HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1984-05-14Mayor Mark N. Addiego
Vice Mayor Richard A. Haffey
Council:
Emanuele N. Damonte
Gus Nicolopulos
Roberta Cerri Teglia
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
AGENDA REVIEW
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMUNITY FORUM
1. Study of the performance pay plan
evaluation process.
O0°
MINUTES
City Council
City Council Conference Room
May 14, 1984
ACTION TAKEN
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
5:25 p.m. Mayor Addiego presiding.
Council present:
Council absent:
Nicolopulos, Teglia,
Haffey and Addiego.
Damonte.
Councilman Damonte arrived at 5:26 p.m.
Recited.
AGENDA REVIEW
City Manager Birkelo stated that he had
nothing to add to the agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No one chose to speak.
COMMUNITY FORUM
No one chose to speak.
Mr. George Sipel suggested some objec-
tives for discussion: 1) To talk about
the feedback from the questionnaire to
see if everyone was in agreement and
understood or if something additional was
to be added; 2) What is involved in the
performacne pay plan; 3) For Council to
give him enough input to develop a policy
statement or develop one here tonight;
4) To agree on a future process and what
is to take place with a schedule to come
back to Council. He stated that he had
addressed the feedback in the memo to
Council. He stated that the key things
that came out of the comments, as he read
it was: 1) The strong need to improve
performance; 2) The need to stimulate
good performance, especially on the part
of some managers, and with respect to
others leaves something to be desiredd;
and it was felt that the salary plan can
be used as a motivator or stimulator of
performance or you would like to try to
5/14/84
Page 1
AGE.DA ACT O. TAKE,
Study of the performance pay plan
evaluation process - Continued.
use it as a tool. He said there was less
agreement on some other things, and
agreement that some department heads are
paid too much and others not enough. He
stated that there was no specific eva-
luation in effect, no formal system and
the need for the Council to correct that
by being involved in the process - he
stated that there was a little less
agreement on that than on other things.
Councilman Damonte stated that this body
was going to establish a tool by which to
measure performance.
Vice Mayor Haffey questioned when the
initial evaluations would happen.
Mr. Sipel stated that the question really
before that was what kind of an eva-
luation tool was the Council going to
use. He stated that probably it would be
six months, maybe sooner, because the
issue was to give some standards by which
to perform and then give them the time to
do it; Council may wish to give some
feedback based on what they know now.
Councilman Damonte questioned what would
be used as a benchmark to evaluate how
the people are doing.
Vice Mayor Haffey stated that the mana-
gers would probably appreciate feedback
both positive and negative.
City Manager Bi rkelo stated that the
management had asked for a performance
evaluation plan for at least a year.
Mr. Sipel stated that the issue is, how
did the Council plan to use the infor-
mation, do you plan to use it to reduce
pay or to increase it.
Mayor Addiego stated that it was a two
edged sword that could swing both ways.
Councilman Damonte stated that the
Council had to establish for what reason
they were using it, if it is for the eva-
luation for improvement or if it's on the
other si de that we are collecting data -
in the event we have to let them go. He
5/Z4/84
Page 2
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
Study of the performance pay plan
evaluation process.
stated that it was the positive compared
to the negative.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that when this
plan was together and the Council applied
it she assumed that in the worst cases
that all of the people will be given time
to attempt to meet our goals - and they
can do it or tell them straight out they
can't and use the year to find another
job. She stated that she wanted to see
capable people in the positions and she
felt there were capable people, but some
were not performing; and it's not a
matter of pay and Council needed to find
out why.
Discussion followed: if management was
going to help Council to formulate the
individual objectives; needed a give and
take on the individual management goals,
but not on the system of establishing
goals.
Mr. Sipel stated, Council was saying it
would like to have some process to give
them feedback on the performance plans
initially and establish some objectives
for the next year, criteria for salary
increases and a process for evaluation to
go on throughout the year. He stated
that there are a number of things needed
to happen for a program to be successful.
He stated that Council was talking about
the philosophy and the general policy;
why are we doing this in the first place,
and then get into some guidelines and
procedures that can be written over the
next month or two. He continued, then
some training for the Council and City
Manager on how to evaluate and then the
implementation. He recommended that the
Council follow his suggestions even
though it seemed a long process and
needed a lot of effort. He stated that
if the Council was involved in actually
evaluating employees, you could probably
figure a couple of hours per year per
employee and if you are all involved then
it's times five if all are involved. He
stated that if it a committee then you
might want to try something along that
line which is the process generally
followed.
5/14/84
Page 3
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
Study of the performance pay plan
evaluation process - Continued.
He stated that some of the elements of
the plan: 1) there is the pay itself, if
a plan like this is going to work it has
to be equitable to the external market
and the pay cannot be that much higher or
lower; and you can't say that if you have
super performance you can make what
everyone el se makes - there needs to be
equitability inside the organization and
the jobs are in line with each other. He
stated that if a performance pay plan is
going to work there has to be enough
money in it for someone to be motivated.
He continued, if Council said if you do
well I will give you 2% or so - that will
not motivate them - you need to say 3, 4
or 5%. He stated that they may be moti-
vated from the system for the feedback
and setting objectives and maybe because
of their professionalism - there are a
variety of reasons.
Discussion followed on the definition of
professionals; the fact that Council
hires and fires department heads; the
desirability of working in this City;
previous recruitments for department
heads in the City; salary being an indu-
cement for attracting qualified depart-
ment heads and methods of recruitment; a
low turn over in department heads; defi-
nition of self motivation; evaluation
process being subjective or objective:
references from former employers on
performance of prospective department
heads; assessment centers, etc.
Mr. Sipel stated that if the performance
evaluation process was established it had
to be maintained to effect a status quo
with standards.
Discussion followed: that pay was a tem-
porary incentive; that accountability
was what was needed to make a difference
and was more reliable than a pay raise;
giving credit for a job well done, etc.
Mr. Sipel stated that the evaluation pro-
cess would allow the Council to get to a
job well done because it was giving feed-
back on their performance whereas now
they only know about it when they screw
up. He stated that performance was the
second part of the plan and the hardest
part of the plan to do.
5/14/84
Page 4
AGE"DA ACTION TAKE"
Study of the performance pay plan
eval uati on process.
He stated that there was the opportunity
to set up some risks by giving people a
change to take risks. He stated that
Council wanted people to do more and get
out there and try things by implying that
it would accept some risks and failures.
Councilman Damonte stated that with some
failure there would be dismissal and then
the risk taking will minimize.
City Manager Birkelo stated yes, if the
risks were too high.
Mr. Sipel stated that the third part of
this was to hold people accountabe with a
commitment on Council's part to spend
whatever time it takes to do it. He
stated that a successful program needed:
1) Sufficient funds to do it, which at
this time he did not know what that
meant; 2) Latitude to reward the
excellent folks. He stated that if the
organization is typical you have ten
people, one or two that are marginal on
the one side and one or two super on the
other side, then you will need to find
money for the one side. He stated that
there needed to be an active performance
appraisal system with objective devices
and a key to set it up. He stated that
the material on other cities, most of
which did not have really active eval-
uation systems, but there were a few
exceptions in this area that do a super
job. He stated that most of the time it
was just automatic increases and you go
in and ask why someone got 10% and
someone else zero percent which was sub-
jective and they could only tell you
someone is really great.
Discussion followed on the bonus plans in
the private sector; behavorial bonus
points on the scale of five down to one
on department heads before Council at a
meeting, their poise, appearance, articu-
lation and ability to put across their
point; oral communication; that elected
officials cannot be evaluated; meeting
the job standards; following through on a
job; Council to decide what categories
are important for evaluation; if a person
exceeds the standards it could mean a
salary increase: letting Staff know what
5/14/84
Page 5
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
Study of the performance pay plan
eval uati on process.
is acceptable and what is not; etc.
Mr. Sipel stated that his would show what
performance levels were acceptable and
what was below acceptance; that the per-
centage span could be from 10~ - 20~. He
stated that the other part was the set of
objectives that are agreed upon mutually
for a year or six months that these
people are going to try to achieve and
how we are going to measure the perfor-
mances. He stated that next would be how
the total job was managed, you measure
how the individual did in oral com-
munications, leadership, decision making,
etc. He continued, you measure in terms
of how he or she achieves the specific
five or six objectives that have been set
out for them; how is his shop working
which the City Manager would be better
able to evaluate from seeing it on a day
to day basis and the Council would know
how the performance was perceived by the
clientele. He stated that the Council
needed to decide on what the criteria was
going to be based and then come to some
agreement on the descriptions. He stated
that he had outlined the basic components
of the system for both pay and
performance evaluation and asked Council
to describe their philosophy of the
system.
Discussion followed: benevolent
dictatorship; motivation and higher per-
formance levels; make sure that the
Managers use their potential; make people
want to come here and work; make the City
a desirable place to work in; retention
of managers; make them feel their worth
no matter how low it might be; make the
managers feel important; make the
employees feel they are very fortunate to
have a job in this City because the City
recognizes their worth; the element of
buying into the community.
Mr. Sipel stated that employees should be
working hard with pay as the motivator;
direct Council involvement in the
process; a willingness to reward and a
desire to differentiate among
performances.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that a reward
5/14/84
Page 6
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
Study of the performance pay plan
evaluation process.
should be withheld i f performance 1 evel
is low.
Vice Mayor Haffey stated there should be
fairness and objectivity in the appraisal
system.
Mr. Si pel stated that he would take that
list and develop a philosophy and a policy
for the Council to approve. He
questioned the criteria the Council
wanted to use to judge department
managers.
Discussion followed: how well they
manage their departments; oral com-
munications well written staff reports;
employee contact; skill level of their
specific level of expertise; ability to
work with others; not to be absorbed by
the team; initiative, independence; the
way the managers treat the public;
creativity and innovation; ability to
teach; loyalty; leadership and inspira-
ti on to their employees; moral s;
sensi ti vi ty.
Mr. Sipel reiterated: inspiration/
leadership; problem solving; integrity/
loyalty; ethics/morality; empathy;
problem solving; well groomed; two way
communications; inter-personal skills;
self starting mechanisms; bright
wide-awake and strong; efficient;
employee development; fi scal
responsibility/procedural skills; etc.
Mr. Sipel stated that he would develop
this list and bring it back to Council.
He stated that next he would develop a
schedule and come back to Council in two
weeks as he had the philosophy and the
policy statement and after that would be
the criteria which might take longer to
fully develop - perhaps three weeks and
get someone from personnel to assist. He
continued, then we will talk about the
framework for the plan after Council has
read through the material on other city
plans. He stated that Council must
establish dollar limits for the total
amount of the program.
Discussion followed: that the executive
management cost was half a million
5/14/84
Page ?
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
Study of the performance pay plan
evaluation process.
dollars; put $25,000 - $50,000 in the
plan; that the median management salary
in the market was slightly higher than
this City's, that the public safety area
was further behind the median; incentive
pay programs in the private sector and
public jurisdictions; San Mateo's plan;
Sunnyvale's program which was a point
system of evaluation; Mountain View's
program that has a management plan and
then a plan for the supervisory level.
Mr. Sipel suggested that Council start
with the management group and next year
go to the next group.
Vice Mayor Haffey stated that the Council
might want to modify the percentage later
on as it adopted the plan for other mana-
gers or lower level managers which was a
point system of evaluation; Mountain
Views control point program that has a
management plan and than a plan for the
supervisory level.
Mr. Sipel suggested that Council start
with the management group and next year
go to the next group.
Mr. Sipel stated that the control point
represents the average pay for that job
in the market place. He continued, if it
was $2,000 a month the Council would go
10-20~ about that figure or 20~ below
which would be a 40~ spread and the
salary could be set any place within
those parameters.
Vice Mayor Halley stated that one thing
that paralyzed this City and all of labor
negotiations and will paralyze the City
is finding out what the control point is
and deciding our market place and what
City it wants to be like.
Mr. Sipel stated that it shouldn't be
hard to fi nd cities that are close in
terms of size.
Vice Mayor Haffey thought Redwood City
would be a perfect example.
Mayor Addiego stated that it was impor-
tant that the City be a leader among
cities.
5/14/84
Page 8
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
-- 1. Study of the performance pay plan
eval uati on process.
Cassette #2
Vice Mayor Haffey stated that Palo Alto
was a City he would like this City to
emul ate.
Mayor Addiego mentioned Brisbane,
Pacifica and San Bruno.
Mr. Sipel mentioned Mountain View and
Daly City.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that she did
not want this City compared with Daly City.
Discussion followed on including the
cities of Newark, San Leandro, Hayward,
Vallejo, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Palo
Alto, San Rafael, San Bruno, Redwood
City, Brisbane, San Mateo and Daly City
as benchmark cities for the plan.
Discussion followed on percentages to be
used in the plan: using zero to 15% on a
new employee, after someone gets into the
organization and into the plan using 10
to 15%; after two to three years the
employee would be up to 30% and then
there would be a 71~% spread which would
bring them into the incentive range; that
the zero percent would be the normal step
A and the control point is step E on a
five step plan; that it could be 30%
below and 10% above; looking at total
compensation; whether this plan was a
panacea for all of the cities ills;
people who do not respond to the incen-
tive plan could be put on a six month
probation; that less than a standard
increase (3 or 5%) was a good indication
that the person had to shape up; indivi-
dual motivation; necessity for good per-
formance evaluations by the City Manager;
that the plan was a three step process;
that the criteria would be to the
Council in the next three weeks; that
the evaluation would take place at the
end of June and there would be a full
year to implement the system; that Mr.
Sipel and the City Manager would begin
talking to the Staff about the plan; per-
formance evaluations for the executive
management to be performed by 6/1/84 and
the Council would review and make recom-
mendations on the performance of every
member beginning 4/15/85 and 7/1/84 for
5/14/84
Page 9
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
Study of the performance pay plan
eval uati on process.
ADJOURNMENT:
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
City of South San Francisco
the initial evaluation; evaluate people
every six months and the second eva-
luation comes with the salary increase;
that the Council wanted a review and eva-
luation from the City Manager of each of
the members in the Executive Management
Group April 15th of each year; on 7/1/84
the City Manager would sit with the
Council for the evaluation process; that
the City Manager and City Attorney would
be a part of the evaluation plan; that
individual Councilpeople would write an
evaluation on each department head and
they would be compiled to look for a con-
sensus in advance and it would be
discussed with the department head; orga-
nizational structure alternatives to be
done in July after the budget session;
bonus method for that year's performance
and if received and the performance level
drops they could lose the bonus; SB831
which affected teachers.
City Manager Birkelo stated that the FAA
had approved the noise easement that the
City had adopted.
M/S Haffey/Teglia - To adjourn the
meeting to Wednesday, 5/16/84 at 7:00
p.m., at City Hall for a study session
with the Planning Commission on the
Housing Element.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
APPROVED:
Ma. rk N. Addie.~o', M~
City of South San Francisc~/
The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispose
of an item. Oral communications, arguments, and comments are recorded on tape. The tape
and documents related to the items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and
available for inspection, review and copying.
5/14/84
Page 10