To the Editor,

For years, the City of Maricopa conducted annual performance reviews of the city manager. That process was discontinued in the years before I joined the city council. I believe that was a mistake — and I believe bringing back a formal annual review process is an important step toward transparency, accountability, and good governance.

In Arizona’s council-manager form of government, the city manager serves as the chief executive officer responsible for overseeing day-to-day city operations, implementing council policy, managing staff, and preparing the city budget. The city council’s role is to provide policy direction and oversight on behalf of the residents we represent. One of the most basic and widely accepted tools for providing that oversight is an annual performance evaluation.

This is not controversial. In fact, it is standard practice across the country.

The council-manager form of government is now the most common form of municipal government in the United States, used in more than 3,500 cities and towns nationwide. The League of Arizona Cities and Towns has repeatedly emphasized the importance of professionalism, accountability, and adherence to best practices in city management. Their publications specifically highlight the role of professional standards, measurable outcomes, and objective evaluation in effective local government administration.

The International City/County Management Association (ICMA), the leading professional organization for city managers, also provides formal guidance and templates for city manager evaluations. ICMA states that evaluations serve as both a performance measurement tool and a communication bridge between elected officials and the city manager.

In other words, annual reviews are not political attacks. They are not personal. They are a professional governance practice used by cities large and small.

Frankly, every employee in most organizations receives some form of performance review. Teachers are evaluated. Police officers are evaluated. Firefighters are evaluated. Department directors are evaluated. In the private sector, executives are evaluated routinely. It should not be considered unreasonable for a city council to formally evaluate the individual responsible for overseeing an entire municipal organization with hundreds of employees and a budget of millions of taxpayer dollars.

Annual reviews benefit both the council and the city manager and should remain separate from broader “future planning” discussions. Open dialogue, at least annually, serves both bodies through mutual accountability, transparency, and clearly articulated direction. This process should focus on performance, meeting or exceeding expectations, and earning compensation increases rather than automatically approving them without review.

A structured evaluation process creates clarity around expectations, priorities, and council goals. It provides an opportunity for constructive feedback, professional development, and alignment between elected leadership and administration. It also helps prevent misunderstandings and creates a documented record of accomplishments, challenges, and areas needing improvement.

Good governance requires measurable accountability.

The League of Arizona Cities and Towns has noted that the council-manager system was designed to promote professionalism, efficiency, measurable outcomes, and objective standards rather than politics or favoritism. That philosophy only works if the governing body is willing to actually conduct oversight.

An annual review does not mean the council is micromanaging staff operations. Quite the opposite. The purpose is to evaluate overall leadership, financial stewardship, organizational management, communication with the council, strategic implementation of council priorities, and community responsiveness.

As Maricopa continues to grow rapidly, strong governance matters more than ever. Residents deserve confidence that city leadership is being evaluated using objective standards and that elected officials are actively fulfilling their oversight responsibilities.

This should not be about personalities or politics. It should be about process, outcomes, and accountability.

Maricopa once had this process in place. We should restore it now.

When residents ask for transparency and accountability, those principles should apply at every level of city government — including the City Manager’s office. Bringing back annual city manager evaluations is not radical. It is responsible governance, consistent with recognized municipal best practices across Arizona and the nation.

Councilmember AnnaMarie Knorr
City of Maricopa