Council adopts formal performance‑evaluation process for city appointees after timing amendment

Santa Clara — The City Council adopted a new policy creating a structured annual performance‑evaluation process for council appointees — explicitly the city manager and city attorney classifications. The new policy sets a Jan‑Dec rating year, requires hiring an independent facilitator to interview council members, appointees and identified staff, and requires closed‑session findings and a council subcommittee to meet with the appointees and deliver recommendations to the full council.

Key elements of the adopted policy (as amended): the rating period is January 1 to December 31; a contracted facilitator will conduct interviews in November–December and provide a closed‑session report at the council’s second January meeting; the council will form a subcommittee (amended timeline: no later than the council’s second February meeting) to discuss evaluations and any compensation recommendations with the appointee; if the process is not completed by the policy deadline, an automatic 2% or CPI salary increase — whichever is less — will apply for that year unless council later approves a different amount.

Council members debated how and when goals and measurable key performance indicators (KPIs) should be set and incorporated into the evaluation. Multiple members urged substituting SMART‑style goals and setting them early in the rating year so appointees can be measured against clear objectives. The governance committee had recommended the draft policy, and council approved the item with a timing amendment so the subcommittee is formed earlier in the calendar, allowing staff and council to shape next‑year goals sooner.

Supporters said the policy remedies a long history of ad hoc evaluations and creates consistent expectations and a transparent timeline; critics warned that default increases and retroactive compensation mechanics could reduce council leverage and weaken performance incentives if the review is delayed. The final motion carried 4–2 after members negotiated the timing change.

Council instructed HR to budget for facilitator costs and to launch procurement so the facilitator is in place for the coming evaluation cycle.