MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JUNE 16, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek: Hiring Policy and Procedure
Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek: Flexible Time
Information Technology Director Jean Schultz: New County Website
Information Technology Director Jean Schultz: Name Lookup on Property and Tax Information
Department Head Evaluation Form
Administration Building Renovation Project
Public Availability of Phone Numbers and E-Mails of Boards and Commissions Members
Payroll Authorization Forms for Cost of Living Adjustments
Reports/Updates From Department Heads
Scheduling Date And Time Of Next Meeting
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building as a Department Head Meeting at 1:30 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Larry Meyers, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Department Heads present were: Ambulance Director Steve Spenler, Conservation Director Harry Graves, County Attorney Janet Lyness, County Recorder Kim Painter, County Treasurer Tom Kriz, Facilities Director David Kempf, Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek, Information Technology Director Jean Schultz, Medical Examiner Administrator Michael Hensch, Mental Health/Disability Services Director Kris Artley, Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak, SEATS Director Tom Brase, Social Services Director Amy Correia, and Veterans Affairs Commission Director Leo Baier. Staff present were: Board of Supervisors Executive Assistant Andy Johnson, Board of Supervisors Budget Coordinator Richard Claiborne, Deputy Auditor Mark Kistler, and Auditor’s Office Recording Secretary Nancy Tomkovicz.
Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek asked how many departments hire temporary employees, whether for summer or seasonal work, to cover maternity leave, or for special projects. Department heads responded with a show of hands. Shramek also inquired as to how many department heads use the same procedure for hiring both temporary and long-term employees. In the employee handbook, under the employment section, there are policies that address the employment of relatives and job postings. Under the policy section, there are policies addressing Affirmative Action, Equal Employment Opportunity and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Within the opening of the handbook’s section on Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity, it reads, “Johnson County provides equal employment opportunity to all employees and applicants for employment in accordance with the laws, directives, and regulations of the federal, state, and local governing bodies or agencies, including full compliance with federal immigration laws.” These statements refer to all employees; this is of note because the County rarely uses the word “all” in their handbook. She said that when it does, it has special meaning. Shramek said that all employment laws apply to temporary workers. Temporary or contingent workers have the same rights as permanent employees in the workplace: to be free from discrimination based on race, sex, religion, color, national origin, age, or disability. When an employee comes from a temporary agency, both the agency and the County share in the responsibility to ensure that temporary workers are not discriminated against.
Shramek said even while the County has these policies, there is not a hiring policy per se. Shramek stated that the Board directed her to draft a hiring policy and she went ahead and incorporated it into an employment procedure as well. This employment procedure has been divided into a staffing process, selection process, and post-selection process. Shramek declined to read through the whole of this procedure at the meeting, stating she has delivered a copy to each department head. She expressed that it was important for department heads to read it and submit any changes by June 22, 2009. She asked department heads to share the details of these processes with those within their departments who are in a position to administer hiring.
Shramek then read the beginning and end of the employment procedure’s text, which began with the words, “The Hiring Policy: Johnson County is an Affirmative Action, Equal Employment Opportunity Employer. We hire individuals based on their qualifications and their ability to perform the job to be filled. Hiring qualified individuals to fill positions contributes to the county’s overall strategic success. Each employee is hired to make a meaningful contribution to their department, and thus to the county as a whole. In hiring the best qualified candidates for full- and part-time positions, including temporary and seasonal employees, the following employment procedure will be used: …” Shramek stated that she received feedback from one individual at the time of this department head meeting, as is noted under “2,” on the Staffing Process, at which point it says “Update and Create the Job Position.” In this spot, Shramek explained that she added a sentence, reading, “Department Heads with separate boards and commissions present information accordingly for approval.” Shramek noted that these will include the Public Health Department, the Conservation Board, Emergency Management, and Veteran Affairs. She continued reading that, “As positions are part of the budget process, significant changes" – and this would be all significant changes – "need to be approved by the Board of Supervisors.” And these are changes, she said, that generally result in a change in compensation.
For clarification, Sullivan asked whether any of the information contained in this document is new, and if it is meant to simply pull all of this information together and put it in one place. Shramek stated that this was not new information, that there should not be any new information in this document, and that the function was to bring this information together. Deputy Auditor Mark Kistler asked about whether there is a job description for temporary positions. Shramek said there are job descriptions for all temporary positions. For example, she noted that there are job descriptions for the intern positions, and the positions at Kent Park. She further offered that her department will help to generate these descriptions, if needed.
County Recorder Kim Painter stated that she has not hired temporary help in a number of years, but that the last time this was necessary, her department went straight to a temporary employment agency. Painter questioned if this is allowed according to the hiring policy under discussion, and Shramek said that it is. Shramek further clarified by stating that those with collective bargaining agreements will need to follow these agreements first and foremost, but still can certainly utilize temporary agencies.
Mental Health/Disability Services Director Kris Artley asked that Shramek elaborate on the administrative unit managers section. Shramek said administrative unit managers are managers that have employees that are covered by the Administrative Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement, and that these individuals have a transfer list of employee names they must consider for employment before they look outside of their unit. Shramek further explained that this procedure ties to an article in the collective bargaining agreement that states that employees within the same job classification can transfer to a different department. For example, a Clerk II in the Public Health Department can put their name on the Clerk II list, and then, when an opening occurs in the Treasurer’s department, County Treasurer Tom Kriz would have to interview that individual.
Shramek said that, ideally, when any unit is advertising for regular positions, these positions will be open for a couple of weeks. In the case of an advertisement for a department head level position, this should be open for four weeks.
SEATS Director Tom Brase asked, in reference to casual positions, what to do if they receive five good applicants, how many interviews to conduct according to policy, and how many individuals need to be present during the interviews. Shramek stated that it is ideal to have two individuals present during the interview process, so as to have a witness and to allow note-taking as well. She said this is best practice.
County Attorney Janet Lyness asked that Shramek clarify Selection Process #3, which details that the minimum selection criteria should not include knowledge, skills, and abilities that could be taught in a relatively short time period. Shramek stated that anything that can be taught within a day should not qualify as an attribute that you are looking for in a candidate; such skills are those that can be easily taught. Another important thing to keep in mind while considering the subject of knowledge, skills, and abilities and a minimum education level is that if that person meets the minimum level of education required, they will likely already have certain skills. For example, Shramek noted, basic mathematics will very likely already be a part of the skill sets inherent to some one with a high school diploma.
Kempf asked for clarification on some of the wording in the Post-Selection Process #2. He asked whether the term “hiring manager” simply indicates a manager that commits the act of hiring. He said the way it is written may appear to some as though such a position and title exists within the County. Shramek confirmed that those words should contain lower case letters, and that they were meant to indicate a management position. She then stated that this term could also indicate the department head or elected official. Conservation Director Harry Graves inquired if the term “regular employees” means regular, annually employed, forty-hour-a-week employees, and Shramek confirmed this. Shramek additionally stated that the Human Resources Department uses the term “permanent” very loosely.
Lyness asked about Item #6 under the Selection Process that states that during the second interview, Human Resources should review Johnson County benefits and discuss compensation with the candidate. Lyness stated that she herself has never called in Human Resources to do this, even while she has discussed these subjects with job candidates. Shramek stated that the Human Resources Department provides this assistance to almost all other departments, and that if the County Attorney’s Office would like to save some additional time, then they would be happy to offer this help to them as well.
Neuzil reminded those listening that all ideas, comments, or suggestions should be submitted to Shramek by June 22, 2009.
Shramek opened this discussion by referring to page 14 of the employee handbook, which addresses the subject of flexible time for exempt employees. She read from the handbook as follows: recognizing that, at many times, the duties of management, administrative, and professional employees require more work than the normal forty hours per week. In recognition of that fact, the Board of Supervisors and the corresponding boards support the concept of a flexible work time. This is defined as the ability of the exempt employee to work either longer or shorter hours as their workload allows. The employee has to work an average of over forty hours a week. The employee that works exactly forty hours per week is therefore ineligible for flexible time. The employee’s work can also not be negatively impacted. Additionally, the change in work hours for the employee cannot be detrimental to the department. Each employee that uses flex hours must let their department know where they are, needs the approval of their supervisor, and also needs to leave an emergency number at which they can be contacted. Documentation is not required, Shramek noted, and should not be kept on an hour-to-hour basis. Shramek continued, saying that flex time is intended for partial day absences, arriving late to work, long lunches, and leaving early from work. It is not intended for multiple day absences. Exceptions to that would need to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. A good example of this is last year’s flood, a time during which people were working in such excess that they could not take flex time until perhaps several months afterwards.
Medical Examiner Administrator Michael Hensch inquired about the requirement for notification of a supervisor when taking flexible time, and wondered whether it is requisite of the law. He said he does not notify the Board when he works seventy hours a week and therefore it seems odd to have to notify the Board if he is going to take half a day off or come in to work two hours later than usual. Hensch added that medical examiners are on call twenty-four hours a day, and that they are called out at 3:00 a.m. Shramek stated that there is no law that covers flexible time, and that the Fair Labor Standards Act does not cover flexible time. This is a County policy. Hensch continued, questioning whether he would be expected to notify all five members of the Board if he was up all night on a case and would be getting to work an hour late. Hensch also expressed that he feels that the policy requirements pass neither a test of fairness nor workability.
Sullivan responded to this concern, providing an example in which, two weeks ago another department head had two night meetings. In this particular situation, the person sent an e-mail to notify his two Board liaisons and Board Executive Assistant Andy Johnson that he would consequently be leaving early on the Friday to follow. Hensch stated that he has been scheduling himself since 2001, most especially because he works seven days a week and gets called out several times in the evenings. He questioned having to call people to inform them of schedule changes when he has never done this before. Neuzil and Sullivan both noted that Hensch’s work schedule makes his situation unique. Stutsman expressed concern about drawing the line once some exceptions have been made, and questioned the difficulty of sending an e-mail to liaisons for notification. In his own case, Hensch noted that this would mean a return to the building in the middle of the night to log onto his computer, send an e-mail, and then return home to sleep. If the Board requires this, he said he will comply. He iterated once more that he has been conducting himself as he has since 2001, and finds this alarming, worrying particularly that an individual expected to work seventy hours a week is yet also to notify the supervisor of occasional minor changes to their daily schedule.
Shramek stated that the Flexible Plan Policy is not new, and that it has been in the employee handbook from the beginning. Neuzil questioned whom Hensch notifies when his schedule changes because of work demands during the middle of the night. Hensch responded by stating that he is on a pager twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, that every law enforcement agency has his cell phone number, and that he gets phone calls each night whether from the police or another entity. Shramek asked Hensch if he could use his home computer to send e-mail messages to the Board. Hensch replied questioning whether he should then also send the Board an e-mail each time he works extra hours and when he is called out at midnight. Shramek responded that the policy does not require that. Neuzil stated that Meyers and he could possibly work with Hensch further to determine an arrangement. Hensch said that his concern comes from the blanket nature of the policy, if someone says that he is not following the policy, then, technically, he is not and he would like to do what he is expected of him.
Sullivan asked for clarification on what may seem a mixed message. He noted that there are different divisions within some departments, featuring division managers who may be concerned with the perception of fairness. Sullivan asked what should be done when one division employee questions the work schedule or fair use of flexible hours by another division employee. He said that it seems as though this almost forces a department head or elected official to, if there is a question, track employee hours in order to justify the use of flex time. Shramek stated that it is not the business of other employees, particularly since what is of concern is whether the supervisor is satisfied with the work performance of that individual, as well as whether the use of flex time proves detrimental to their job performance, then there shouldn't be an issue. Shramek said that if the Board notes productivity problems within a particular department, then this will be one of the first places to look. Sullivan questioned whether elected officials or department heads should respond to the person who questions their co-worker by stating that it is not their business. Shramek said yes, but not necessarily with that wording.
County Treasurer Thomas Kriz questioned how this issue relates to those with a status of deputy. He noted that Deputy Treasurers work while the office of the Treasurer is open to the public, and so, in most cases, will work from 44 to 48 hours per week. He noted that the office of the Treasurer does not offer the option of flexible time, because they are hired to be there while the office is open, and cover needs specific to their job during that time. Kriz questioned the fact that the policy suggests that every employee’s conventional work week consists of 40 hours, since in his office this is not true for deputies. Shramek noted that deputies and elected officials are exempt from employment laws. When an employee receives an annual salary, she stated, it does not matter how many hours he or she actually works. Shramek cited the end of page 3 in the policy, reading that, "…employment laws cover all positions, regardless of status, with the exception of elected officials and their appointed deputies."
Facilities Manager David Kempf asked for additional clarification on when a notification of the use of flex time should occur, whether this use ties to a matter of taking a few days off from work, one day, a half day or to leaving work one hour early. He said he does send the Board an email for most leave time taken, but occasionally does decide to leave an hour early without any notification. Neuzil said is is on call. He added to this question by stating that it was his understanding that a department head or salaried official putting their flex time to use was a matter of discretion. He said he was unaware that he was expected to notify the Board when he uses flex time. Sullivan stated that the details of this policy are as much for any department head’s convenience and protection as it is for that of the Board of Supervisors, since he or she should also want to know why and when employees are present or absent. It is not even so much, Sullivan continued, about people reporting to the Board as it is about people reporting to their department head, or supervising elected official. Kempf stated that he does not have anybody who is salaried working under him, as all of his employees are hourly and get overtime or comp time. Kempf expressed that he wants to ascertain how much information the Board of Supervisors wants from employees. Shramek asked whether or not, when Kempf leaves for the day early, he could just send an e-mail saying that he is leaving early for the day in case a neighbor were to call the Board office reporting they had seen the County truck parked somewhere during the business day.
Kempf said that he does not feel that this notification is necessary. Sometimes he comes to work at 4:30 a.m. because he cannot sleep, and so, if his truck were to be seen in front of his house at 2:00 in the afternoon, that should be of no concern to anyone else. Kempf questioned whether department heads are now asked to check in with the Board of Supervisors every time that they go home a bit early. Shramek explained that the policy is about responsibility. Kempf said that he conducts himself very responsibly as a professional individual. After clarifying that she did not mean to identify any individual as not responsible, Shramek stated that the policy itself asks for responsible conduct which includes notifying appropriate superiors when employees leave work.
Harney stated that the bottom line for him, is to not micro-manage department heads unless there is an issue, and there are liaisons to deal with that. For him, he noted, the idea is just to know when a department head is gone. And if he or she is going to be gone for a day or a half, Harney said that he needs to know that. Harney said that the hourly particulars of any department head’s comings and goings will only need to be known if and when that individual is not doing their job.
Neuzil asked whether it would be okay to distinguish between the need to report taking a half-day versus reporting one’s own absence in hourly increments, and both he and Kempf noted that this would make more sense to each of them. Kempf expressed that he believes that the majority of employees required to do this do this already. He also noted that he does not keep track of how much he works on any given day, but that if he leaves as early as noon, he makes a special point to make sure that people know. Kempf asked whether a half day should be considered as a threshold.
Shramek said that she does not want for those at this meeting to be focusing, especially as exempt employees, on hours or partial hours. Again, she stated that this policy is not new, but that it has been in place the whole time. Kempf expressed that his concern came from the fact that, all of a sudden, it seemed that exempt employees were doing something wrong. Shramek said not at all. Kempf asked whether, if exempt employees take an hour in the afternoon, they should just continue as before, but that if they take a day or a half day then they should inform the liaisons or Executive Assistant Andy Johnson. Shramek responded by saying that this sounds good.
Harney stated that the goal is not to manage elected officials, and that they can manage these questions within their own departments. Stutsman addressed Kempf saying that the taxpayers do feel it is their business to know what County employees are doing. Kempf replied that it is not their business to know if he is home sick or taking a vacation day. Neuzil said that it is essential for him to know if some one is gone for a day or half of a day, and that someone should be notified so that if calls come in and there is an issue, then those called know whether individuals are in or not. Neuzil added that this is not usually a problem.
Information Technology Director Jean Schultz opened by informing the Board that Webmaster Gary Yoder has worked very hard and has redesigned the entirety of the County website. The plan is for that to go live by the end of July. Schultz stated that Information Technology (IT) needs help from each department in two things. Firstly, each department needs to respond to an e-mail that Yoder will have sent by the end of the week, letting IT know if their new departmental page is missing anything, and if there are any dead links or similar issues. Secondly, IT would like to have a section that promotes the good things happening in Johnson County. For example, it would inform citizens of award recipients or educate the public about the LEED Certification of the Health and Human Services Building. This can be considered a public relations effort for the County. Likewise, Schultz stated that if any department has a survey that they would like completed, then IT could highlight this on the home page.
Schultz next raised the issue of adding name look-up for property information, stating that IT recently had a request from the Finance Committee to allow taxpayers to have the ability to look up their tax statements, reprint them, and get more information on how taxes are calculated and where the money goes. She noted that the parcel search is currently set up so that the individual searching either has to know the parcel number or the address. In the case of agricultural property, the parcel does not have an address, and many people do not know their parcel number. Schultz noted that users can currently go into the online tax payment screen, find the parcel number, and then come back to IT’s screen to conduct a look-up by parcel number.
Schultz then stated that name look-up had been added to the Department of Information Technology’s page while she was away at a conference, due to a miscommunication, but that this feature could be removed if necessary. She said she had discussed the issue with her liaisons and they had felt that it would be good to discuss name look-up at the Department Head Meeting. Schultz said that there have been some concerns in the past about privacy issues, and both how easy it should be for people to find general information and how difficult it should be for them to find information on their own property.
Kriz responded by stating that the Treasurer's Office has been a huge advocate of putting the name look-up for people in rural Johnson County who do not have an address. It is almost impossible to find a parcel number without an address. The biggest complaint that the Treasurer's Office received about their website is that it does not enable users to look up by name. Instead, Kriz stated, they have to go to the Iowa Tax and Tags website, look it up by name, get the parcel number, come back to the Treasurer’s site, and then get the documentation they want. Kriz noted that for $2.00 individuals can purchase a tax statement containing all relevant information if they come into the Treasurer’s Office. This information is pretty readily available, but if they use the Internet, those seeking it will have to move between websites. Kriz stated the tax look-up site is probably the most used County website. Kriz said that it would be best to make each website as user friendly as possible. Schultz noted that the Johnson County Recorder’s website features look-up by name, and that this makes sense, since people are still more unlikely to remember their book and page. She added that this look-up option is not yet tied to real estate.
Kistler asked to reiterate a long-standing request from the Auditor’s Office that name searches not be added to the website. This a deep concern relating not only to privacy issues, but also security issues. If there is an individual that might be harmed by another individual, this makes it easy to not only find the person's home address but also, with GIS, to access a map to help them find that home. Kistler stated that he wanted to make it clear that the Auditor’s Office would not like to have name searches available.
Neuzil recognized this has been the position of the Auditor's office in the past, and he asked if the County is changing anything from what it has been doing in the immediate past. Kriz responded to confirm that the addition of a name look-up would be new. Schultz referred to a discussion about whether to have data put into a GIS data repository, and whether to include names or not, and the decision at that time was to include names so that people could download that repository file and then do a look-up. Shultz noted that takes more work on the individual’s part. She then stated that IT is willing to do whatever is necessary, and that she came to this meeting thinking it would be beneficial to have this discussion among department heads.
Lyness stated that she was on the committee that looked into this same question several years ago. At that time committee members had concerns because, from home at midnight or 2:00 in the morning, someone could look up another individual’s address, see the layout of their home, and even more, with just a name. Lyness recounted that she believes that the Johnson County Attorney’s Office was among those pushing for less accessibility, and stated that she believes that concerns for safety and security issues were at the base of their recommendation.
Neuzil asked what other counties are doing regarding name look-up. Kriz said that with treasurer’s offices, it is hit or miss, and that more offices have started adding names because of requests, but that there is no clear pattern. However, someone can go to the payments website for all 99 counties and display by name. Neuzil said this means that information is already accessible by name through the state-wide system. Stutsman responded that the idea is to question how easily accessible the County would like to make it.
Sullivan stated that, for him, the issue is that this is public information. He noted that with other public information, the County does not question how to make it more difficult to attain. If something is public information, the County generally tries to make access as easy as possible. In terms of serving the public the County tries to make information available as the public has a right to the information. He said that if the public owns this information, then they ought to have as much access as the County can reasonably provide.
Painter stated that there is an inherent unavoidable tension between the two issues. On the one hand, if taxpayers encounter a particular news story that makes them feel especially vulnerable, then they will be very concerned with their own privacy. On the other hand, when these same taxpayers try to do research, they become upset that the County would create a system that would make it difficult for them to find the information that they want. Additionally, the situation is made more difficult when such jargon as parcel ID number and other phrases that the public does not readily understand are put to use. Painter said that since Recorders have no other option, and since they have no out for taking anyone’s name out of their system, they try to work with people on the front end. In this, they counsel them to work with attorneys who will often provide pro bono services for people in situations in which they feel imperiled to help them create different kinds of “naming shelters” for their documents, so that they do not have to put documents with their address under their name. Painter stated that there are different things they can do so that a name becomes different than their personal last name and first name, and, thereby, they can hopefully avoid being traced. Otherwise, it is very difficult, she said, because these documents are completely public, and the Recorder's office does not have an option. Neuzil confirmed that he recalls having a conversation that related to avoiding having a name on some items.
Kistler asked if someone is looking at a particular location through the GIS interface using the Auditor’s and Assessor’s information, all of that ownership information is accessible for any parcel. It is not hidden information and what the Auditor’s Office is asking is that a name not be made into searchable criteria. At present, this information is publicly available when searching for a particular parcel that is queried through the parcel search or the address search. Neuzil stated that this is an issue that the Board will have to decide. He asked that Schultz work with Johnson on scheduling a future meeting to continue this discussion.
Sullivan left at 2:16 p.m. and returned at 2:18 p.m.
Kempf said that the County is in the midst of deciding what it would like for the format of employee name badges to be; that is, both what information these badges should contain and in what way that information will be presented. Ultimately, he stated, these will be decisions the Board will make. Kempf presented sample badges that he and others have worked together to design, and noted that they are ready to proceed, since they have the hardware in place, have the badges in place, and have made the demo badges. Kempf stated that the only remaining matters include picking out a final layout for the badges and making the template. Those overseeing this process will then need to take a picture of each employee, assign it to a name, and then import all of the data that the County desires be included according to the design of their format. Once the County determines what they would like the badge to look like then the production will move forward rather quickly. Kempf said ideally all badges will have a uniform look so that the individual wearing the badge will be easily identifiable as a Johnson County employee. Kempf stated that he knows that there are some concerns regarding whether to include employee's full names, but that is a Board decision.
Neuzil asked what others think about whether last names should be on the badges, and asked about where the badges would be worn on the body. Kempf responded saying that multiple styles of lanyards will be available. One will be the conventional lanyard, which hangs around the individual’s neck, and another will clip at the belt. Kempf noted that the Board may need to have a policy covering the subject of name badge display, since they will be ineffectual if they are tucked in employee pockets.
Ambulance Director Steve Spenler stated that while his staff looks forward to having name badges, there are many members of his staff that would prefer not to have their last names on badges for security reasons. He also noted that there were additional concerns related to wearing anything that would wrap around the employee’s neck, but that he and fellow staff members have observed badge holders that fit on the arm. Neuzil questioned whether the County could create two versions of the employee name badge, one as an official badge with the full name, and then another that is nearly the same, but which lacks the employee’s last name. Kempf replied that the County would be doubling its expense, and that the cost per card is $3.50-$4.50.
Spenler asked if these badges can only bear print on one side, and Kempf stated that the cards can have print on each side. Spenler then questioned whether it would be possible to have an employee’s full name on one side, and feature only their first name on the front, so that employees could decide which side they would like to show. Harney stating that the Communications Committee met and discussed this matter. The Committee was in favor of utilizing a badge with the County’s emblem on it, a smaller photograph, a first name that is in larger print, and a last name that is in smaller print. They also supported the idea of standardizing Johnson County name badges, so that all employees have badges that are uniform. Harney stated that another concern with a design including written information on both sides is that one side is supposed to be clear in order to swipe it since its dual purpose is a key card. Kempf said that the necessary information is all embedded in the card itself, and not dependent on a magnetic strip. He said cards could be double-sided without compromising their function as keys. Kempf said that if necessary, one side of the card could read, “If found, please return to the Physical Plant.” He stated that this is usually what is printed on the reverse side of a card, so that if people find one, they know where to return it.
Hensch stated that he was in charge of the ID system while at Mercy Hospital. Employees there wore a badge with either both the first and last name, or for those employees with security concerns, the first name and employee number. Hensch stated that the backs of these badges also contained significant information such as phone numbers and disaster information. From a medical examiner's perspective, he certainly wants a first and last name on the card because he feels that when a county or state employee is in a citizen’s home, the citizen has a right to know who is in their home. He said that this is also the case with police officers, whose full names appear on their uniforms. Hensch said he also supports including a job title on County badges.
Lyness stated that she would prefer having the option because of previous experiences of her employees. She noted that some of her staff will strongly oppose wearing a badge which identifies their last name because some employees have been stalked because of their dealings with defendants. The employees in the County Attorney's Office, especially those at the front desk, do not have any choice in who they deal with. She said she feels strongly that employees should either be given an option or that only first names be included on the badge. Lyness added that the inclusion of a job title would give them additional credibility.
Sullivan questioned whether the County should have a policy requiring badges be visible at all times, or if determining such a policy should be left to department heads and elected officials. Stutsman said that this should be a Board decision, and added that the employees either wear the badges or not. Stutsman recounted that part of the reason this issue is under discussion is because of the number of employees in the Health and Human Services building and how difficult it is to determine who is an employee over there. Without displaying the name badge, people may be questioned.
Neuzil asked whether those present were comfortable with the options of either a badge that features a first and last name and employee ID number, or one that features just a first name and employee ID number. Lyness and Stutsman said that they feel that job titles should be included as well, and Kempf said he feels that both the department and job title should be listed.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak noted that because his line of work requires that he and those he works with be out in the field, he favors the badge that features a County logo to match the one that is on the side of their trucks. He noted that he also prefers the design for a badge that can be flipped to allow greater or lesser privacy, since inspectors will want people to know their full names, and secretaries will not. Neuzil stated that this may not require a reversible badge, and that perhaps the Board could just be informed of which badges should contain a partial name, and which should contain a full name. Dvorak said that there is a difference between the clerical staff and the field staff. Neuzil returned with a statement that if departments were to give the Board of Supervisors information about the options selected by their employees, then this could be a part of the larger policy.
Graves asked if employees who work at other locations such as the Johnson County Conservation Department or the Secondary Roads, will also have badges, and, if so, if these badges will bear their own departmental logos. Graves noted that Conservation's logo differs from the County's. Neuzil asked what the Communications Committee had decided with regard to other elected officials and county divisions. Harney stated that the committee felt that all employees should have a badge that features the Johnson County logo and that also identifies the department for which that employee works. Kempf noted that those working for Conservation will not be expected to wear these badges on a lanyard, as this would be a safety hazard, but that they can certainly clip them to their belts.
Kempf stated that any decision over the use of differing logos will ultimately be left to the Board, but explained also that the badges are configured to work by a template. This means that if a department has a logo that is distinct of the logo for Johnson County and gets approval for its use from the Board, then it will simply be a matter of altering or creating a template. Stutsman expressed concern at the idea of multiple departments having disparate logos, and Graves noted that his department had a logo since before Johnson County had theirs. Stutsman then asked about the possibility of grandfathering in those departments that have their own logo, and disallowing new logos for others.
Neuzil confirmed that what is yet to be determined is the format and design of the badges. He noted that most were comfortable with the option of either first name or the option of first and last name on the one side. He noted that the Committee will have to determine what is on the backside, along with lost and found information and perhaps an emergency number or two. Stutsman said she thinks these questions are ready to taken to the Board for a final decision. Kempf offered to take the input that he has received from both the Communications Committee and the Board, and come up with final options for the Board of Supervisors to pick from. He noted that he would work with Gary Yoder on this task, and also that he would speak with Johnson to add this to a future Key Issues meeting agenda.
Neuzil asked if September 1, 2009, is the expected date for employee to begin using their key card access for parking. Kempf said the ramp key card access is ready to go and he is awaiting final verification before activating the ramp gate. Employees driving in and out of the ramp soon will need to start using their key cards, but will not yet be charged for parking until the system passes a trial period. Kempf stated that multiple issues still need to be resolved before the other parking lot at the Armory will require key card access. One of the two gates needs repairs, and the timing of installing the other gate will be determined by the razing of the Armory building.
Neuzil inquired about the testing of this system, noting that it seems to have already begun. Kempf said that some testing, administered by IT has already begun in the Auditor’s Office. This testing has entailed using doors as though they are the gate, and those administering the tests figured out that they can cache the information in the form that they need. Schultz said that Account Clerk II Carla Scherbring reported that she tested the parking program and it ran smoothly. She added that the program will still require more testing once the actual gate is installed.
Stutsman suggested a sign be posted at the ramp to alert the public that the ramp will soon be gated. She noted that this is because many who park there currently will be surprised by this action. Kempf added to this, noting that the installation and activation of the gates will not only affect those members of the public who park where they should not, but also employees who park where they should not.
Neuzil observed that this means that the parking lot in front of the Administration Building will be converted to an entirely public parking lot. Kempf confirmed this, and noted that all reserved parking will be shifted to where the Armory parking lot currently sits. Stutsman expressed concern that monitoring the parking lot would turn into a full time job. Kempf stated that those who abuse the public nature of the parking lot regularly generally make themselves known and he is prepared to deal with that.
Stutsman noted that many details of the Fair will be the same as previous years. She stated that a volunteer sheet will be circulating soon, and that the prizes for the Fair have been purchased. In keeping with the Fair theme “Making Memories,” cameras will be made available to take digital pictures which will be loaded onto the County website. Families will then be able to download and print their own photos. Lyness said they will need signed release forms from parents to take pictures of minors and permission to load the pictures on the website.
Neuzil asked whether there was any talk about promoting the Health and Human Services Building, perhaps via photographs, or a poster, or similar items that relate to the new building. Kempf stated that brochures will be distributed and that he has plans to display some pictures and information about the Green features.
Neuzil asked about how the subcommittee that is working on Department Head Evaluation Forms is faring, and Stutsman replied that the committee is very close to completing the design of these forms. The final draft is almost complete and the subcommittee plans to conduct trial runs with many different people to see if there is anything that they have overlooked. The forms should be ready within the next couple of months.
Kempf asked if the evaluation process will be the same as previously, requiring that employees fill out their evaluation and submit them. Stutsman stated that the Board will need to decide. She noted that the evaluation form will be set up so that the Board will be able to use that for evaluating department heads. Department heads, however, will also be able to use this form in order to evaluate their managers.
Kempf stated that this project is out to bid currently, and that a preconstruction meeting is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on June 18, 2009. He said that there have been many inquiries about the project, and that those working in construction seem to be in the midst of a feast or famine experience. He said that he has had several contractors contact him about this work. The bid letting is scheduled for June 30, 2009, and Novak Design Group and Kempf will make a recommendation to the Board on July 1, 2009. Additionally, specifications call for work to begin within seven days of when the contract is signed. Kempf stated that they hope to get this work going soon, and that the final completion date is December 15, 2009. Kempf stated that the contract promotes early completion and penalizes late completion.
Stutsman inquired as to when the skywalk will be open, and Kempf predicted that it would be available in November of 2009. Kempf noted that this area will be open and completed before the space reserved for the Board of Supervisors will be open and completed, since the Board of Supervisors area will be the last to be done.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak asked whether it is true that the Board of Supervisors will move across the street during construction, and Neuzil and Kempf responded that this has not yet been determined. Dvorak noted that if the Board changes their meeting location, they will have to convey that in any legal notices. Kempf then asked how much advance warning will be needed, and multiple others at the meeting responded by requesting a month. He confirmed that this would be possible.
Kempf reported on a discussion about the need to conduct a Space Needs study for the Ambulance Department, looking at the Fisher Building, the current Ambulance site, the Public Health Building, and the Armory next door. He would also like to evaluate what it would take to put a satellite station at the SEATS/Secondary Roads location.
Lyness recommended that the County change its forms to make clearer what is going to be public. The public has a right to be able to contact the members of different boards and commissions, therefore those applying should indicate what information they would want to be public. For example, Lyness noted they may have a cell phone number that they would prefer not be listed. She added that another issue to consider is that several of the boards and commissions act in a quasi-judicial manner, and so, the distribution of their contact information should perhaps be accompanied with a note that it cannot be used for lobbying.
Stutsman then asked if the County lists those boards and members on its website, and Sullivan said yes, but that this listing does not currently include any way to contact them. Neuzil observed that the form does say that it can be used for public information, and Sullivan said that the form does list their addresses, but not their phone number or e-mail address. Lyness stated that if people would prefer getting an e-mail, then that is fine, but iterated that the County should just be clear about the distribution of personal information when individuals apply for boards and commissions. Neuzil asked Johnson to review this with Lyness, and his liaisons.
Neuzil asked if it is at all possible to reduce the form to one page. Ambulance Director Steve Spenler noted that he only completes one page and he believes that these forms are fairly expensive. He added that Account Clerk II Carla Scherbring wants for all who complete the process in this way to put the words “2009 Cost of Living” at the top of their form because Scherbring makes a copy for each employee. Neuzil thanked Spenler for saving time and money by reducing the form to one page.
Shramek confirmed that the Payroll Authorization Forms are expensive, but noted that when everything is put onto one form, they have to make copies because a copy is required for every individual personnel file, employment file, and for the Auditor’s office. In addition to this, whenever a future grievance or litigation arises and the County has exhibits, then all other co-workers’ information is on that document as well. Granted, Shramek said, this is public information, but when some of that form’s content appears to have been crossed out, it looks suspicious to some. Shramek stated that these are reasons that the Department of Human Resources prefers individual sheets.
Neuzil noted that questions of necessity are central to this decision. Shramek said that copies must be made regardless. Neuzil asked if it is cheaper to photocopy a singular original form than to use the form with carbon copies, and Shramek said photocopying is cheaper.
Kempf said that he had not known that this was an option, and that if he were shown how, he would be glad to fill out one form for all of his employees. Neuzil clarified that this is not being considered in terms of use throughout the year, but for this one-time use or sometimes twice, doing this with relation to Cost of Living adjustments. SEATS Director Tom Brase asked about the possibility of an online form, one that has been scanned. Treasurer Tom Kriz said his department hands in just one form for 14 people.
Neuzil expressed that, if possible, it would be a great help to simply compromise on the Cost of Living form. Graves questioned whether the Auditor’s Office could provide the format and information for Conservation between now and the next Cost of Living Allowance, and stated that Conservation would be happy to do that. Neuzil stated that this sounds like something that could well be accomplished.
Budget Coordinator Richard Claiborne stated that he was asked by the Board of Supervisors to have the Finance Committee review and research budget amendments, rather than just rubber stamp the amendments, before the committee makes a recommendation to the Board. He clarified, noting that the Finance Committee does not make budget amendment decisions, but instead formulates opinions as to whether the amendment is necessary. The Board then makes the final decision.
Claiborne then stated that he developed the Budget Amendment Form, which the Finance Committee and Auditor’s Office has reviewed. The budget trend from the past three years provided useful information, and so he added that in. Claiborne additionally stated that he changed some wording, as necessary, and that the next step is for department heads and elected officials look at it, provide their feedback, and then to take it to the Board for possible approval. Claiborne explained that he would fill out the first page, to provide needed information, and that the individual or deputy who completes the form would just need to signify this in the space that is labeled “Completed By.” He noted that questions one, two, and three are analytical in nature, asking for participants to look back at how they came up with certain numbers 18 months prior, what has changed in the environment, and similar other things. The fourth question asks that participants provide numbers for anticipated costs. Claiborne described the whole of the form as fairly straight forward.
Sullivan noted the fact that the Board conducts more than one budget amendment per year. The trend over the last 3 years would be affected by whether it is a fall or spring amendment. Claiborne said Auditor Tom Slockett thought it would be useful to include a comparison of how the budget ends in comparison to the original budget. Meyers drew attention to the three lines at the bottom of the form, and asked whether, if an individual is figuring budget trends and completes the form on May 1st, would the last three years would it be where they stood on May 1st of both years. Claiborne answered it is where they stood at the end of each year. Neuzil asked that all department heads and elected officials review this form and provide their comments. Claiborne invited anyone present to also e-mail or call him with their questions or ideas.
Claiborne noted that Slockett’s thoughts on looking at the original budget forecast tied to the fact that, mid-year, a department head may think that there needs to be some fine-tuning. However, when looking at how the original budget compares to how they ended, there may still be budget remaining, or revenue above the original forecast. This is why the Finance Committee is looking at a three year trend, to determine whether the amendments are really necessary, so they will look to see if departments are ending up with expenditures remaining or above revenue.
Neuzil stated that the issue here is the time at which agenda items are submitted to the Board office, and that the Board has wanted for this to occur a little earlier than in the past. He noted that agenda items are often rolling in to the Board office at around 11:00 a.m. on the Tuesday before the Thursday Formal and Informal Board meetings, and worried that many departments are meeting the deadline for submission at the latest possible minute. This later submission makes it much more difficult to schedule. The Board would rather have these agenda items, which comprise their packets, on Tuesday afternoon than on Wednesday, so the supervisors have ample time to study the agenda and supporting documents prior to the meetings.
Board of Supervisors Executive Assistant Andy Johnson noted that the County Attorney’s Office and Supervisors were interested in getting the materials earlier. He thinks that the Tuesday noon deadline is fairly engrained, and so did not want to change that. Johnson appealed for earlier submissions as he noted his own need to scan all of the documents and prepare the draft agenda so packets would be available, electronically, to the Auditor’s office, the County Attorney, and the Board of Supervisors, by 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday afternoons.
Sullivan submitted that another contributing factor in that the Board chair and the Executive Assistant try to make meetings be similar in length to one another. If all agenda items come in right before the deadline, and there are things that must be addressed that week, at that point it is too late to go back and move something that instead could have been addressed the next week. Neuzil noted that the ideal meeting lasts for less than two hours. He asked individuals to please send their materials on Friday or Monday – rather than Tuesday, at the deadline – if they know that they are going to be on the agenda.
Veterans Affairs Director Leo Baier noted that he attended the Spring School during the last three days of April, and that he has attended 44 Association schools. Baier also attended a special meeting called by Christy Canjanelli, the FEMA 27 director, to inform Veterans Affairs of available new monies. Baier announced that the Iowa Veteran's Home has a new Commandant, John Mathes, and that R.J. Moore has been newly appointed to the Commission of Veteran Affairs.
Recorder Kim Painter noted that, as of July 1st, the new septic inspection requirements will be under operation. The requirements will be enforced at the Recorder’s Office in that if the staff does not see the inspection report, then when people come to record transfers of property, their office will be required to reject them. Painter has been attending seminars at the Iowa City Association of Realtors Educational Offices, and she will attend another one focusing on septic inspections on June 19, 2009.
Dvorak spoke of the flood of 2008, and stated that the paperwork is coming to closure. They have finalized most all of the documents. The County is looking at late July or early August for buyouts, and demolition right after that. While there is a three year window for those considering buyouts, he asked the Board to reduce that time just a bit. Dvorak said those properties will revert back to natural condition requiring no maintenance. He said he his trying to obtain other available monies to clean up properties that have not received any tax payments for 20 years. Within 90 days, Dvorak hopes to have obtained a tax deed on those properties so the County can proceed with demolition.
Mental Health/Disabilities Services Director Kris Artley noted that there is a new free counseling website, and read the address so that it could be included in the minutes. This website is located at http://www.projectrecoveryiowa.org. In addition to service information the site also provides resources for free, confidential counseling services. Artley stated that the corresponding hotline is 1-800-447-1985.
Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia said the NACo prescription drug card has moved from the Johnson County Attorney’s Office into Johnson County Social Services, and stated that she is in the process of getting the information transferred. Correia stated that an e-mail would be sent, letting recipients know that those who want more prescription drug cards should contact the Office of Social Services. She noted that they do have packets, and so they do not even need to be ordered.
Correia stated that she has been involved in a multi-county planning effort to submit an application to the federal government to create systems of care for children’s mental health. This is a five county collaborative, and on June 24, 2009, each county will have a community meeting. Johnson County’s meeting will be on June 24, 2009, from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. Correia noted that she is still working out the logistics of the location, but that this meeting will be for community members, family members, and other professionals interested in creating a system of care for children's mental health. She noted that once the location has been determined, she will send that information to department heads and elected officials, and that they can then forward that on to anyone who might be interested.
SEATS Director Tom Brase stated he will be attending the Iowa Public Transit Association meeting from June 17 through June 18, 2009, and noted that this event will include a rodeo in which drivers participate and have a chance to continue on at a national level. He said that, in July, Stutsman and Chris O’Brien and Dee Vanderhoef and Mark Gray will go to the Mobility Institute by Easter Seals in Washington D.C. SEATS received a grant to attend the institute.
Brase said he posts his meeting schedule and contact information on a shared calendar accessible to all. This is SEATS busy time of year preparing several year-end fiscal reports. He also noted that SEATS has just completed a tri-annual review with the City of Coralville from the Federal Transit Association, which he said went really well.
Conservation Department Director Harry Graves reported on building progress for the two buildings at Kent Park, and said that it is moving along on schedule. The common geothermal field, which will heat and cool those two buildings and the water plant, has been installed. Graves reported that the Conservation Department was a part of an invasive species workshop in Linn County, and that on the evening of June 16, 2009, at 7:00 p.m., their department will host the Court Hill Woodwind Quintet at F.W. Kent Park, at the Kent Park Youth Group Camp.
Sullivan stated that he feels that the Board is hearing a lot about Governor Chet Culver’s I-JOBS program, though no one seems to know very much about it, though there are many resources being put toward it. This is possibly an opportunity to access money, and asked that those present keep their ears and eyes open with this subject in mind. Sullivan stated that the I-JOBS Program will probably come up again for discussion fairly soon, and that any opportunity will likely have to be handled quickly.
Neuzil stated that he had been asked by the Board, during National County Government Week, to write a little summary of what Johnson County has been doing, with special attention County efforts relating to environmental issues. He noted that there is a picture Kempf and he took on the front cover of the recent ISAC magazine, and so, Johnson County got some good publicity. He asked that those at the meeting keep thinking in terms of ideas for ISAC’s Innovation Awards, called Johnson County very progressive, and stated that they may have a chance for one of these awards.
Kempf noted that he received a final verification report from the White Group, the Energy Efficiency Audit Group that works with Mid-America. He said that, in brief, the incremental cost increase in cost construction for the energy efficiency program implemented in the Health and Human Services Building was $103,699. In return, Johnson County will be receiving a check from Mid-America for $19,300, which puts the incremental increase at $84,399. Johnson County's annual energy savings has been estimated at $15,073, which then gives the County a 5.6 year payback on the energy efficiency items added to the building.
The next Department Head meeting is scheduled at 1:30 p.m. on August 18, 2009.
Adjourned at 3:13 p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By:
On the _______ day of _____________________, 2009
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary
Sent to the Board of Supervisors on August 17 at 11:00 a.m.