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Manual, General Performance Standards, is repealed and a revised Section 12.t-25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