MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
NOVEMBER 17, 2008
Chairperson Sullivan called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 10:08 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
R. Sullivan said he has not seen the request for Executive Session. Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan said Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek is requesting not to have a closed session for her evaluation.
R. Sullivan said the first topic covered will be job knowledge. He said there is not a self evaluation from Shramek. M. Sullivan said he did not get any numbers from Shramek. He said her last year’s self-evaluations numbers are in the spreadsheet. R. Sullivan said in 2007 Shramek had a 4.2, in 2008 the Board awarded Shramek a 4.3. R. Sullivan read from the written evaluation. She continues to demonstrate a great deal of knowledge in the area of human resources. Shramek’s breadth of knowledge is amazing. Shramek is well versed on labor negotiation issues, insurance, workplace safety, FMLA employee handbook, flex-benefits, writing job descriptions, reviewing job classifications, military leave, and workman’s compensation. She keeps current with new developments and knows and applies knowledge of the job. Shramek is willing to put in the necessary time to meet and address daily issues. Stutsman asked why that rating should not be higher. Neuzil said because it averages the talent because three people gave Shramek a low score. Stutsman asked why people scored Shramek low on that scale. Harney gave no objection to raising the score. R. Sullivan agreed. Neuzil asked Stutsman what score she preferred. Stutsman said a 4.5. Neuzil gave no objection to raising Shramek’s score.
Neuzil said in planning and organizing the Board collectively gave a 4.2. Neuzil read from the written evaluation. He said Shramek has made excellent progress on set goals. One of the goals was to initiate a County salary survey. Shramek developed a procedure for selecting a vendor, both writing the RFP and then setting up a committee to review the RFP, interview the applicants and make a final recommendation to the Board. He said all of this was accomplished in a timely manner. Shramek directed staff to do the same process for selecting a new vendor for the County’s flex-benefit plan. A change in vendor was made and sessions are now being held for County employees for education on the vendor change and the new program which will include parking as one of the pre-tax dollar options. Shramek does a good job of organizing work to meet schedules and deadlines. The Board is not aware of any missed deadlines. Shramek is very consciences in meeting any union deadlines when dealing with grievances. One of the goals Shramek has had on past evaluations has to do with re-working the employee evaluation form. The Board is glad that this is finally getting done.
Neuzil said Shramek has prioritized to meet timelines, and has been challenged with a heavy workload from 2008, and has met those challenges. R. Sullivan said, referencing the spreadsheet, that there are two 4.0, two 4.2 and a 4.1 which should average 4.1. He said the spreadsheet says it is 4.2. M. Sullivan said the formula is typed in. R. Sullivan asked if they could check the formulas to make sure they are correct. Neuzil said he agrees that the math calculates a 4.1 and he asked M. Sullivan to double check that. M. Sullivan said he would redo the formula. R. Sullivan said that in recalculating job knowledge, it is wrong too, it should be 4.4 so something is not right. Neuzil said they must be wrong because productivity can't equal what the spreadsheet shows. The Board collectively double checked the math and instructed M. Sullivan to make the corrections.
R. Sullivan asked if the Board was okay with comments and scores in planning and organizing. Harney asked if the final score is 4.1. R. Sullivan asked if they were comfortable with that score. Harney said he didn’t have a problem with it. Stutsman said it was lower than it was last year and asked if there is a reason for that. Harney said he didn't mind the 4.2 because Shramek does well in that area. R. Sullivan said the comments are positive. Neuzil said planning and organizing is 4.2.
Meyers said the Board gave Shramek a 4.3 under decision making and problem solving. Meyers read from the evaluation. Shramek is constantly looking at new ways of doing things, and saving the County money. She was not happy with the administration of the County’s flex benefit plan by Blue Cross Blue Shield and developed a process to look at other vendors. Ultimately another vendor was selected. Shramek is constantly working with departments in dealing with various personnel issues before they become major problems. She makes decisions based on the information available, taking into consideration policies and procedures as well as what is in the best interest of the County.
Harney said the Board gave Shramek a 4.4 under Section 4. Harney read from the evaluation. He said Shramek’s work is thorough and well documented. She is always timely in work products and often works long hours after staff have gone home for the night in order to meet deadlines. When Shramek presents a proposal to the Board it is always well done. Shramek has a way of making complicated issues understandable. Harney said, for example the change in the new flex benefit provider. The County has employed Shramek for ten years. In the past there have been cases of longstanding employees’ work product and productivity diminishing over time but this is not the case with Shramek. Through the Safety Committee Shramek was able to reduce workman’s compensation premiums, thus saving the County over $200,000.
Stutsman said the Board gave Shramek a 4.3 for productivity. Stutsman read from the report. Now that the Human Resources department is fully staffed and trained, productivity has increased. For many years the Board has requested help with updating the evaluation form and is pleased that Winkowitsch is now taking on this project. Shramek has met every one of the goals the Board set in her 2007 evaluation. In the past year Shramek negotiated four collective bargaining agreements, processed unemployment claims, EEOC complaints, drafted PIPs and discipline on employees, and rewrote job descriptions. Shramek does not take a cookie cutter approach to any of these activities but treats each one on its own merit. Her office is very busy and staff produces quality products in a timely manner. R. Sullivan said he thinks this is one of her strongest areas and the comments show that. Neuzil asked if she met all the goals laid out. Harney said the only one that hasn't been completed is getting the evaluation redone and they are working on that. R. Sullivan said since they gave her a 4.5 in 2007, he asked if they want to do that again. The Board agreed. Neuzil said productivity is now a 4.5.
R. Sullivan said number six is initiative and asked Neuzil if it is 4.2. Neuzil said yes. R. Sullivan read from the evaluation. He said Shramek always seems to be able to respond quickly and professionally to requests from department heads, elected officials, and employees. They have never heard a complaint of a county employee not receiving information in a timely manner when appropriate. R. Sullivan said there may not be as much initiative possible in this department since so much of the work is dictated by policy or law. Shramek did show initiative in drafting the RFP for a new flex benefit provider when she felt there were issues with the current provider. She is constantly assessing things for the County and its employees to assess how things can be done better. Another example of initiative would be her recommendation to increase the mileage reimbursement for employees. As a department head Shramek set her goals and time lines which she works to achieve. R. Sullivan said Shramek and her staff follow up on requests and provide quality work output.
Neuzil said the next section is cooperation and team work for which the Board gave her a 3.8. Neuzil read from the evaluation. Over the past year there have been some issues between Shramek and the County Engineer Greg Parker. It has come across to the engineer that Shramek is out to get him. Neuzil read it is good that they are working through their differences with the assistance of the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Together they have participated in seven sessions. He said the Board can't disagree with some of the issues that Shramek has with the engineer such as the engineer's lack of consistency in the residency policy, but there needs to be a better way of dealing with those issues when they arise. He said the Board wants Shramek to continue to inform them when there are inconsistencies in County policies by department heads. The way things were handled with Parker was not very productive.
Neuzil continued to read from the evaluation. He read they are open to suggestions on how this can be handled in the future. Shramek works well with most department heads and staff however she wears her personal feelings on her sleeve. This creates issues of trust and cooperation. He said that at times, Shramek makes the work place environment difficult for staff and can be inflexible. Stutsman asked if any Board members have any experience with this because she has none. Meyers said he hasn't had any direct experience but has picked up that tone. Neuzil said that is her weakest score.
Meyers said number eight communication skills is a 4.1. He read from the evaluation. Shramek's verbal and written communication skills are excellent. She is able to present even the most complicated issues in a clear and concise manner. Her information is always accurate and well documented. Shramek is a good listener and is able to convey information to the proper persons accurately. He said it is rare that information from this office is not complete or accurate. Meyers read at times it is unclear what her recommendations are. Stutsman asked Harney for an example. Harney said sometimes they ask her for advice on certain issues and when it comes down to the final number it isn’t necessarily that way. Harney recalled some personnel issues in the Recorder's Office and some similar ones since that where they got the wrong signal about what she felt they should be doing. R. Sullivan said this has to be in 2008.
Harney said he is just using that as an example and that they have had some of those since. He said he thinks they have had that at Secondary Roads where she told something to County Engineer Greg Parker that was in the end contradictory. Particularly the cooperation and some of the things that Parker did as far as statements on travel expenses, some of those things they didn’t have the full story in the communication to the Board. The fact was the costs were covered other places. Neuzil said that would be an example of Shramek giving the Human Resources explanation and Parker saying he was working with the Auditor's Office and presenting his story. Neuzil said Shramek could have maybe investigated that further before making those accusations. .
R. Sullivan said he didn’t have a problem with that comment but it doesn't seem to fit in the communication skills portion of the evaluation. Even if they assume that is true it is still very clear what her recommendation is. R. Sullivan said he has never found her to be unclear with her recommendations. Harney said there have been instances where she has made recommendations but she has gone back on those. R. Sullivan said he couldn’t think of any of those. Stutsman said she couldn't either. R. Sullivan said that comment should be in the section they just did, cooperation and teamwork. Neuzil agreed. Harney said it is fine to take it out. R. Sullivan said he agreed with Stutsman that those sentences send mixed messages. Stutsman asked if a majority of the Board feel that the sentence is accurate.
R. Sullivan asked which sentence. Stutsman said the sentence which states it is rare that information from this office not complete or accurate. Harney brought up the negotiation issue with the complaint on over time and how the time was used. He said that Shramek said staff couldn't use the vacation and over time as it was used, but then when it went to negotiations and a grievance, the arbitrator came back and awarded them, Shramek was quick to blame Parker. Stutsman said her understanding with that was that right or wrong, Parker was set up during a safety meeting. He was asked that question off the cuff and he answered in a way that was legitimate reasons for the grievance rather than checking or finding out first what should have been said. Neuzil said in the end, it is going to cost the employees because they are going to lose the flexibility they had.
R. Sullivan asked what the concern is with the department head evaluations. Harney said that Shramek always provided the entire Board with an analysis of department heads but this last one only went to two Board members, Neuzil and Stutsman. R. Sullivan said it seems like such a minor thing. Harney said it is if evaluations are based on those forms and the rest of the Board has no knowledge. Neuzil said he thinks that would be a communication issue from the Board. Neuzil said when he and Stutsman were working on Parker's evaluation they communicated with Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne and Shramek. Harney said Shramek's analysis always went to M. Sullivan and M. Sullivan would make sure that was included in their packets so they had the information when they started evaluations and this one bypassed that step. Neuzil, Stutsman, and R. Sullivan all said they didn't remember seeing that document. R. Sullivan doesn't want to have it seem like a negative comment since it doesn't sound like they know what they are expecting.
Harney said his expectation for a performance evaluation was that they all got Shramek's input and could consider that when they conduct an evaluation. R. Sullivan said he is okay with that but he doesn’t want to down grade Shramek for that. Neuzil said that would just require giving M. Sullivan direction to request that of Shramek. Stutsman said she thought it was just the liaison that got that information and then they shared it with the Board. Harney said he used to get them by email but he hasn't recently and said it if fine if the Board wants to take out that line. Neuzil said he would like to take it out and thinks in the future it would be helpful for M. Sullivan to include the email from Shramek and Claiborne. He also said it is frustrating to him that Shramek did not submit her self evaluation. Harney said they don’t get self evaluations consistently. Stutsman said they receive them from some department heads but not all. She thinks the Board should be clear about what they expect and if they don’t get the self evaluation from the department heads, they should lower their scores. She said she is on the committee that is reworking the evaluation form and thinks it is going to be a vast improvement.
Neuzil said she could add that the Board wants a self evaluation in numbers and an email of the budget and HR process. R. Sullivan asked if the math added up to 4.1. Neuzil responded yes. The Board decided to change the last sentence to "information from this office is complete and accurate."
Harney asked what the number for the next section on professionalism is. Neuzil said it is 4.2. Harney read from the evaluation form. Shramek and this department conveys a positive image for the County. She effectively displays confidence and knowledge not only for herself but her staff as well. For the most part she handles herself very professionally. She produces good work product and presents a positive image for the County. Shramek has participated in conflict management sessions and will continue doing so. Stutsman asked why this score is lower than it was last year. R. Sullivan said most of the scores are higher except for Harney who entered the lower score. He asked Harney if he had something specifically. Harney said he is considering the issues with Parker and some of the staff issues in the office. He said overall she does a good job but he thinks she needs to make some changes in particular areas. Harney said at the time, he didn’t know the whole story behind her telling the negotiations person to leave the office. After hearing Shramek's side of the story, he said he believes it gives her a little more creditability. Neuzil said the incident between them did not show professionalism from either of them, but particularly from the Human Resources person.
Harney said he still feels that way. He said the Human Resources Director must show a level of professionalism above other things. Neuzil agreed. R. Sullivan asked what happened in the office. Stutsman said she hasn’t had anyone complain to her. Harney said he knows personally that several times the HR staff has been very upset and has come to the Board office complaining and in tears. Stutsman asked what that was about. Harney said he never inquired about the full story. Stutsman asked if they knew it was in relation to Shramek. Harney said yes, it is personnel issues. Sometimes he wonders if it isn’t a health issue because of what had occurred. Neuzil asked if that would fall under supervisory skills. Stutsman read from the professionalism section saying “establish and maintenance of professional working relationships,” and asked if the Board needs to address this issue between Shramek and Parker.
R. Sullivan said this isn’t a bad score but if there is something that she needs to be working on it should be in this evaluation. She shouldn’t get points off without explanation. He said if her staff is feeling like they have to run out of the room crying then they should put that in the evaluation. Stutsman said that would be under supervisory skills. Neuzil said the conduct issue was something of concern and it was an embarrassing situation. R. Sullivan said he didn’t disagree there but the other piece is news to him and he isn’t sure what to do about it.
Harney said the issue with Parker is a two-way street. Neuzil said the language in the professional part should read "for the most part she handles herself very professionally” and then add they do have some concerns about the confrontational conduct during the Board meeting. M. Sullivan said he has “she produces a very good work product and presents a positive image for the county” and asked if they wanted something before that. Stutsman said yes something prior to that.
M. Sullivan suggested the following sentence to the Board; "the Board was disappointed in the public conflict between Shramek and the County Engineer during a work session." The Board agreed. Meyers asked if they were going to leave in the sentence “she handles herself very professionally”. Stutsman said yes. Harney said he would strike the word "very." Neuzil reread the sentence as follows: “for the most part she handles herself professionally.” R. Sullivan asked as a group if they are comfortable with a 4.2 or do they want to make it higher.
Stutsman said she had a 4.5 last time and since this is something they want her to work on this score is appropriate. Harney said he is satisfied with a 4.2. Neuzil said they are working on it and that’s an example of conflict resolution. Harney said the two individuals are not giving in. Neuzil said they will find a break through. R. Sullivan said this isn’t just for Shramek but is for Parker too. Parker has done more than fight with Shramek and Shramek has done more than fight with Parker. R. Sullivan said he doesn’t want to over emphasize that in terms of the 2,500 hours they each spent working. Harney said at the same time he thinks they need to know they need to work on that. Stutsman said they are. Neuzil said that 4.2 is a pretty good score. R. Sullivan said it sounds like it is coming up in each section and he doesn’t want to send the message to either of them that if they have a conflict with another department head the evaluations are at risk.
Meyers said he has Shramek going down in four categories, going up in four categories, and staying the same in three. R. Sullivan said from 2007 to 2008, the new number show she has stayed the same in communication skills, down in professionalism, and down in development. Stutsman said they haven’t finished development yet so they need to finish that first. Neuzil said she went up in some areas. Stutsman asked what the development score is. Neuzil said 4.2 and supervisory skills are 4.3. R. Sullivan asked if they were done with professionalism. Stutsman asked if they want to leave the last two sentences in: “she has participated in conflict management sessions and will continue to do so." Neuzil said yes because it shows exactly that they are trying to get past this issue.
Stutsman said she thinks Shramek brought up legitimate issues regarding Parker. She said though the Board may sound critical, she doesn’t want to convey that a good score means everything is fine. R. Sullivan said they don’t want to give the impression to any department head that having a fight with another department head negatively influences future evaluations. Harney said they were on Parker about the cooperation. R. Sullivan said they haven’t done Parker's yet. Stutsman said they did the pre-evaluation. Neuzil said they brought it up, but the Board can’t talk about it here.
Stutsman said she thinks Shramek does a good job of seeing things the Board doesn’t always see with department heads and bringing it to the Board's attention. She doesn’t want to squash that because there are things the Board needs to know about and address accordingly. Neuzil said the message he wants to send is that in a public meeting don’t have a fight. As the HR Director don’t have a personality fight in the middle of a public meeting that is being recorded. Neuzil said of all people, the Human Resources Coordinator. R. Sullivan said he is glad they put that sentence in there because they need to make sure that what is in there is what they want to say. Harney said he still has issues with Shramek putting a lot of credence in what some employees say to her over others. It is good to get the information and feedback but sometimes it becomes slanted, depending upon who it is. Stutsman said aren’t they doing that when they say her employees come up here crying. She said that wasn’t shared with her and she didn’t know anything about it.
R. Sullivan said he thinks it is appropriate to consider the record of a 20-year employee who has always had perfect performance evaluations against a new-hire who has had performance issues since the beginning. R. Sullivan said it doesn’t mean that the 20-year employee is right but he thinks it must be a consideration. That is where they look to Human Resources for some guidance. Harney said he doesn’t want to dwell on it but the personality issue began before the County Engineer was hired from day one. Neuzil said he thinks some of that is resolved now that some changes have been made. R. Sullivan asked if they were okay with the number on professionalism and with the comments. The Board responded yes.
Stutsman read from the evaluation. She said the Board collectively gave Shramek a 4.2. Shramek recognizes and values the importance of skill development. She attends training regularly and is careful to pick trainings that will enhance her ability to do this job effectively. After Shramek attends training she critically assesses the value of the conference and is able to verbalize what she has learned and apply her knowledge into running this department. She consistently enforces and adheres to office and personnel policies. Shramek is a stickler on adherence to office and personnel policy. She keeps these policies up to date and expects all to comply. Shramek keeps up to date on ever changing staff and federal regulations.
Harney said he didn’t mind raising that one. R. Sullivan said right now they are at 4.2 and he asked if Stutsman suggested a 4.3. Stutsman said yes. Neuzil asked if she has taken more classes and gone to additional training. Harney said she did attend some training. Harney said it is listed that she attended Kirkwood START courses, Accountability and Customer Cervices, National State Conferences, and SHRM State Conference. R. Sullivan said this is one of the places where you need a self evaluation because the Board doesn't know everything the department heads have done. Stutsman asked if that is included in the information she handed out when she presented to the Board.
R. Sullivan said supervisor skill and staff development the Board gave her a 4.3. This is one of Shramek’s strongest areas. She is good about giving her staff opportunities to attend training that will enhance their skills. Shramek has the same expectations for her staff as herself. R. Sullivan continued reading from the written evaluation saying in essence the County does get a return on the training dollars that this office expends. Shramek has an excellent, well trained, and competent staff. Her latest hire, Office Assistant Geralyn Owen, has not only been an excellent addition to her staff but also to the County. The Board is pleased that Human Resources Coordinator Vanessa Wierman has become PHR certified. Shramek does an overall good job interviewing and writing job descriptions. She is becoming more comfortable delegating responsibilities and duties to staff.
Wierman and Winkowitsch have been very professional in reports to the Board of Supervisors and with employee training. Stutsman said they don’t say anything here about her staff coming up and crying. The evaluation should mention that so they need to discuss it now. Neuzil said if that is the case then the first sentence needs to be reevaluated. R. Sullivan said when Shramek was gone for at least two weeks, the HR staff didn’t miss a beat. This is a strong positive that shows the staff is trained so that if she is gone the office runs smoothly. He thinks the evaluation should mention something about that. Stutsman agreed.
Harney asked if it was in 2008 that Shramek was gone. Neuzil said it was in the spring and it would be addressed in this evaluation. Stutsman feels that Shramek’s hiring and training are one of her strongest areas. Stutsman said she would like to know more about the staff issues and asked if Harney has any more information. Harney said he didn’t have more details. Neuzil said it brings up the question that if Shramek’s staff has an issue with her, where should they go. Stutsman asked why they aren’t going to Shramek. She doesn’t think it is appropriate for staff to approach the Board office. Neuzil said on the other hand, for an example, if something happened with a staff member in Planning and Zoning, they would go to HR, but what do the HR staff do if they need to talk to someone. Harney said he thinks the staff members were just looking for someone to listen to them. Neuzil said the job is stressful. R. Sullivan said everyone in the County has their own personal friends within the County that they may confide in. He said his only concern is that employees understand that all the Supervisors have open doors for any employee, and he hopes everybody knows that.
Harney said he thinks individuals go to whomever they are comfortable with. He said he knows some staff members have gone to another elected official who is not a Board member when something has occurred. Stutsman said it seems like they know enough information to be dangerous. She asked what are the issues, what were they told, were they told to go talk with Shramek about it. Harney said he never asked for details. Stutsman asked what they should say to Shramek. Neuzil said he didn’t know anything about it. Meyers said he doesn’t know the details but has the sense that that has happened. Stutsman asked M. Sullivan if the HR staff members are talking to him. M. Sullivan said that they do talk to him sometimes. He said a lot of employees talk to him about different things and he doesn’t know if they are talking to others also.
Neuzil asked Harney and Meyers if they think this should be included in Shramek’s evaluation. Harney said he thinks someone should talk to her about it, whether it is in the written evaluation or one-on-one with her, it just needs to be addressed. Neuzil said it is an evaluation and that’s what they do it for. Harney said he doesn’t like information to be included in the evaluation that they haven’t talked about, that he hasn't talked to Shramek about. Stutsman said this is a good time to talk to her about it. Neuzil said he thinks the Board can include a line in the evaluation that says "there are a couple of supervisors who have witnessed Shramek’s employees upset." Meyers said it could say “…supervisors who have concerns about tensions with her staff”. Neuzil said they don’t know if that is the case, they just know there are times when some of Shramek’s staff have been seen very upset. He said that is what happened and they can address that issue later. He asked the Board if that seemed reasonable.
R. Sullivan said if the Board has something specifically they want Shramek to do or want her to be aware of it should be in the evaluation. If this is something they think is not a big deal and they can handle it by telling her the Board has concerns about this, they can do that too. R. Sullivan said they wouldn’t necessarily have to write it down but if they are rating her on it, they need have to explain what they think it is, and how she can improve it. Stutsman said she does have a lower score than she had last year and she aggress they should say why it is lower, if there are some issues. Harney said it could be something to the effect that "there is some concern about staff discomfort at times." Neuzil said he is okay with that and Shramek can inquire more if she wants to. R. Sullivan said he wondered if they should take out the first sentence because this score is right in the middle and if they are going to say that, it should be reflected in the score. Stutsman asked to include the following sentence, "Staff development is one of Shramek’s strongest areas." Stutsman thinks Shramek does an outstanding job of seeing that her staff is trained. R. Sullivan said he thinks that more accurately reflects what they are trying to say. Stutsman said the last sentence can talk about relations with staff. R. Sullivan asked what M. Sullivan had written. M. Sullivan responded “there are some concerns with her staff” but that doesn’t sound right. Neuzil said they don’t know if that is the case. R. Sullivan said it would have to say "with her staff or HR staff" because otherwise she could think it was with anybody in the building. M. Sullivan read “there are concerns with her working relationship with some of her staff”. Neuzil said they don’t know if that is the case.
Harney agreed and said it is at times. Basically they have a good working relationship and thinks there are times when she is short and doesn’t treat them properly but he doesn’t know how to write that in. Neuzil said that is different than seeing staff members upset in the Board office. Stutsman suggested they say "the Board would like to talk to Shramek about observations." R. Sullivan said maybe they should leave the whole thing out and make a goal that Shramek should develop a plan for her staff to have an avenue for complaints or comments. R. Sullivan said Neuzil brought up an interesting point about that a lot of people go to HR to complain about their boss, but where do the HR people go. Neuzil the most ideal process would be that they would go to the two liaisons. Stutsman asked if Shramek has been informed of these issues.
Harney said he has never talked to her about it. Stutsman said they need to talk about it. Harney said he doesn’t know if it is a working relationship or if it is discipline. R. Sullivan asked if it might be personal issues affecting work. Harney said he is clear that personal issues have nothing to do with the staff concerns. Stutsman asked how they know if no one has talked to them. Obviously they just need to find out. Meyers said he doesn’t have proof positive but his definite sense of the problem is there is some tension between Shramek and her staff. R. Sullivan asked if they are going to put it in the form of a goal. Stutsman said most of the comments have been positive here and the score in this section is lower so she thinks they need to give a reason why her score is lower. If there are some issues they need to talk to her about it.
R. Sullivan said if they are going to put it in the evaluation, it should be specific. He suggested the following, "A couple of Supervisors have observed on a couple of occasions HR staff coming to the Board Office in tears and this is a concern." Harney suggested "The Board has some concern about periodic working relationships with staff." R. Sullivan said he thinks that is too vague. Stutsman said she liked what R. Sullivan said. Stutsman said Shramek needs to know if her staff is coming to the Board Office to complain. Harney and Meyers replied yes. R. Sullivan said the more clear they can be the better. Harney said he has a concern about making the situation worse. Stutsman said they want it to be ultimately constructive. She said if there are issues then she needs to know about them and deal with them. R. Sullivan said they have to be very clear about what they are talking about.
M. Sullivan read “a couple of supervisors on a couple of occasions have seen some of Shramek's staff come to the Board Office in tears”. Stutsman said to add that the Board feels this needs to be addressed in a constructive way. R. Sullivan said the Board wants to make sure this is addressed. Stutsman said that this is speculation and none of them have talked to any of the staff. Meyers said Stutsman has a point because they didn’t specifically talk to him about it, but when they were in the office, he had a sense that there was tension in the HR office. Neuzil said they can add a process for these types of concerns. Stutsman asked what the final rating was. R. Sullivan said it averaged 4.3.
M. Sullivan read “a couple of supervisors on a couple of occasions have observed some of Shramek's staff come to the Board Office in tears. The Board believes this can be addressed with more sincere open communication with your staff.” The Board agreed with that. R. Sullivan then asked if they were comfortable with a 4.2. Meyers stated that her score would stay the same as last year. Stutsman asked M. Sullivan if he had a list of the department heads and where they fall in order of score. M. Sullivan said Shramek is consistently in the top four. Stutsman said that is what she wants the evaluation to convey. She thinks Shramek is a top notch County employee who keeps the County on track and out of trouble. That needs to be reflected.
Harney said he thinks guidelines on how to address these types of issues should be more clear to the Board. The liaisons need to follow up and go over things with the department heads. R. Sullivan said he assumed that they do. Harney said he hasn't heard anything back and there should be some feedback to the Board. Stutsman said she assumed that is how it happened. Harney said for instance the SEATS incident was shared with Shramek's liaison, but not shared with the SEATS liaison. Neuzil responded that Shramek has communicated with him to come view that. R. Sullivan said everyone got it. Stutsman asked if he is referring to the exit interview. Neuzil said yes. R. Sullivan said SEATS Director Tom Brase sent all the Supervisors a response to the letter in the paper. Harney said he helped him rewrite that. Harney said it needs to be brought to their attention so they know that these complaints are coming up. R. Sullivan said the only time he has been a liaison when that has happened, the liaisons were the ones that followed up. He has been working under the assumption that whoever the liaisons are, do that.
Harney said he didn't know if the liaisons have done anything and he would like to get some feedback that they are, otherwise he will go talk to them. R. Sullivan said that sounds like a Key Issues issue for the Board. Stutsman said unfortunately it doesn’t come up very often so they haven’t really dealt with it. R. Sullivan said Shramek's score is a 4.2 and asked what the Board has for goals. Stutsman read the following goal: work with department heads and elected officials to tweak employee evaluation which are in process. R. Sullivan read the next goal: to continue to provide training for management and supervisory staff on union contracts, which has been done. Neuzil read the next goal: provide the Board with summaries, changes and recommendations made during negotiations. Meyers read goal number four: attend Certified Labor Relations Specialist programs and prepare the County negotiations. Neuzil asked if she was certified with labor negotiations.
R. Sullivan said she got certified but the Board wanted to pull off the second. Stutsman said they didn't give her a clear message on that because the Board was not clear with what it wanted. R. Sullivan said they told her she is not the head of it. Neuzil said he saw that differently. R. Sullivan said she did do the program. Stutsman said Shramek said she attended Labor Academy Two: the Grievance Arbitration Process on April 13th, 2008, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Shramek has completed all academies and needs to write research paper for certification. Per the Board's request reviewed use of Chief Negotiator Judy Perkins. Shramek evaluated and participated in County negotiations. R. Sullivan said they can say that is completed. Neuzil said she hasn't gotten her certification yet. R. Sullivan said the goal said to attend the program.
Neuzil said maybe next year the goal should be to write the research paper. Harney said goal five is to do a salary survey for non bargaining employees and that is in process. Stutsman said the next goal is to develop strategies for improving County hiring in regards to affirmative action and equal employment opportunity measures. R. Sullivan said the next goal is to assure that the Human Resources office is open during regular hours. Stutsman said that was completed. Neuzil read the final goal: meet with Supervisors Stutsman and Harney. Stutsman said that is completed. R. Sullivan said Stutsman is going off. Neuzil said he has to get on something. Stutsman asked what the Board wanted to have for Shramek's goals next year. R. Sullivan said they can keep number one and make number four to finish certification.
Stutsman asked if they can rework number one because that is done through a committee. She thinks they should say " complete the updated employee evaluation form." R. Sullivan told M. Sullivan to change goal number four to "complete certification as labor relations specialist." Stutsman said number five could be to "complete salary survey." Harney asked if they wanted to add something about making recommendations to the Board in relation to that study. R. Sullivan said the company will do that. Stutsman asked if they wanted to write "complete the salary survey and complete the training."
R. Sullivan said he didn’t think they needed to have that as a goal. Meyers said it is part of their contract. Neuzil said it would make sense to have Shramek oversee that. Stutsman said she thinks Shramek would make a recommendation to the Board if they are going to implement it. She would bring the information about the cost to the Board. R. Sullivan said they are going to keep number six as a goal and asked what other goals they have.
Neuzil said they talked about developing a process for HR employees to discuss conflicts or concerns. Stutsman said they should ask Shramek about the best way to handle that because she thinks maybe they would go the County Attorney's Office. Neuzil said this isn’t necessarily directed at Shramek but whoever is at that position. R. Sullivan said one thing they talked about in previous years was having the Board training in employee evaluation. He asked if the Board is still interested in. The Board agreed they are and R. Sullivan said he would leave it Shramek to schedule. Stutsman said Neuzil and Harney are going to be the new liaisons.
Harney said they could add another goal of preparing for the move and whatever adjustments need to be made for space. M. Sullivan read the goals to the Board: "one complete the updated employee evaluation form, two continue to provide training for management and supervisory staff on union contracts." Stutsman said no to number two. R. Sullivan said they completed that this year. M. Sullivan continued reading the goals: " three provide the Board with summaries on changes and recommendations made during negotiations." He asked if the Board wanted her to continue to do that. Neuzil said no because it is part of her job.
M. Sullivan read "complete the certification as a Certified Labor Relations Specialist, complete the salary survey for non bargaining employees, develop strategies for improving County hiring in regards to affirmative action/equal employment opportunity measures, provide the Board with training and the preparation and administration of employee evaluations, and continue to meet with two Board member Terrence Neuzil and Pat Harney." Harney said they could add another goal under the salary survey for Shramek to conduct a have training sessions for department heads and elected officials on the outcome so everyone knows what may happen in their departments. Stutsman said she thought that was part of the contract. Neuzil said there is potential of prioritizing when they get into costs. R. Sullivan said they don’t know what to expect. Stutsman said there are five goals.
Harney said he continues to have issues with the time Shramek comes into work. He said he thinks she should be in the office at 8:00 a.m. or 9:00 a.m. Harney acknowledge that the Board allows her to adjust her schedule when she is doing negotiations which is fine. He does have issues with her office hours beginning at 10:00 a.m. for the director. Stutsman said she doesn’t have an issue with that when she sees Shramek here at 7:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m. and her staff is there. Harney said he has gotten comments from individuals about why they have to wait until 10:00 a.m. to see the HR director. Harney said his response is for them to come in and see the staff. The people though said if they want to talk to the director they have to go out of their offices the middle of their day. Neuzil said they can't expect someone to work 70 hours a week.
R. Sullivan said Brase starts his day at 6:30 a.m. and if someone wants to see the director at 4:00 p.m., Brase is not here. R. Sullivan said the same thing happens at the other end of the day. Neuzil said they talked about it with Planning and Zoning because they wanted to office covered. He said he doesn't have a problem with it as long as the office is open. R. Sullivan said as long as there is a professional in the office who can answer questions he is comfortable with her hours.
Harney said he is comfortable with it too but he wanted the Board to know that it has been brought to his attention by others in the County. Meyers asked if there is a reason why she comes in late. Harney said originally it was child care but she does work late. Neuzil said he hasn't heard any complaints and the only problem he had was seeing the office dark at 9:00 a.m. but that has been resolved. R. Sullivan said they don’t have a self-evaluation and hopefully she has goals for herself that they aren't aware of. Harney told Neuzil that they have a liaison meeting tentatively set for 9:30 on December 12, 2008.
Adjourned at 11:31 a.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary
Sent to the Board of Supervisors on July 20, 2009 at 5:00 p.m.