Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1985_06_26_O013The Town of Leesburg in Virginia PRESENTED June 26, 1985 ORDINANCE NO. 85-0-13 ADOPTED June 26, 1985 AN ORDINANCE: AMENDING CHAPTER 12.1 OF THE TOWN CODE, SECTION 12.1-25 OF THE PERSONNEL MANUAL REGARDING GENERAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WHEREAS, town staff has reviewed the Personnel Manual for policies per- taining to performance standards; and WHEREAS, the town's performance evaluation system should be more com- petitive, with top percentage merit increases reserved for outstanding performance; and WHEREAS, these changes will not require additional funds: THEREFORE, ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Leesburg in Virginia as follows: SECTION I. Chapter 12.1 of the Town Code, Section 12.1-25 of the Personnel Manual, General Performance Standards, is repealed and a revised Section 12.t-25 is adopted to read as follows: Sec. 12.1-25. General Performance Standards The rater's written employee evaluation shall be provided on forms furnished by the Personnel Director. These forms shall measure employee performance numerically. Each performance element is evaluated usimg the following numerical ratings: '~"-Unsatisfactory - 1; '~"-Fair - 2; "S"- Satisfactory - 3; '~"-Good - 4; '~" Excellent - 5. The individual element ratings are then totalled. The service increment percentage awarded will reflect the evaluation score as follows: Performance Evaluation Score Merit Increment (%) ~ 26-30 5 21-25 4.5 ~ 15-20 4 ~ 10-14 3 Less than ~-~ 10 0 The forms shall measure the following performance elements: ORD12.1.1 Performance Evaluation Ordinance Page 2 (1) Job Khuwi~d~ Understandin~ - This factor should not be restricted to the technical knowledge an employee is required to bring to a spe- cialized job. It is much broader and includes particularly the range of per- tinent policies, regulations, and procedures relating to his/her assignment. It does relate to the mental and/or physical skills required in a given position. A craftsman's basic skills are readily identified, while many office occupations include job skills which are relatively obscure. Does the employee consistently demonstrate at a proper level the job knowledge prerequisite in the job classification? Has the probationary employee acquired an acceptable level of job knowledge? Is the permanent employee keeping up to date with changed policies and procedures and with technological advances in his or her occupa- tional field? Unsatisfactory - Inept to incompetent within his own classification Fair - Limited to selected duties or assignments within his classi-fication; has fair working knowledge of related work. Satisfactory - performs most of the duties within classification; has good working knowledge of related work. Good - Performs all of the duties within his classification; has good working knowledge of related work. Excellent - Excellent knowledge of all duties or assignments within classification; exceptionally good working knowledge of related work. (2) QudliLy Job Performance: The degree of excellence of the work performed over the entire rating period is measured here. In rating this factor attention should be paid to the consequences of poor quality work. Is the employee's work neat, accurate, thorough, and acceptable? Must the work be redone, thus reducing the potential volume of acceptable work which could have been produced? Do errors in the employee's work affect the efforts of others? Does poor work too often reflect adversely upon the office or agency? Guud Unsatisfactory - Work seldom meets specified quality, many errors, rejections or rework. Fair - Work frequently below specified quality, apt to mistakes, moderate amount of work. Satisfactor~ - Work meets normal standards; a careful worker; minor amount of rework. Good - Work consistently meets specified quality; an accurate worker with negligible errors. Excellent - Work of exceptionally higher quality; an outstanding precise and accurate worker. (3) Qud~,~iL~ Job Productivity: Refers to the amount of satisfactory work turned out during a given period of time. Does the employee comsistently accomplish a daY's work for a day's pay? Does he produce enough work so that he or she is clearly a net asset to the department? Supervisors should not make undue allowances for such reasons as the employee's poor health, home problems, age or length of service. While short term exceptions to the quantity standard can sometimes be made, care should be exercised to see that proper warnings are issued when indicated. ORD12.1.2 Performance Evaluation Ordinance Page 3 Unsatisfactory - Output consistently low on most operations; a slow worker. Fair - Frequently turns out less than normal on many assignments Satisfactory - Consistently turns out satisfactory amount of work Good - Frequently turns out more than normal assignments; a fast worker. Excellent - Output outstandingly high; consistently turns out excep- tionally large amount of work. (4) :i~bi~ vf Vo~k Dependability. This factor refers to the employee's attendance, appearance, and utilization of time. Does the employee appear indifferent to his or her work and responsibilities? Does the employee spend a good deal of time loitering around the office or otherwise wasting time? Does he or she present an appearance consistent with that desired for a repre- sentative of your operation? Unsatisfactory - Undesirable habits of work ~emplified by indif-ference, tardiness, and inefficient use of time. Fair - Tends to seek easy and avoid difficult tasks, performs some tasks willingly, but occasionally wastes time. Satisfactory - Usually displays work habits that conform to office guidelines. Good - Applies self in such a manner as to not raise any question about wasting time. Excellent - Demonstrates work habits that should serve as a model for all employees. (5) Cooperation. Refers to the degree of willingess an employee exhibits when given responsibility and the manner in which he or she relates to other personnel in carrying out that responsibility. Does the employee demonstrate that he or she accepts instructions by performing his duties to the best of his ability? Does he or she chronically challenge supervision, instruc- tion or orders? Is the employee resentful of direction or supervision? Does the employee readily accept responsibility or does he or she avoid it? Does he accept direction but complain about it to fellow employees? Does the employee voluntarily assist others and maintain cooperative relationships? Unsatisfactory - Undesirable or unsatisfactory working relationships with others. Fair - Tends to be uncooperative in normal relationships with co- workers and supervisory personnel. Satisfactory - Works well with others. Good - Voluntarily assists others in the performance of job related functions. Excellent - Respected and well regarded; excellent facility for work- ing in harmony with others. ORD12.1.3 Performance Evaluation Ordinance Page 4 (6) Initiative. Measures the manner and method in which an employee approaches his assigned duties, and how successful his planning and organizing are in achieving desired results. Does the employee take time to plan the sequence of steps requ~d in carrying out his tasks? Does he or she "attack" the job thoughtlessly or without enthusiasm which ultimately results in lost time or needless mistakes? Does the employee show self reliant enterprise? Does he or she take opportunity to exercise initiative or must the employee be prodded into action? Is the employee alert to operating efficiency and cost cutting? Is the employee inventive? Does he or she offer practical constructive criticism? Unsatisfactor~ - Lacks confidence and ability to proceed along. Fair - Needs guidance or direction in the performance of majority of duties or assignments. Satisfactor~ - Able to proceed alone in the performance of routine duties or assignments. Good - Resourceful and alert; shows constructive thinking in the performance of duties or assignments. Excellent - Highly creative and constructive; plans and suggests improvements in assigned or related duties. This section shall not be construed as limiting the Town Manager from employing other means to fairly and effectively evaluate the performance of Department Heads. SECTION II. Ail prior ordinances and resolutions in conflict are hereby repealed. SECTION III. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. PASSED this 26th day of June , 1985. Robert E. Sevila, Mayor Town of Leesburg ATTE ST: C~cil ' · ORD12.1.4