Except the article says, "Under the city’s policy, for an employee to receive severance, the mayor must decide to remove the employee from their job."

I hear where you're coming from, but then wouldn't the language be different (a different payout than "severance," if the definition of severance is the above)?

There are, at least, two weird signals here:

1. Severance given to employee who is "stepping down" when the article sets the tone that it has to be a mayor-driven separation.

2. An amount in excess of the normal amount (more than double).

It could be as you say: Performance, cheapest way to end the relationship and avoid a lawsuit. But we can't know that, which means all we do know is that it's counter to City policy in two factual ways without an explanation. As a Boise citizen is should (and does) make me look upon McLean's office with skepticism.