Laserfiche WebLink
SUMMARY REPORT <br />Annual Performance Evaluation <br />• of <br />EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ROBERT Wa[uTErtOUR <br />September 7, 1993 <br />Mr. Whritenour's Evaluation consists of two parts. <br />The first rates the Executive Secretary relative to 35 specific performance criteria. The raring <br />instrument used is an adapted version of the Municipal Administrator Evaluation Form designed <br />by the International City Manager's Association. This instrument is widely used throughout the <br />United States and a version similar to the one used in Mashpee is used in Falmouth. <br />Each Selectman rated Mr. Whritenour's performance for each of the 35 performance criteria. <br />The rating options include.. excellent, good, acceptable, poor or unacceptable. For purposes of <br />aggregating the ratings of each Selectman, a numeric value has been assigned to each rating. <br />Thus, a excellent raring receives 5 quality points; a good rating 4 quality points and so on down <br />to 1 quality point for unacceptable. <br />The evaluations submitted by each Selectman have been aggregated and a summary is presented <br />in the Evaluation Report. Information regarding the quality points earned for each performance <br />criteria is presented in two manners. <br />First, the percent of quality points earned. That is ... the aggregate number of quality points <br />• specified by each Selectman divided by the total possible number of quality points. For <br />example: for performance criteria Planning.. ability to anticipate and analyze problems; maps <br />effective solutions - Mr. Whritenour receives a total of 17 quality points out of a possible 25 or <br />68 %. <br />n <br />LJ <br />The second manner of reporting the aggregate results is an average rating through which the <br />total number of quality points is divided by the number of Selectmen rating the criteria. Thus, <br />again using Planning as an example ... Mr. Whritenour receives a total of 17 quality points from <br />5 Selectmen for an average of 3.4 on a scale of 5. This rating (3.4) is approximately half -way <br />between a rating of acceptable (3) and good (4). <br />Overall, when all 35 performance criteria are examined, W. Whritenour receives 74% of <br />the possible number of quality points and an average rating of 3.7 on a scale of 5. <br />For 15 of the 35 criteria, Mr. Whritenour earns an average rating of 4.0 or better. A rating of <br />4 being good. <br />Mashpee Board of Selectmen - September 7, 1993 <br />Summary Report - Annual Evaluation of Robert Whritenour <br />