COUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICERS COMMITTEE
SUMMARY MINUTES
Special Meeting
November 26, 2024
The Council Appointed Officers Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Community Meeting Room and by virtual teleconference at 2:00 P.M.
Present In-Person: Ed Lauing (Chair), Lydia Kou
Present Virtually: Pat Burt
Absent: None.
Call to Order
Chair Lauing called the meeting to order. The clerk called the roll and declared three were present.
Public Comments
The clerk reported there were no public comment requests.
Closed Session
1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Authority: Cal. Gov. Code section 54957(b);
Title: City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk
MOTION: Councilmember Kou moved, seconded by Councilmember Lauing, to move to Closed Session.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0
The Committee went into Closed Session at 2:02 P.M.
The Committee returned from Closed Session at 4:24 P.M.
Chair Lauing reported no reportable action.
Agenda Items
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. Council Appointed Officers Committee Meeting
Summary Minutes: 11/26/2024
2. Discussion and debrief of the Council Appointed Officer (CAO) performance evaluation process and Recommendati on from the CAO Committee on next steps for CAO performance evaluation services contract not a CEQA project Chair Lauing discussed changes made to CAO performance evaluation process including developing specific prom pts for each CEO to r espond on behalf of their self -evaluations and fine-tuning of questions posed as part of the one-on-one reviews Council members did with the consultant. The consultant also sent out documents consisting of citizen surveys, citizen city values and council pr iorities. Closed s essions were held with each appointee in which longer sessions were designed in order to have mor e dialog and interaction. Key performance indicators discussions were ongoing for 2025.
Councilmember Burt thought they did a good first process of beginning to put a foundation for being able to have important performance indicators . The plan was to build upon that and continue to refine them in the next year's review process.
Councilmember Kou recalled when she first started when evaluations were initiated either the consultant or the CAO committee had an in depth briefing with the new Council members as to what to expect.
Chair Lauing wondered if they should put a stake in the ground on getting all the interviews by Council members done or at least schedule d before the summer break or immediately after, if possible. He opined the salary comps were over kill and wanted to throw those out for discussion.
Dan Rich, M unicipal Resources Group , ag reed with both of the sugges tions made. H e was surprised by the number of salary comps. Refining them down would be a collaborative process with the appointees and HR. He suggested locking in the interviews before the break in order to proceed in a more timely manner.
Ed Shikada, City Manager , queried if that meant they needed to move up their reports. He stated it would be ideal for all to submit the self-evaluations by June in order to have the evaluation completed by September.
Mr. Rich knew that could present a challenge but indicated anything do ne to tighten up the timeline would be good.
Molly Stump, City Attorney , agreed with City Manager Shikada on the timing and appreciated the Committee thinking about compressing the process more . She communicated that she was surprised that this year Council paid attention to the questions the consultant asked but those questions were not shared with the CAOs. She thought it would be helpful to her to know what those were so she could provide foundational information to Council to consider when they talk to the consultant.
Mr. Rich suggested aligning the self-evaluation prompt questions in a more comprehensive and integrated way for the next year. He thought there should be fewer questions of Council and that the reports did not really deal with the issues reported and their prompts.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. Council Appointed Officers Committee Meeting
Summary Minutes: 11/26/2024
Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk , agreed that moving the timing up to just after the fiscal year would be helpful. She found the questions asked not relevant to each of their roles.
Councilmember Burt thought they should embrace the fee dback on the questions and the process related to the questions. He was skeptical on the feasibility of moving the timeline up.
He did think having some of the interviews before coming back from Council break worked out well.
Chair Lauing agreed to make notes on the su ggestions, keep them in the fil e for the next year and report out to Council the next Monday in C ouncil comments. He indicated they would then discuss the services contract.
Councilmember Kou wanted to know why the city manager and attorneys were at $11,000 each and the city clerk and city auditors were at $14,600 on the exhibit C1 schedule of rates.
Chair Lauing replied that was existing contract and how the consultant priced it.
Sandra Blanch, Human Resources Department , remarked it could be because at the time the clerk and the auditor were fairly new and there was going to be a six-month evaluation.
Chair Lauing recalled that because they did not do the city auditor, there was enough budget in the contract so they di d not have to re -up it during the process. He thought the objective on the table was whether they wanted to use a facilitator and how to go about doing that.
Councilmember Burt strongly supported a facilitator. He thought they needed to make s ure that whoever bids it understands the y have gone into greater depth than they historically had and that they know the additional process being anticipating to continue may be a little bit more extensive than what they had previously understood and what had been stipulated previously. He suggested the chair could work through with HR on making sure that RFP ma de the bidders aware of the reality of what they were looking for.
Councilmember Kou wondered how to quality a facilitator.
Chair Lauing thought the normal process would be for the consulta nt to make recommendations and then handle it like a job interview and then make the decision as a committee. He supported continuing with Mr. Rich for the next year as they were familiar with him.
Councilmember Burt thought the question was who to award the contract to and once it has been awarded , what latitude was held in selecting who that contractor would provide as a facilitator. He wondered if they would want put in as a condition that they would interview facilitators if they elected to sta y with one c ompany. He would be inclined to support continuing with Mr. Rich if he would be available for the next year.
Chair Lauing posed the question if they go with a consultant and that particular person was not available, should they interview at least two consultants and candidates.
Councilmember Burt supported authorizing Chair Lau ing to engage with the consulting company to determine whether the scenario he described was available to them.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Sp. Council Appointed Officers Committee Meeting
Summary Minutes: 11/26/2024
City Manager Shikada clarified if Mr. Rich was not available for the next year, one option would be to discuss with MRG who else might be available and make that decision immediately based on the committee and ultimately the C ouncil's comfort level with those other individuals and the process involved with that. Another option would be to open it up to other companies for the purpose of identifying additional individuals that might be available . If they open it up to other companies , the re was a question as to whether there would be a request for proposals required or if th ere would be more of an informal identification of one or more other companies that could be discussed.
MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Kou to recommend th at City Council recommend that
a) Chair Lauing discuss with the existing consultant if the current facilitator is available for the next cycle. If so, negotiate a C ouncil Appointed Officers performance evaluation services contract with the existing consultant and facilitator. b) If not, return to the Council Appointed Officers C ommittee to discuss options including other facilitators with the existing consultant or other consultants.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0
Future Meetings and Agendas
None.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:54 P.M.