MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JUNE 4, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Session: Pre-Evaluation and Goal Setting of Facilities Manager Dave Kempf.............. 1
Pre-Evaluation and Goal Setting of County Engineer................................................................. 1
Executive Session: Pre-Evaluation and Goal Setting of Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan............ 7
Chairperson Sullivan called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:03 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Motion by Stutsman, second by Meyers, to enter into Executive Session at 9:04 a.m. for an annual evaluation of Facilities Manager under section 21.5(1.i), Code of Iowa, “to evaluate the professional competency of an individual whose appointment, hiring, performance or discharge is being considered when necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to that individual’s reputation and that individual requests a closed session.” Roll call: aye: Harney, Stutsman, Sullivan, Neuzil, Meyers.
Motion by Neuzil, second by Stutsman, to leave Executive Session at 9:52 a.m. Roll call: aye: Harney, Stutsman, Sullivan, Neuzil, Meyers.
Recessed at 9:52 a.m.; reconvened at 9:56 a.m.
Stutsman said the discussion is about the residency requirement and how the Board wants to proceed. County Engineer Greg Parker said he thought he was coming in for an evaluation. Parker said he does not know what the discussion is about. Stutsman said there are some issues regarding residency and not all Supervisors are up to speed with that. County Attorney Janet Lyness said the agenda does not include the discussion on that specific policy. Lyness said the agenda reads evaluation and goal setting. Lyness asked if the Board will discuss evaluations and goal setting. Lyness said that if the Board wants to evaluate how the policy is enforced that is appropriate under the agenda. Parker said he is open for discussion without executive session.
Stutsman said currently there is a policy at Secondary Roads called Residency Requirement. She read that “an employee of Johnson County Secondary Roads Department shall live within the boundaries of Johnson County upon completion of the probationary period. Moving outside the boundaries of Johnson County shall be considered voluntary resignation. All persons employed by the Johnson County Secondary Roads Department at the time of adoption of this department policy are exempt from it.” Stutsman said the policy was adopted by Secondary Roads on October 17, 1997. Stutsman said the policy was not adopted by the Board of Supervisors; it was something worked out between former County Engineer Mike Gardner and former County Attorney J. Patrick White. She said it has been enforced and considered a departmental policy since that time, and there has been no change to the policy. She said the issue refers to Assistant County Engineer Ed Bartels. Stutsman said that prior to being hired, Bartels lived in Lisbon. It was made clear in the job description and employment ad that living in Johnson County is a requirement. Stutsman said Bartels fulfilled his six-month probationary period but the issue is whether Bartels moved or not.
Stutsman said the Board has to get into the issue of what residency means. Stutsman said Bartels still has a home in Lisbon but supposedly has an address in Johnson County. Stutsman said that Bartels is subletting an apartment from a friend in North Liberty that he claims is his residence. She said the Board needs to decide if they want to pursue enforcing the policy and what residency means. She asked if residency means renting an apartment or if someone needs to physically move his family to the location. Stutsman said there are differences of opinion and the Board needs to give some direction.
Neuzil asked Lyness if Parker can discuss how he has been handling the issue. Lyness noted that there could also be further discussion on the whole idea of residency. Stutsman said she doesn’t want to talk about whether the Board should maintain the policy because to her that is a separate discussion. Lyness said it needs to be discussed how the policy will be enforced. Stutsman agreed. Stutsman said the Board can talk about the policy maintenance at a later time. She stated that at the current meeting the Board needs to discuss whether Bartels is adhering to the policy.
R. Sullivan asked if the Board should get involved since the policy is departmental. Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek said the Board should get involved because the residency requirement was in the job description. Lyness said the policy needs to be enforced uniformly. Parker said he can modify and change the policy which would modify and change the job description. Lyness said the Board will have to approve the job description. Harney said it comes down to the question of whether the Board is treating everyone in a fair and equitable manner. Parker asked if Harney meant treating everyone within the County in a fair and equitable manner. Stutsman said the discussion is solely about Secondary Roads. Stutsman clarified that not every department has a residency requirement. Lyness said the Auditor’s Office has a residency requirement. Parker said the Auditor’s Office has a distance requirement and not a residency requirement. He said Auditor's Office employees are supposed to live within a certain distance from the reporting station. Shramek said it is a combination of distance and residency.
Harney said the question is how the Board is going to deal with Bartels. Parker said a couple weeks ago he was informed of an executive session with his and one of his employee names on it. He said he did not know anything about it and it was not made clear why he had not been informed. Parker said after four or five months of employment Bartels came into his office and said he rented an apartment in North Liberty. Parker said Bartels asked him if he wanted a copy of the lease. Parker said he told Bartels to make sure HR knows that residency has been established. He said that suffices for him. Parker said he doesn’t follow employees home to make sure they sleep and live in the County.
R. Sullivan said it’s good to know that Parker is under the impression that Bartels was following the policy. R. Sullivan said that is important to him in determining Parker’s role. Neuzil said at the liaison meeting with Parker it was determined that Parker was to communicate with HR and the County Attorney. Stutsman said the Board needs to make some kind of definition of what residency is. Stutsman asked if residency means paying property taxes in Johnson County. She noted that it is difficult to define residency.
Parker said the County has employees that were grandfathered into the policy. He said he knows several employees that have moved outside the County after the policy was adopted. Parker said there are a lot of inequities in the policy and that is not fair to all the employees. He said there are things in the policy that he is not a big proponent of. Parker said he is asking the Board to consider looking at the policy. He said he discussed it with Shramek, who told him that it is a County policy and she would not support any changes to it. Shramek said that is not true. Meyers asked if County staff employed before the policy went into effect have since moved out of the County. Parker said yes. Parker said the employees were hired and working before the policy took place and since moved out of the County.
Meyers asked how long Bartels has worked for the County. R. Sullivan said about six months. Stutsman said he has been employed for over year. Parker said it has been over a year. Meyers asked if the policy meant Bartels had to move to the County within six months of being hired. Parker said those are the hiring requirements. Shramek read “moving outside the boundaries of Johnson County shall be considered voluntary resignation.” She said people who were already employed by the County at the time of the policy’s adoption are exempt altogether. Harney asked if they would be exempt if they were living in the County before the policy and then moved out. Shramek said those employees weren’t hired under the policy. Neuzil said those employees never signed under that policy. Stutsman read “all persons employed by the Johnson County Secondary Roads Department at the time of adoption of this policy are exempt from it.”
Parker said some grandfathered employees have sold their houses and moved out of the County. Neuzil said the policy exempts them. Neuzil said to him it comes back to the question of whether renting an apartment can be considered residency. Neuzil asked if renting an apartment counts as residency. Parker said a year and a half ago he had a conversation with Shramek about the issue. He said Shramek told him that the employee needs to establish an address in Johnson County and receive the County mail at that address. Shramek disagreed. Neuzil said either way those kinds of issues need to be sorted out. Shramek said the conversation never took place. Parker said there is no reason for him to lie about it. Shramek said there is no reason for her to lie about. Shramek repeated the conversation did not take place. Parker said that it did.
R. Sullivan said it seems that renting an apartment is fine, assuming the employee actually lives in the apartment. He asked if renting but not living in the apartment is good enough. He said that is a question that the Board needs to answer. Neuzil said Parker, as a department head, has evaluated the situation but is in limbo because he is waiting for the interpretation of the County Attorney. Parker said he will pursue whatever the County Attorney recommends.
Meyers asked how Bartels’ residency became an issue. Stutsman said it came from people that felt there were inconsistencies with the policy within the department. Meyers asked if there were people in the department making comments. Stutsman said yes. Shramek said some people have suffered financial hardships because they had to move into the County. Meyers asked if Bartels’ wife and kids still live in Lisbon. Shramek said she doesn’t know. Parker said Shramek is the one who brought this issue about and he has no idea. Shramek asked Parker if he believes Bartels lives in Johnson County. Parker asked if he should be the one to determine that. Shramek and Lyness said yes. Parker asked if he is to follow the employee home to make sure that he eats and sleeps in Johnson County. Lyness said no. Lyness said that Parker is required to make sure that Bartels follows the policy. She asked Parker if he feels that Bartels lives in the County in compliance with the policy. Parker said he is waiting for the Attorney's Office interpretation to determine exactly what to do. Lyness asked Parker if he knows where Bartels’ wife and family live. Parker said he does not know where they sleep.
Stutsman said people ask why this is such a big deal. She said that to her it is a big deal because she wants to be fair and consistent with all the employees. She said it really bothers her when she feels someone is getting preferential treatment. Neuzil said that Parker has to communicate with Lyness, Shramek, and Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan to get a definition of residency. He said when Parker gets that information back he will work with his liaisons on how to proceed.
R. Sullivan asked what happens if the Board decides the policy isn’t very good and wants to get rid of it. He asked if Lyness should still figure out what residency means. Stutsman said Lyness needs to figure out the legal requirements because the policy is still in place. Lyness said if the Board wants to decide to keep the policy or not they need to find out exactly what the residency requirements are. She said she assumes the reason for keeping the policy is to have snow plow drivers and road maintainers close by. Meyers said that makes sense. Lyness said the Board can decide whether the residency requirement is needed for every person in the department or just for certain ones. She said the County Sheriff may decide the policy is needed for deputies, dispatchers, and control center operators, but not for secretaries. M. Sullivan said Ambulance debated whether to apply the policy to everyone or just some people but ended up deciding not to have residency requirements.
Stutsman said the policy is in place and Secondary Roads employees feel the Board needs to be consistent. Stutsman said Bartels was hired under the policy and informed of the residency requirement. She said the real issue is if the policy has been adhered to. Harney asked if they should check where Bartels is registered to vote. Lyness said that is one way to look at it. R. Sullivan said Bartels is not required to register. Harney said Bartels might be registered elsewhere. Neuzil said residency is usually a requirement for voter registration. Lyness agreed. Meyers said there is potential that Bartels doesn’t vote at all and might not be registered anywhere. Neuzil said residency includes where Bartels is registered to vote and where his driver’s license was issued. Harney said residency could also be determined by vehicle registration. Neuzil said to him an easy way to determine Bartels’ residency is to find out where he files his taxes. Harney said there is no policy saying Bartels’ wife can’t live in another county. Neuzil said Bartels should be able to produce his driver’s license and tax information as proof of his County residency. R. Sullivan asked what happens if someone files jointly and has two places of residences. Lyness said she doesn’t know.
Parker said if he has an employee in violation of a policy the employee will be dealt with appropriately. R. Sullivan said that Lyness will interpret the definition of residency. Lyness asked Shramek if she has done any research on it. Shramek said very little. Neuzil reiterated that Parker will be working with the liaisons once the Board gets the information from Lyness.
Harney said he wants to discuss something else but is unsure if it is an appropriate topic for an open meeting. Lyness asked Harney if it has to do with personnel. Stutsman said it is up to Parker if he wants to have an executive session. Parker said to go ahead in open session. Harney said he is really concerned with the relationship between Parker and Shramek. He said County staff needs to work together. Harney said he doesn’t like the accusations from Parker that Shramek said she won’t help him and told her staff not to help him, and vice versa. He said Parker and Shramek are both here to do a job and represent the County in a professional manner. Harney said everyone needs to work together to resolve the issues that occur within the County departments. He said if there are personality differences they need to be resolved for the better operations of the County and everybody getting along.
Parker said he totally agrees and is 100% behind that. He said that’s all he ever wanted since he started working for the County. He said he has emailed M. Sullivan requesting that he and Shramek do a conflict resolution session. Parker said he is just trying to do his job but it seems like every time he turns around Shramek is trying to throw something on the wall to see if it sticks. He said he doesn’t understand that and wants a third neutral party to work with them in a conflict resolution session. Stutsman said the Employee Assistance Program does conflict resolutions. Parker said he agrees with Harney that things aren’t working out but he doesn’t know why. Harney said he just wants to see the issue resolved in a cooperative effort for the betterment of the County. R. Sullivan said HR receives concerns from all the County departments. He said HR has nowhere else to go but to the Board who supervises the department head. R. Sullivan said it is HR’s job to tell the Board if two people from the same department are complaining and it is the Board’s responsibility to sort it all out.
Neuzil said he thinks the goal is to resolve the issue. He said the approach to solve the issue has to be done collectively. Parker said there is a breakdown because that is not happening. Neuzil said those are some issues that take a team approach to resolve to make the County staff a better team. Parker said he wants to let everyone know he is trying to do the best job he can. Parker stated that he wants to work with all department heads and elected officials on any issue he is required to deal with. He said he doesn’t have time to play games and just wants to do his job. Parker said the Board should let him know if there is something happening that he is unaware of. Neuzil said he thinks there has been some breakdown in communication even in the current meeting. He said no department head should come to a meeting not quite knowing what is going to be discussed. Neuzil said that maybe the Board should make sure that department heads are aware of all that is going on. Parker repeated he wants a conflict resolution session to resolve things with Shramek. Harney asked Parker and Shramek if a conflict resolution session will work for both of them. Shramek said yes. Parker said absolutely.
R. Sullivan asked if that is something the Synchrony Employee Assistance Program can do. Stutsman said Synchrony offers that service. Harney said if that doesn’t work the Board needs to know and try something else. R. Sullivan said to some degree he thinks Neuzil is right. He said that it’s hard to communicate about an issue when the Board is unsure if it’s supposed to be in executive session or not. Stutsman asked who informs people when they are on the agenda. Neuzil said to him the Supervisor that proposes the agenda item should communicate with the chair and then collectively communicate to the department about the discussion. Parker said he did get an email telling him they would be talking about residency. He added that when he saw the agenda the residency discussion was not on there. Parker said he wasn’t sure if there had been a change. R. Sullivan said for him it is more of an issue if someone is blatantly ignoring a policy. He said that it becomes an issue of discipline. Neuzil said when Shramek identifies an issue she should work with her liaisons who in turn can work with the other liaisons and Parker.
Lyness said this really isn’t the time for it but the Board should have a process to determine who does the fact finding if Shramek needs to report to her liaisons. Lyness said having a Board meeting to do the fact finding is not a good use of time and resources. Lyness said the Board should determine what to do in the circumstances when there needs to be a fact finding.
Harney said maybe Parker should have a frank talk with his employee and find out if Bartels is in fact a county resident. Parker said after a liaison meeting he did speak with Bartels per the Board’s request. Parker said he informed Bartels that there are concerns about his residency. He said Bartels told him that he feels that by renting an apartment he is in compliance with the residency requirement. Parker said he told Bartels the County Attorney is going to review the residency policy and the Board will determine whether he is in compliance. Lyness said she will come back with a legal requirement of what residency means. She said she is not going to do the fact finding to determine if Bartels has complied with the policy. Lyness said that Parker needs to do the fact finding. Parker said he will comply with whatever the County requirements are.
Harney asked who is going to take the lead on mediation. Neuzil said he thinks it is proper for Parker or Shramek to communicate with the services that provide the service. Stutsman asked if M. Sullivan should set up the mediation session. Parker said he would prefer to have a neutral person set the conflict resolution session up. Stutsman asked M. Sullivan if he can set up the session. M. Sullivan said yes. Parker repeated that is how he prefers to have the session. R. Sullivan said he doesn’t think that is a problem.
Motion by Neuzil, second by Harney, to enter into Executive Session at 10:34 a.m. for an annual evaluation of Executive Assistant under section 21.5(1.i), Code of Iowa, “to evaluate the professional competency of an individual whose appointment, hiring, performance or discharge is being considered when necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to that individual’s reputation and that individual requests a closed session.” Roll call: aye: Harney, Stutsman, Sullivan, Neuzil, Meyers.
Motion by Neuzil, second by Stutsman, to leave Executive Session at 10:50 a.m. Roll call: aye: Harney, Stutsman, Sullivan, Neuzil, Meyers.
Adjourned at 10:50 a.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Bogdana Rus, Recording Secretary