has drifted from the agreed-upon agenda, such a call may be made. It does not require a vote, and when the chair discovers that the agenda has not been followed, the chair simply reminds the body to return to the agenda item properly before them. If the chair fails to do so, the chair’s determination may be appealed.

Withdraw a motion. During debate and discussion of a motion, the maker of the motion on the floor, at any time, may interrupt a speaker to withdraw his or her motion from the floor. The motion is immediately deemed withdrawn, although the chair may ask the person who seconded the motion if he or she wishes to make the motion, and any other member may make the motion if properly recognized.

Special Notes About Public Input
The rules outlined above will help make meetings very publicfriendly. But in addition, and particularly for the chair, it is wise to remember three special rules that apply to each agenda item:

Rule One: Tell the public what the body will be doing.

Rule Two: Keep the public informed while the body is doing it.

Rule Three: When the body has acted, tell the public what the body did.

Courtesy and Decorum
The rules of order are meant to create an atmosphere where the members of the body and the members of the public can attend to business efficiently, fairly and with full participation. At the same time, it is up to the chair and the members of the body to maintain common courtesy and decorum. Unless the setting is very informal, it is always best for only one person at a time to have the floor, and it is always best for every speaker to be first recognized by the chair before proceeding to speak.

The chair should always ensure that debate and discussion of an agenda item focuses on the item and the policy in question, not the personalities of the members of the body. Debate on policy is healthy, debate on personalities is not. The chair has the right to cut off discussion that is too personal, is too loud, or is too crude.

Debate and discussion should be focused, but free and open. In the interest of time, the chair may, however, limit the time allotted to speakers, including members of the body.

Can a member of the body interrupt the speaker? The general rule is “no.” There are, however, exceptions. A speaker may be interrupted for the following reasons:

Privilege. The proper interruption would be, “point of privilege.” The chair would then ask the interrupter to “state your point.” Appropriate points of privilege relate to anything that would interfere with the normal comfort of the meeting. For example, the room may be too hot or too cold, or a blowing fan might interfere with a person’s ability to hear.

Order. The proper interruption would be, “point of order.” Again, the chair would ask the interrupter to “state your point.” Appropriate points of order relate to anything that would not be considered appropriate conduct of the meeting. For example, if the chair moved on to a vote on a motion that permits debate without allowing that discussion or debate.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 45, Packet Page 194 1400 K Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 658-8200 | Fax (916) 658-8240
www.cacities.org
To order additional copies of this publication, call (916) 658-8200. $10
© 2011 League of California Cities. All rights reserved.

Printed on recycled paper.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 46, Packet Page 195 League of California Cities® 2016 Annual Conference, City Attorneys’ Track Long Beach Convention Center
Let’s Ex Parte! The Limits and
Disclosure Requirements of Ex Parte
Contacts in the Public Hearing Context
Thursday, October 6, 2016 General Session; 2:45 – 4:00 p.m.

Ariel Pierre Calonne, City Attorney, Santa Barbara
DISCLAIMER: These materials are not offered as or intended to be legal advice. Readers should seek the advice of an attorney when confronted with legal issues. Attorneys should perform an independent evaluation of the issues raised in these materials.

Copyright © 2016, League of California Cities®. All rights reserved.

This paper, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission from the League of California Cities®. For further information, contact the League of California Cities® at 1400 K Street, 4th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814. Telephone: (916) 658-8200.

ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 47, Packet Page 196 League of California Cities® 2016 Annual Conference, City Attorneys’ Track Long Beach Convention Center
Notes:______________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 48, Packet Page 197 Let’s Ex Parte! The Limits and Disclosure
Requirements of Ex Parte Communications
in the Public Hearing Context
Ariel Pierre Calonne
City Attorney
City of Santa Barbara
League of California Cities
Annual Conference
October 2016 Long Beach
ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 49, Packet Page 198 1 This paper examines California law governing whether, when, and how city decisionmakers must refrain from or disclose ex parte communications.

INTRODUCTION
Ex parte is a Latin phrase that literally means “from one party.”1 Generally speaking, an ex parte communication is any material or substantive oral or written communication with a decisionmaker that is relevant to the merits of an adjudicatory proceeding, and which takes place outside of a noticed proceeding open to all parties to the matter.2

Ex parte communications to a judicial officer or quasi-judicial decisionmaker raise a number of serious legal concerns. As a result, ex parte communications are restricted, and even prohibited, in some circumstances.

The doctrinal foundation for restricting ex parte communications rests upon fundamental fairness concerns flowing from the Magna Carta,3 English common law4
, American common law requiring “fair procedures,”5 and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which provide that no person shall be “deprived of life,

1 In the legal context, ex parte means “on one side only; by or for one party; done for, in behalf of, or on the application of one party only.” (Black’s Law Dict. (6th ed. 1990) p. 76, col. 1.)
2 See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 11430.10 [California Administrative Procedures Act]; 12 C.F.R. § 263.9 [Federal Reserve Uniform Rules of Practice and Procedure]. 3 Duncan v. State of La. (1968) 391 U.S. 145, 169 (Conc. Opn. Of Black, J.) [“’The origin of the Due Process Clause is Chapter 39 of Magna Carta which declares that “No free man shall be taken, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land.”’”
4 “. . . in determining what due process of law is, under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment, the court must look to those settled usages and modes of proceeding existing in the common and statute law of England before the emigration of our ancestors, which were shown not to have been unsuited to their civil and political condition by having been acted on by them after the settlement of this country.” Tumey v. State of Ohio (1927) 273 U.S. 510, 523. 5 Pinsker v. Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists (1974) 12 Cal.3d 541, 555 ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 50, Packet Page 199 2 liberty, or property, without due process of law.”6
And, “A fair trial in a fair tribunal
is a basic requirement of due process.”7
The law relating to ex parte
communications has grown from concerns about fundamental fairness.

Two precepts underlie ex parte contact fairness and due process considerations:

The need for judicial impartiality and the truth-seeking benefits of an adversarial system.

Judicial impartiality is a cornerstone of American justice. In Tumey v. State of Ohio (1927) 273 U.S. 510, the United States Supreme Court had no trouble finding a due process violation when an Ohio criminal statute authorized a mayor to hear certain cases in which he or she had a direct pecuniary interest due to a local ordinance that compensated the mayor with fees collected from convicted defendants. While there was no evidence of actual bias in Tumey, the Court concluded that any “. . . procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict . . .” denies due process because the judge’s impartiality is put into question. 8 Certainly ex parte contacts present a “possible temptation” that might impugn a decisionmaker’s impartiality.9

Adversarial systems work to ensure discovery of the truth. The United States Supreme Court points out that: “[t]he system assumes that adversarial testing will

6 U.S. Const., 5th and 14th Amends.; see also Cal. Const., art. I, § 7 [state clause's prescriptions as substantially overlapping those of the federal Constitution] Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Educ. (2013) 57 Cal.4th 197, 212; Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5 [Vollstedt v. City of Stockton (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 265, 273.
7 In re Murchison (1955) 349 U.S. 133, 136; Withrow v. Larkin (1975) 421 U.S. 35, 46; Howitt v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1575, 1581. In this context, we are referring to procedural due process. (See Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319.
8 Id., at p. 532.
9 See Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2006) 40 Cal.4th 1, 5; “One fairness principle directs that in adjudicative matters, one adversary should not be permitted to bend the ear of the ultimate decision maker or the decision maker's advisors in private.” ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 51, Packet Page 200 3 ultimately advance the public interest in truth and fairness.”10 Because ex parte communications are not recorded, they cannot be rebutted by the non-present party or given adequate appellate review.11 The Third Circuit Court of Appeals applied this principle to conclude that:
“. . . ex parte communications run contrary to our adversarial trial system. The adversary process plays an indispensable role in our system of justice because a debate between adversaries is often essential to the truth-seeking function of trials.”12
In California, earlier cases echoed the adversarial truth-seeking interest behind controlling ex parte communications in administrative proceedings:
“Administrative tribunals exercising quasi judicial powers which are required to make a determination after a hearing cannot act on their own information. Nothing may be treated as evidence which has not been introduced as such, inasmuch as a hearing requires that the party be apprised of the evidence against him in order that he may refute, test and explain it.”13
The more modern California view does not compel a purely adversarial model for administrative decision making, and hence casts some doubt on the continuing value of the “truth-seeking” rationale for controlling ex parte communications:
“. . . these decisions and numerous others stand for the proposition that the pure adversary model is not entitled to constitutionally enshrined exclusivity as the means for resolving disputes in ‘[t]he incredible variety of administrative mechanisms [utilized] in this country....’ The mere fact that the decision-maker or its staff is a more active participant in the factfinding process—similar to the

10 Polk County v. Dodson (1981) 454 U.S. 312, 318.
11 In re Kensington Intern. Ltd. (3d Cir. 2004) 368 F.3d 289, 310. 12 Ibid.
13 La Prade v. Department of Water and Power of City of Los Angeles (1945) 27 Cal.2d 47, 51–52.

ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 52, Packet Page 201 4 judge in European civil law systems—will not render an administrative procedure unconstitutional.”14
Indeed, legislative bodies now have considerable constitutional leeway to craft alternative decisionmaking systems which may not be adversarial:
“‘“[l]egislatures and agencies have significant comparative advantages over courts in identifying and measuring the many costs and benefits of alternative decisionmaking procedures. Thus, while it is imperative that courts retain the power to compel agencies to use decisionmaking procedures that provide a constitutionally adequate level of protection ..., judges should be cautious in exercising that power. In the vast bulk of
circumstances, the procedures chosen by the legislature or by the agency are likely to be based on application of a Mathews-type cost-benefit test by an institution positioned better than a court to identify and quantify social costs and benefits.”’”15
So, while some courts focus their ex parte due process concerns on the need for confrontation and rebuttal by the adverse parties, judicial impartiality is a more persistent rationale, particularly in non-adversarial systems.

Finally, the California Supreme Court recently summarized the basic requirements of due process in California administrative decisionmaking, again focusing upon the need for impartiality:
“’The essence of due process is the requirement that “a person in jeopardy of serious loss [be given] notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it.” ‘The opportunity to be heard must be afforded ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ To ensure that the opportunity is meaningful, the United States Supreme Court and this court have identified some aspects of due

14 Howitt v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1575, 1581 [citing Withrow v.

Larkin (1975) 421 U.S. 35].
15 Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Educ. (2013) 57 Cal.4th 197, 230; quoting Mohilef v. Janovici (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 267, 288 and referring to the seminal procedural due process analysis in Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319, 348.

ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 53, Packet Page 202 5 process as irreducible minimums. For example, whenever ‘due process requires a hearing, the adjudicator must be impartial.’

Beyond these broad outlines, however, the precise dictates of due process are flexible and vary according to context.”16
In sum, the simple human need for fairness, reflected in western jurisprudence since at least 1215 when it was pronounced in the Magna Carta, underlies the legal concerns about ex parte communications during administrative decisionmaking processes. Fairness certainly requires an impartial decisionmaker, and often the appearance of impartiality can become as important a factor in the legal review of fairness as actual impartiality. Fairness may also require the opportunity for adversarial examination of evidence in some, if not most, administrative decisionmaking systems.

CALIFORNIA LAW ON EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS
In 1945, the California Supreme Court determined that due process does not allow using evidence gathered ex parte in an administrative hearing. In La Prade v. Department of Water and Power of City of Los Angeles (1945) 27 Cal.2d 47, the Court considered a civil service matter in which an employee was discharged upon the basis of an investigative report which was offered into evidence after the hearing. The divided 4-3 Court held:
“Administrative tribunals exercising quasi judicial powers which are required to make a determination after a hearing cannot act on their own information. Nothing may be treated as evidence which has not been introduced as such, inasmuch as a hearing requires that the party be apprised of the evidence against him in order that he may refute, test and explain it. And the action of such a tribunal based upon the report of an investigator, assuming it is competent evidence, when forming the basis for the tribunal's determination, is a denial of a hearing, unless it is introduced into evidence and the accused is given an opportunity to cross-examine the maker thereof and refute it.”
17 18

16 Id., at p. 212.
17 Id., at pp. 51–52; La Prade relied heavily upon Morgan v. U.S. (1936) 298 U.S. 468, 480 which discussed a federal livestock ratemaking statute: “That duty is ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 54, Packet Page 203 6 By 1950, a unanimous California Supreme Court squarely addressed the problem of individual ex parte contacts by decisionmakers. In English v. City of Long Beach (1950) 35 Cal.2d 155, the Court considered a Long Beach police officer who had been terminated due to a disability. Members of the civil service board:
“. . . took evidence outside the hearing and outside the presence of English or his attorney. Some of them talked to one of the examining doctors, and one member questioned his personal physician concerning the relation of English's asserted disability to the performance of the duties of his position. The information thus received was imparted to other board members, and was
considered and relied upon by them in arriving at their decision.” 19 The Court noted that: “[t]he principal question is whether English was deprived of a fair trial.”20 And:
“The action of such an administrative board exercising adjudicatory functions when based upon information of which the parties were not apprised and which they had no opportunity to controvert amounts to a denial of a hearing.” . . .

A contrary conclusion would be tantamount to requiring a hearing in form but not in substance, for the right of a hearing before an administrative tribunal would be meaningless if the tribunal were permitted to base its termination upon information received without the knowledge of the parties. A hearing requires that the party be apprised of the evidence against him so that he may have an opportunity to refute, test, and explain it, and the requirement of a

widely different from ordinary executive action. It is a duty which carries with it fundamental procedural requirements. There must be a full hearing. There must be evidence adequate to support pertinent and necessary findings of fact.

Nothing can be treated as evidence which is not introduced as such.” 18 Despite Morgan and its progeny, Congress did not restrict ex parte administrative communications in formal rulemaking and administrative adjudications until 1976. (Due Process and Ex Parte Contacts in Informal Rulemaking (1979) 89 Yale L.J. 194, 197.)
19 Id., at p. 157.
20 Id., at p. 158.

ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 55, Packet Page 204 7 hearing necessarily contemplates a decision in light of the evidence there introduced.”
21 Again, in a case involving a city manager’s decision to demote a city employee based in part upon evidence received ex parte, the Court of Appeal emphasized that:
“The fact that Personnel Director Fong may have presented the City Manager with substantial evidence supporting his decision not to follow the recommendations of the Commission did not cure the error caused by the Commission's failure to transmit a statement of facts to the City Manager. Rather it led to further abuse of appellant's right to a fair hearing. A decision maker such as the City Manager, who is required by city ordinance to make a
determination after a requested hearing cannot act upon his own information, and nothing can be considered as evidence that was not introduced at a hearing of which petitioner had notice or at which he was present.”
22 On the other hand, it is also clear that some kinds of ex parte evidence do not raise due process concerns. In 1957, the Court of Appeal in Flagstad v. City of San Mateo (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 138 held that ex parte evidence which is disclosed before a hearing does not violate due process:
“Plaintiff complains that defendants rely upon information acquired by the council members other than at the hearing. . . . Here the mayor stated at the outset of the hearing that the councilmen had ‘had a look’ at the property. Members of the council asked questions and expressed views at the public hearing which quite fully revealed their investigation. There was no concealment. Those protesting the variance were free to challenge any views so expressed, and took frequent advantage of this opportunity.” 23 And, more recently, the Court of Appeal has held that ex parte information is evidentiary only if it is “considered by . . . [the decisionmaker] . . . for its bearing

21 Id., at p. 158-59.
22 Vollstedt v. City of Stockton (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 265, 274–75. 23 Id., at p. 141.

ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 56, Packet Page 205 8 on the issues resolved by the findings in his proposed decision.”24 So, nonsubstantive communications that do not bear on the ultimate decision are consistent with due process requirements.

Surprisingly, there is no California statutory law restricting ex parte communications with city decisionmakers. At the state level, the California Administrative Procedures Act expressly forbids ex parte communications.25 Likewise, the California Coastal Act defines and requires disclosure of ex parte communications.26 On the other hand, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act was amended in 2012 to exempt certain water board proceedings from the ex parte communication restrictions of the California Administrative Procedures Act.27 Many other state agencies have specialized ex parte communication rules.28 These state statutes provide some value in determining due process minima.

WHETHER, WHEN, AND HOW TO ADDRESS EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS Due to the absence of statutory guidance, we must synthesize the case law to determine whether, when, and how to address ex parte communications. Mindful that fundamental fairness is our guide, and that Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319 remains vital in providing a procedural due process framework,29 several relatively clear principles emerge.

24 Mathew Zaheri Corp. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1314.
25 “While the proceeding is pending there shall be no communication, direct or indirect, regarding any issue in the proceeding, to the presiding officer from an employee or representative of an agency that is a party or from an interested person outside the agency, without notice and opportunity for all parties to participate in the communication.” (Gov. Code, § 11430.10(a); Gov. Code, § 11425.10.)
26 Pub. Resources Code, §§ 30322 and 30324.
27 Wat. Code, § 13287 (Stats. 2012, ch. 551.)
28 See, e.g.,Pub. Resources Code, § 663.2 [State Mining and Geology Board]; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 19872 [Gambling Control Commission]. 29 “ . . . identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: First, the private interest that will be ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 57, Packet Page 206 9 1. Procedural Due Process Relates Only to Adjudicatory Proceedings.

Ex parte communications are a concern only in adjudicatory or quasi-judicial decisionmaking matters, as opposed to purely legislative proceedings. While many factors go into to determining whether a matter is quasi-judicial, the typical characteristics are three-fold: 1) Does the matter require advance notice and a hearing; 2) must the decision be predicated upon specific findings of fact; 3) does the decision apply existing law to specific facts to make an individualized determination of a specific person’s rights or interests in life, liberty or property.30 31 It is a good practice to identify quasi-judicial matters on meeting agendas so that the public, parties and decisionmakers are aware of due process concerns that might limit ex parte communications.

2. Ex Parte Communication is Evidence-Gathering That Takes Place Outside the Formal Proceedings.

Ex parte communications include oral and written information, but can also include any other sensory communication, such as visual or auditory information obtained during a site visit.32

3. Ex Parte Communications Must Be Substantive and Relevant to the Matter in Order to Impact Due Process Rights.

Mere casual or non-substantive communications do not violate the due process rights of non-present parties to a quasi-judicial matter.33 This limitation is

affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319, 335.
30 See Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506.
31 See Franchise Tax Bd. v. Superior Court in and for Sacramento County (1950) 36 Cal.2d 538, 549 [“There is no constitutional requirement for any hearing in a quasi-legislative proceeding.”]
32 Flagstad v. City of San Mateo (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 138. 33 Mathew Zaheri Corp. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1305.

ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 58, Packet Page 207 10 important to local elected officials because they are often expected to be available so that concerns or complaints may be expressed by their constituents.

Thus, the mere expression of support or opposition to a particular decision does not raise due process concerns when it is not accompanied by substantial factual information that influences the decisionmaker’s analyses or conclusions.

4. Substantive Ex Parte Communications Which are Disclosed Prior to a Quasi-Judicial Hearing Do Not Raise Due Process Concerns.

California case law is clear that pre-hearing disclosure of ex parte communications adequately protects the due process interests of the nonpresent parties to the matter.34 The disclosure should be complete, detailed and as early in the process as is reasonable. Some agencies require written disclosure.35

5. Ex Parte Communications After a Quasi-Judicial Hearing Must Be Prohibited If the Decision is Not Final.

A corollary to the due process protection provided by pre-hearing disclosure of ex parte communications is that there must be no ex parte communications during the interstitial period between closure of a hearing and a final decision. This arises most often when a city decisionmaker closes a quasi-judicial hearing and directs the preparation of written findings by staff. “Lobbying” by parties to the matter or other persons must be rejected. Many cities have differing approaches to ex parte communications that arise as a result of public testimony rights under the Brown Act.36 A simple admonition on the record advising the decisionmakers not to consider Brown Act-required public comment should be a sufficient balance between the due process and First Amendment interests at stake.

34 Flagstad v. City of San Mateo (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 138. 35 The California Coastal Commission, for example, requires use of “standard disclosure forms.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 30324.)
36 Gov. Code, 54954.3. See also, Gov. Code, § 54954.2(a)(2) [“No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that members of a legislative body or its staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights under Section 54954.3.”]
ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 59, Packet Page 208 11 EXAMPLES OF CITY COUNCIL EX PARTE CONTACT RULES
Santa Barbara City Council Procedures (2015)

4.14.4. Identification of Quasi-Judicial Matters on the Agenda. The City Administrator/City Clerk, in conjunction with the City Attorney, will identify agenda items involving quasi-judicial decisions on the Council agenda. This identification is intended to inform the Council, interested parties, and the public that this policy will apply to the item, but failure to identify an item shall not be cause for a continuance.

4.14.5. Policy to Avoid Ex Parte Contacts. Ex parte contacts are substantive oral or individual written communications concerning quasi-judicial matters that occur outside of noticed public hearings. City Councilmembers should avoid and discourage ex parte contacts if at all possible.

4.14.6. Disclosure of Ex Parte Contacts. If an ex parte contact does occur (which it might because the public has a hard time understanding that on quasi-judicial matters the Council’s decision making is confined to the hearing), the Councilmember must disclose the contact and the substance of the information communicated on the record at the start of the public hearing. This disclosure allows people who may have a different point of view or contrary evidence to make their points during the hearing in response to the information you may have obtained through the ex parte contact. The disclosure might go something like this: “I was approached by the appellant last week and they told me that neighborhood traffic is much greater than the City’s baseline assumptions.”

4.14.7. Ex Parte Contacts After the Hearing. Ex parte contacts after a public hearing is closed and before a final decision is rendered are prohibited because there is no opportunity for rebuttal.

ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 60, Packet Page 209 12 Berkeley Rules of Procedure and Order (2016)
Following any staff presentation, each member of the City Council shall verbally disclose all ex parte contacts concerning the subject of the hearing. Members shall also submit a report of such contacts in writing prior to the commencement of the hearing. Such reports shall include a brief statement describing the name, date, place, and content of the contact. Written reports shall be available for public review in the office of the City Clerk prior to the meeting and placed in a file available for public viewing at the meeting.

Berkeley Land Use Resolution (2004)

3. Council members and Commissioners may receive information relevant to the land use decision by contacts with the parties, the public or staff and are not confined to reading the record or hearing presentations at public hearings.

4. Where information of a specific nature is gathered by a member of the City Council or a board or commission, through contacts outside the record, and the information is not already in the record, the member shall, to the extent feasible, keep contemporaneous notes of the substance of the contact and shall disclose the contact and its substance on the record prior to the commencement of the hearing to which such contact relates. Where the information is received during the pendency of a hearing the matter shall be disclosed prior to completion of the hearing and the parties and public shall have an opportunity to respond if the matter is substantially new information.

5. Where such contacts were made and information gathered prior to a pending decision by the Council or any decision making body whether or not to grant a hearing, the substance of the information shall be reported to the secretary of the relevant body as soon as it is made. The secretary shall maintain a file on such disclosed contacts for review by members of the public.

Palo Alto City Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook (2013) 2) Restrictions on Council Communications Outside of Quasi-Judicial and Planned Community Zone Hearings
It is the policy of the Council to discourage the gathering and submission of information by Council Members outside of any noticed public meeting, prior to final recommendations by the Architectural Review Board or Planning & ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 61, Packet Page 210 13 Transportation Commission. The following procedural guidelines are intended to implement this policy, but shall not be construed to create any remedy or right of action.
3) Identification of Quasi-Judicial/Planned Community Matters The City Attorney, in conjunction with the City Clerk and City Manager, will identify agenda items involving quasi-judicial/planned community decisions on both the tentative and regular Council agendas. This identification is intended to inform the Council, interested parties, and the public that this policy will apply to the item.
4) Council to Track Contacts
Council Members will use their best efforts to track contacts pertaining to such identified quasi-judicial/planned community decision items. Contacts include conversations, meetings, site visits, mailings, or presentations during which substantial factual information about the item is gathered by or submitted to the Council Member.
5) Disclosure
When the item is presented to the Council for hearing, Council Members will disclose any contacts which have significantly influenced their preliminary views or opinions about the item. The disclosure may be oral or written, and should explain the substance of the contact so that other Council Members, interested parties, and the public will have an opportunity to become apprised of the factors influencing the Council's decision and to attempt to controvert or rebut any such factor during the hearing. Disclosure alone will not be deemed sufficient basis for a request to continue the item. A contact or the disclosure of a contact shall not be deemed grounds for disqualification of a Council Member from participation in a quasi-judicial/planned community decision unless the Council Member determines that the nature of the contact is such that it is not possible for the Council Member to reach an impartial decision on the item. 6) No Contacts after Hearings
Following closure of the hearing, and prior to a final decision, Council Members will refrain from any contacts pertaining to the item, other than clarifying questions directed to City staff.

ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 62, Packet Page 211 14 Santa Monica Rules of Conduct for City Council Meetings RULE 14. DISCLOSURE FOR QUASI JUDICIAL MATTERS.

On quasi-judicial matters, Councilmembers shall verbally disclose off the record contacts relating to the item, after the item is called and before Council consideration of the matter. Disclosure shall include the identity of an individual(s) with whom the Councilmember had contact, and the nature of the contact.

Mountain View City Council Code of Conduct (2015)

4.7 Quasi-Judicial Role/Ex Parte Contacts
The City Council has a number of roles. It legislates and makes administrative and executive decisions. The Council also acts in a quasi-judicial capacity or "like a judge" when it rules on various permits, licenses, and land use entitlements.

In this last capacity, quasi-judicial, the Council holds a hearing, takes evidence, determines what the evidence shows, and exercises its discretion in applying the facts to the law shown by the evidence. It is to these proceedings that the rule relative to ex parte contacts applies.

4.7.1 Ex Parte Contacts/Fair Hearings. The Council shall refrain from receiving information and evidence on any quasi-judicial matter while such matter is pending before the City Council or any agency, board, or commission thereof, except at the public hearing.

As an elected official, it is often impossible to avoid such contacts and exposure to information. Therefore, if any member is exposed to information or evidence about a pending matter outside of the public hearing, through contacts by constituents, the applicant or through site visits, the member shall disclose all such information and/or evidence acquired from such contacts, which is not otherwise included in the written or oral staff report, during the public hearing, and before the public comments period is opened.

Matters are "pending" when an application has been filed. Information and evidence gained by members via their attendance at noticed public hearings before subordinate boards and commissions are not subject to this rule.

ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 63, Packet Page 212 15 Thousand Oaks Municipal Code (1984)
Sec. 1-10.08. Ex parte communications.

No official or employee shall encourage, make or accept any ex parte or other unilateral application or communication that excludes the interests of other parties in a matter under consideration when such application or communication is designed to influence the official decision or conduct of the official or other officials, employees or agencies in order to obtain a more favored treatment or special consideration to advance the personal or private interests of him/herself or others. The purpose of this provision is to guarantee that all interested parties to any matter shall have equal opportunity to express and represent their interests.

Any written ex parte communication received by an official or employee in matters where all interested parties should have an equal opportunity for a hearing shall be made a part of the record by the recipient.

Any oral ex parte communication received under such conditions should be written down in substance by the recipient and also be made a part of the record.

A communication concerning only the status of a pending matter shall not be regarded as an ex parte communication.
◊◊◊◊◊
ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 8/15/2023, Item No. 12., Item Page 64, Packet Page 213