Loading...
09/27/1991 CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL WORK SESSION September 27, 1991 City Manager and City Attorney Evaluations The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Sue Berfield Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Lee Regulski Commissioner William Nunamaker Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner Also present were: Michael J. Wright City Manager (during CM eval) M. A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney (during CA eval) Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk The meeting was called to order at 11:09 a.m. in Commission Chambers. City Manager Evaluation The Mayor indicated Mr. Wright has pulled together a good top management team. He shows leadership capabilities, has ability to organize and monitor, he shares in successes and failures and believes in long range planning. She believes his technical knowledge is good however, he may depend too much on technical personnel for resource. She stated he has good interpersonal relationships as he is committed to improving the relationship with the City Commission and staff. She stated he is willing to communicate and listen to the Commission, public and staff and has good writing skills. She feels he anticipates problems, involves affected parties and is flexible when problem solving. He manages human resources through teamwork. He carried out his financial responsibility with a good budget and the three year projection which he has initiated is an improvement. She stated he is a careful steward of city funds. She stated his relations with the public is good and he handles citizens complaints well and he believes in public education. He displays a positive professional attitude and dedicated concern for Clearwater. Overall, her rating of the City Manager is very positive. Commissioner Regulski stated most important for the City Manager is the ability to learn and observe and use experience in decision making. He stated Mr. Wright, as assistant city manager, did observe and did evaluate what is happening in the City of Clearwater. He learned the policies expressed by the Commission and he saw the pitfalls of items that were not being handled. Upon his appointment to City Manager, and having the opportunity to address these, Mr. Wright used that knowledge to effectively address issues. The transition from the former City Manager has been excellent. As City Manager, Mr. Wright has addressed issues and concerns in accord with City Commission direction. Commissioner Regulski stated Mr. Wright has addressed issues recognizing problems and specifically addressing the issue of labor negotiations, moving to make them a cooperative situation involving the employees. He felt the three year budget projection was an excellent innovation and that all these things are pluses. His overall rating of the City Manager is very good. Commissioner Fitzgerald stated that in the six months that Mr. Wright has been City Manager, the major occurrences have been the budget, which the City Manager very smoothly guided. Commissioner Fitzgerald felt the format had improved and he also expressed appreciation of the three year budget projection. He stated he would like to see an expanded use of the modified zero based budget. Commissioner Fitzgerald feels that communications have improved internally and staff coordination and communication are much better. He stated the City Manager has worked with the Commission to keep them informed. Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated the City Manager is working to streamline management over time and feels he will continue in that direction. He stated the City Manager has a positive attitude, he recognizes issues and prioritizes them. He is cooperative and accessible. Commissioner Fitzgerald feels Mr. Wright believes in Clearwater and its future. He gives Mr. Wright an excellent evaluation. Commissioner Nunamaker stated he was very pleased with the first six months of Mr. Wright as City Manager. He indicated concerns with disgruntled employees had been smoothed out considerably. Commissioner Nunamaker stated he was pleased with the economic cuts made in Mid-management. He felt Mr. Wright's promotions of Ms. Rice to Deputy City Manager and Ms. Deptula to Assistant City Manager were good, strong decisions. Mr. Wright has done a good job of maintaining a good relationship with City Commission and staff. Commissioner Berfield stated she agreed with the comments of the other four Commission members. She stated Mr. Wright had done an excellent job in addressing the employee morale concerns. She felt the transition was handled smoothly and stated staff felt the same. She indicated staff speaks highly of Mr. Wright. She appreciates that Mr. Wright is very flexible and open to input. He is also very patient. she also felt he may depend a little too much on staff for backup but also felt the staff he has for backup is good. She stated he has excellent assistants. She feels he is far sighted as evidenced by the establishment of the insurance committee and the implementation of the three year forecasting. Mr. Wright stated he appreciated the Commission's confidence. He indicated Clearwater is a pleasurable place to work and he hopes to continue here for some time. The Mayor indicated she wished to address Mr. Wright's request that his evaluation and salary review be at the same time. Mr. Wright indicated that he was not concerned as to when the evaluation happened but that if they were to evaluate him in March, that would be published in October rather than having a performance evaluation and salary reviews at different times in the year. Discussion ensued regarding what direction the Commission wished to take. It was indicated that if something was not done at this time, salary evaluation and performance evaluation would always be out of synch. Commission direction was for the City Manager's anniversary date be changed to October 1st and he be evaluated in September of each year. They directed that salary review for the City Manager be agendaed for the October 17, 1991 City Commission meeting. Mayor Garvey stated between October 22nd and October 30th, 22 Russian visitors will be in Clearwater and that host families are needed. City Attorney Evaluation The Mayor indicated she found it more difficult to evaluate the City Attorney as she has less contact with him. She stated she feels he has improved over the evaluations in the past and he is working to get things out in a more timely manner. She appreciates him taking the time to make sure the City's positions are defendable. She also appreciates that he is trying to simplify the Code. She stated his one weakness that she continues to see is in personnel evaluations. However, Mr. Galbraith seems to be attempting to address that problem. She stated working relationships have improved between the City Attorney, City Manager and his staff. She did question why documents were coming to her, asking they be signed as soon as possible. She requested the City Attorney continue to be proactive in addressing city issues. She stated she appreciated that he will take informed risks while continuing to be conservative. She requested that he attempt to give more direction to the Commission regarding proposed legislation for the County and State. She stated overall she felt he was doing a good job. Commissioner Fitzgerald indicated he does have a working relationship with the City Attorney and he is confident in his evaluation of the City Attorney. He stated he felt Mr. Galbraith had improved his responsiveness and he appreciates his conservative nature. He indicated he too, felt the communication between the City Attorney and the remainder of city staff has improved. He stated during the last year, Mr. Galbraith addressed a number of controversial issues, done a lot of research, and guided the Commission well, providing sound legal advice. He stated Mr. Galbraith successfully lobbied the legislature on several issues. He indicated he felt the City Attorney managed his budget well. He stated he felt Mr. Galbraith is thorough in his research, that he identifies weaknesses in rules and regulations and attempts to correct them. Mr. Galbraith takes pride in his work and Commissioner Fitzgerald gives him an excellent rating. Commissioner Nunamaker indicated he was very satisfied with the City Attorney's input. He appreciates the City Attorney's newsletter and communication with the Commission is excellent. He trusts Mr. Galbraith's input and has confidence in him. He stated he felt Mr. Galbraith was doing a good job. Commissioner Regulski indicated he had difficulty in evaluating the City Attorney as he feels that he does a good job in administering the City Attorney's office. He has difficulty however, in the aspect where the City needs legal representation, in defending and protecting the City. He feels the City Attorney is weaker in this area than he would like to see. He did not feel settlements and negotiations had shown the City to be on the strong side as it should have been. He indicated there were some issues pending in which he felt the City Attorney may be giving excuses to the Commission. He stated therefore, he has a dilemma in that he feels that his administration is good but in specialty issues, he is not highly rated. He questioned whether or not a City Attorney could address all the specialty areas. He stated his overall judgment of the City Attorney is that the good evaluation must be tempered against the negatives for not maximizing the City's opportunities to be most successful. He stated he would give him a 50-50 rating. Commissioner Berfield stated she felt Commissioner Regulski had expressed her concerns very well. She thinks the City Attorney is conservative and that is good but does feel he should be stronger in the defense of the City. She stated perhaps the hiring of outside experts should be considered. She felt the City Attorney needed to show a little more reception of Commission direction. Her main concern is that the City is not more proactive in defending itself. She stated Mr. Galbraith does a fine job of administration and the Commission will have to give him support. Mr. Galbraith expressed puzzlement regarding the alleged of lack of defense of the City. He stated unfortunately, only when the City looses a case does it appear in the paper but that settlements and wins are not front page news. He stated the quarterly litigation report would be out shortly and it would show that the City has won a number of cases. He stated there are some cases in which the City does not have a strong position and the Commission makes the final decision whether or not to settle. He stated he has three assistants who handle a variety of suits. He said he felt it saved money to keep as many cases in-house as possible. He requested the Commission talk to him to keep him informed of their desires between meetings. He stated he is trying to do a better job and he and the City Manager are working well together. He stated that overall he felt he had a pretty good year. Consensus of the Commission was to schedule salary review of the City Attorney for the October 17, 1991 Commission meeting. Commissioner Regulski questioned the status of the Oak Cove property as there has been some indication of problems between Oak Cove and HUD. When the City approved issuance of bonds for this property, it was a condition that the City would own the properties within a certain number of years. The meeting adjourned at 11:54 a.m.