Clawson — The Clawson City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to conduct the periodic evaluation of City Manager Mr. Raker in open session after a motion to meet in closed session under MCL 15.268(h) was withdrawn.

The decision followed comments from Raker offering to waive a closed session and from council members who delivered scores and written-style feedback on management, execution of policy, communications and leadership. Several residents at public comment urged the council to adopt more measurable, data-driven evaluation tools.

Council members who spoke during the evaluation used the council-approved checklist that the council had published with the meeting packet. One council member gave Mr. Raker straight "fives" across categories, saying he had "created an exceptional team among the administration." Another council member summarized an overall rating of "4" while noting communications earned a "5," and Mayor Pro Tem Moffitt said she had given a range of low scores in several categories and urged the manager to provide more solution-oriented responses to residents' infrastructure concerns.

Council member Scott, who previously served on the planning commission, said his interactions with city employees had been positive and that he "kinda give positive kudos for your leadership of the organization," attributing staff courtesy to the manager's leadership.

During the discussion, Mayor Paula Millan read from the evaluation categories and defended both the process and the manager's leadership, saying he had worked to build relationships with regional partners and to engage department heads in long-range budget planning.

City Manager Mr. Raker addressed the council at the dais and during public remarks. He said the evaluation was a two-way process and urged direct contact when council members wanted to discuss matters: "Please contact me on the city cell phone if you wish to discuss," he said, and added, "my phone does not ring or get text from you. I do respond to your emails, but relationship building is a two way street." He also reiterated his preference for written records: "I prefer things in writing."

At least two residents asked the council to adopt a more measurable rubric. Dr. Jessica Back told the council: "What I heard were a lot of opinions and then not a lot of data or metrics that were measurable," and recommended using established evaluation rubrics from organizations such as the Michigan Municipal League. Heather Rinkovich seconded the call for objective benchmarks, saying, "we need some sort of system to score this...so there's not just opinions up here whether good or bad." Brent Allman and Erin Redmond also urged procedural clarity about appointments and evaluation standards during public comment.

The council took no additional formal administrative action beyond approving the open-session format for the evaluation and recording the individual ratings and comments. No changes to the evaluation tool or binding policy were adopted at the meeting.

The discussion provides a public record of the council's current expectations and points of friction—chiefly communications style and the desire for more quantifiable performance metrics—without producing an immediate policy change. Council members and residents indicated a willingness to consider revisions to the evaluation process going forward.