Board Members present: Dorothy Anderson, Peter Bartel, Susie Smith, Patrick Lanning, and Sandra Bishop.

Others present: Randy Berggren, Jean Meyers, and Krista Hince of the EWEB staff; Chris Cardwell, Consultant, and Joe Sams, City of Eugene Minutes Recorder.

ORIENTATION

Chris Cardwell, Cardwell Group Consultant, provided a review for the Board members. He went through the day's objectives and the meeting format. He distributed a document called "General Manager Goal Setting and Performance Review Development" and guided the Board through its general topics.

The document provided space for comments on strengths and weaknesses of the current process, desired outcomes from the future process, principles of the future process, and categories in performance areas.

Mr. Cardwell noted that the document had a description of the General Manager's duties. He said what the Board accomplished with the process would have implications for that job description.

Mr. Cardwell said that he had narrowed the scope of the day's meeting to performance review since the discussion of pay would need its own meeting.

Jean Meyers, Human Resources Manager, said that staff had revisited the February 9, meeting on Governance work and said the piece that she and Mr. Cardwell were trying to facilitate for the day was just the performance review of the General Manager. She listed the Board objectives from that meeting and asked that the Board confirm them.

1. Develop a performance management process for the General Manager and in that context have a shared agreement about a defined set of goals.

Ms. Meyers reiterated Commissioner Smith message from a previous meeting saying that the facility and the General Manager could have a very good year but there might be some responses from the community or employees that were not necessarily positive.

2. Establish a predetermined pay or reward element against those established goals.

Ms. Meyer said that performance evaluation results would be compared with a recommended pay increase for the year.

Vice President Bartel stressed the need for a way to deal with situations that were out of the ordinary in a graceful way. He added that there needed to be a way to send a signal to the General Manager that the Board was dissatisfied, if it ever was.

Mr. Cardwell said that Vice President Bartel's ideas could be accomplished by having a discretionary component of the plan.

Commissioner Lanning raised concern that the plan would be too highly structured and lose sight of long-term goals.

Ms. Meyers distributed a draft of key steps for the Board to complete the General Manager's performance evaluation. She said the steps were for the current year only and could change according to the priorities of the Board. The steps included confirming the General Manager's performance goals, setting priorities, defining success criteria, a mid-year check-in, preparation for final evaluations, a pay rate process, and the evaluation with the General Manager.

In response to a question from Vice President Bartel regarding the definition of stakeholder input, Ms. Meyers defined the term as other key interest bearers that had a stake in the way the General Manager completed his work and the results of that work, and whether those stakeholders were external or internal. She said that these stakeholders would provide a broader view around the General Manager's performance. She stressed the importance of selecting the right stakeholders.

In response to a concern from Vice President Bartel regarding those who wrote critical evaluations and were put in an intimidating position, Mr. Cardwell said that most Boards who had outside stakeholders providing input used a different process than the internal process. He said that the internal process would usually be just a sentence or two about different dimensions around the job. He added that there would then be a meeting where the comments were summarized and edited and submitted to the Board.

General Manager Randy Berggren noted that there were circumstances where individual write ups would become part of the public record.

Mr. Berggren stressed the importance of making a distinction between the General Manager's performance and the organization's performance when using stakeholder input. He opined that outside stakeholders would be looking more at organizational performance than his individual performance.

Regarding comments being on the public record, Mr. Cardwell stressed the importance of the Board being able to use a process to think through its comments before it came to an evaluation. He suggested a pre-prepared and a final rating sheet that was released to the public.

Vice President Bartel commented that the facility's performance had a bearing on the General Manager's personal performance. He stressed that relationships ultimately drove policy.

Commissioner Bishop said that she was looking at staff as a stakeholder. She added that every customer was a stakeholder as well.

Commissioner Lanning commented that if critical reviews were completely anonymous then the General Manager would not have an opportunity to check in and address specific problems and concerns.

Mr. Berggren said that perception was 80 percent of the conversation. He said that it was difficult to clarify the distinction between anonymous critiques versus specific input.

Vice President Bartel suggested getting input from people who were familiar with the General Manager on a day-to-day basis. Mr. Cardwell added that a different input process could be used with a broader group of employees.

Vice President Bartel said that to have the evaluation of the General Manager reinforced by the organization would add substance to a recommendation of compensation.

Ms. Meyer said that it could also help with defining development goals or other key areas.

Mr. Cardwell called for a discussion on who would collate all of the evaluations once they were complete.

There was general consensus that the Board would designate a person to work with the Human Resources Director.

Commissioner Bishop commented that it would signify better leadership for the Board if the Board president was the designee who worked with Human Resources.

Ms. Meyers asked that the Board define what her role would be in the process at some point. There was general discussion over a strong Board president as opposed to a passive president.

CURRENT PROCESS:

Strengths & Weaknesses

Mr. Cardwell outlined the key strengths of the process as identified by the Board at previous meetings.

1. Have added more "process" in recent years; more formal

2. Board members come prepared to the performance review discussion

3. The interaction is relaxed (and getting better each year)

President Anderson wondered what the General Manager got from the discussions because they were so relaxed.

Mr. Berggren acknowledged that there was an "air of uncertainty" that he brought away from the discussions.

4. We are very respectful of each other's opinions

Mr. Cardwell noted that this could be both a strength and a weakness since sometimes the discussion was so respectful that issues did not get addressed.

Mr. Cardwell called for input from the Board as to whether there were more items to add. Seeing no forthcoming suggestions he moved the discussion on to weaknesses in the process.

Mr. Cardwell outlined the key weaknesses in the process as identified by Board members at previous meetings.

1. It feels like a dumping session; not really a time to gauge results; the process is not set up to reach agreement

2. The process and outcomes could be more precise and useful; it needs more formality; there need to be updates during the year

3. We haven't worked through the things we should ask; the criteria have not been updated

4. Priority setting can be a point of conflict

Mr. Berggren stressed that there had been progress around priority setting.

Vice President Bartel commented that there was room for improvement around implementing goals and strategies within the budget process.

5. The timing of the performance review is not the best for the organization or the General Manager

6. There are unspoken things that do not get into the review or get resolved

7. The Board needs more development on goal setting and performance review; this process could help strengthen other Board processes

8. Compensation discussions are difficult; no uniform method of determining General Manager salary increase, and the Board may not agree on how to do it

Mr. Cardwell asked for Board input on any other weaknesses that the Board could point.

Commissioner Lanning stressed that the outcome of the evaluation needed to be perfectly clear to the General Manager so that specific issues could be addressed.

Commissioner Bishop agreed and stressed the importance of the General Manager coming away from an evaluation with concrete ideas to move forward with.

FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS (FUTURE PROCESS)

Mr. Cardwell called for a roundtable of comments on what each Board member felt were the key outcomes desired from the process.

• Commissioner Bishop stressed the importance of the General Manager having clarity about the Board's priorities and expectations.
• Commissioner Lanning said that the Board should have clear accountability, which he defined as an understanding of its role in the evaluation process. He added that clear and meaningful feedback delivered in a timely manner would also be helpful.
• President Anderson said that there should be a process for mid term reviewing and a way to amend the process for unexpected events.
• Vice President Bartel suggested a quarterly printed report and a midterm discussion of review. He added that a specific time should be established for the formal annual review of the General Manager.
• Mr. Berggren suggested a pre-agreed upon compensation/incentive for performance.
• Commissioner Smith suggested detaching meritorious performance from pay. She said that compensation should be considered in a broader context that included market, economics and political factors. She acknowledged that merit bonuses should be part of the consideration as well.
• Commissioner Bishop said that members should be aligned on measurable goals. Ms. Smith added that if there was no alignment then there should, at least, be a common understanding of established goals.
• Commissioner Lanning said that the General Manager should be evaluated separately, but balanced with, the performance of the facility as a whole.
• President Anderson stressed that the evaluation process should not be too complicated.
• Vice President Bartel stressed the need to include a goal setting process for the General Manager.
• Mr. Berggren said there should be specific result expectations and measurability of those expectations.
• Commissioner Smith said that criticism should be constructive and meaningful and not demeaning to the General Manager.
• President Anderson said that the process should result in a product that the general public could understand.
• Vice President Bartel said that there should be a process for amending/examining the evaluation process.
• Commissioner Smith stressed the importance of the Board understanding what it could do to help the General Manager understand objectives.
• Commissioner Bishop said that staff should perceive integrity in the General Manager's evaluation process.

Mr. Cardwell moved the discussion on to principles that would guide the future process. He called for roundtable input from the Board.

• Commissioner Smith reiterated her desire to see constructive Board feedback to the General Manager without being demeaning.
• Commissioner Bishop expressed a desire to see the process open to the public.
• Commissioner Lanning stressed the need for the process to be fair for all stakeholders.
• President Anderson stressed the need to be respectful of others' opinions. Commissioner Bishop opined that a neutral facilitator during the evaluation would help to keep the discussion respectful.
• Vice President Bartel said that the process should be predictable and understandable to the Board, the public, and the organization.
• Mr. Berggren stressed the need for practical and realizable feedback from the Board.
• Commissioner Smith said that the Board should strike a balance between micro-managing and high level policy review.
• Commissioner Bishop said that the Board's feedback should energize the General Manager and the organization.
• Commissioner Lanning said that the process should be intrinsically motivational.
• President Anderson said that Board feedback should be based on the overall good of the facility and not come from personal agendas.
• Commissioner Smith added that the feedback should be based on accountability to the community.
• Mr. Berggren said that the process should be self-directing.
• Commissioner Lanning said that there should be two-way feedback between the Board and the General Manager.

Mr. Cardwell called for input on defining key Board, General Manager, and Human Resources roles in the evaluation/performance review process.

Board Roles

• Board designee works with Human Resources Director to establish criteria for review.
• Do research. Commissioner Smith defined this as preparing beforehand for public meetings, collecting data, and generally being prepared for meetings.
• Listen to the General Manager's input regarding the organization's ability to realize the Board's goals.
• Identify and implement a way to gain the organization's perspective on Board goals.
• Establish clear and realistic expectations.
• Provide timely input.
• Joint goal setting session with the Board and the General Manager.
• Board needs to evaluate, and agree on, a market pay approach for the General Manager.

General Manager Roles

• Joint goal setting agreement between the General Manager and the Board.
• Do not take criticisms personally; try to find constructive elements in Board feedback.
• General Manager should seek direction from the Board and try to comply with the Board's suggestions.
• The General Manager's job description needs to be re-written.

Other roles

• Neutral Facilitator for evaluation/performance review process.
• Facilitator should keep the process as professional as possible.
• Staff should be used as a resource; collecting and summarizing information.
• Staff/stakeholders should have an informal evaluation process.
• Awareness of public perception is important.

There was general discussion over the performance review process. Commissioner Smith raised concern over discussing compensation for the General Manager at the same meeting where rate increase actions were being discussed as had happened at a previous meeting.

Regarding the goal setting discussion, Mr. Cardwell said that he would send out specific direction around goal considerations and asked that the Board send back their feedback and come prepared to the next meeting to discuss goals. He noted that there needed to be three more meetings; one each for performance review, goals, and General Manager compensation.

There was general consensus to meet off the EWEB site for the next meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 1 p.m.

________________

Assistant Secretary President