MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
NOVEMBER 4, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Session: Evaluation and Goal Setting of Medical Examiner Administrator Michael Hensch 1
Pre-Evaluation and Goal Setting of Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek................... 1
Executive Session: Pre-Evaluation and Goal Setting of County Engineer Greg Parker................ 13
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 9:00 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Motion by Stutsman, second by Sullivan, to leave Executive Session at 9:21 a.m. Roll call: aye: Harney, Stutsman, Neuzil, Sullivan, Rettig.
Neuzil said the discussion of pre-evaluation and goal setting of Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek will take place in open session because that was her choice. He said the evaluation was prepared by Harney and himself, and they did every other one and worked back forth as far as any additional comments and things of that nature. He said the Board will go through the items and make any changes that they all think should be made. Harney asked if evaluation scores remain confidential or become public record. Neuzil said they are public record. They will try to discuss only averages if they can. Neuzil said he is referring to the averages of all of the combined Supervisors. It would be nice if the Board can keep to that.
Sullivan said Shramek gave herself a score of 4.5 for Job Knowledge. The Supervisors also gave her a score of 4.5. Sullivan read aloud that Shramek thoroughly knows her job and applies that knowledge for the County. She stays abreast with the ever-changing human resources environment and adjusts policies and procedures accordingly.
Rettig said Shramek gave herself a score of 3.75 for Planning and Organizing. The Board gave her a score of 4.2. She read that not all of the identified goals were met, but most are on their way to being completed, including the performance evaluation forms. The Performance Evaluation Committee, chaired by Human Resources Coordinator Dana Winkowitsch, met 16 times in the last year. Rettig said the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for the adoption of the new performance evaluation form is planned for November 2009. Training for the Board is expected after formal approval of the form. Shramek stayed within her FY09 budget and returned 5% of her estimated budget.
Sullivan said he thinks the Board needs to spend a little more time thinking about the rollout of the salary survey because it’s been somewhat problematic. He would say that a comment he would make to Shramek is that he thinks she should have helped the Board think about that more. Neuzil stated that the salary survey was mentioned quite a bit in the pre-evaluation, but he thinks it probably belongs under Planning and Organizing. Sullivan agreed. Stutsman suggested it could also be placed under Quality of Work. Sullivan said he thinks the Board just didn’t really plan well enough for how they were going to get all of the people there and when. Neuzil said Shramek is complimented later in regards to the smooth transition to P.J. Greufe & Associates after the fall out involving the initial study. It was actually really positive to have them come in and recover it. Sullivan agreed.
Neuzil said he thinks Sullivan is right, however, about thinking further out about getting the Board of Supervisors together collectively and having a public discussion. He said the Board members are all getting emails now from employees who are upset that they learned about the changes in the newspaper, although the Board did hold three public meetings to discuss the study before it came out in the newspaper. Sullivan said it seems like more thought should have been given to how it was going to be rolled out. Stutsman said she doesn’t know where the urgency came from. Although Shramek told them they had plenty of time during the meeting that day, she got the feeling they needed to make decisions that day and get it rolled out that day. Stutsman agrees that they needed a lot more time to absorb the information and think through it.
Harney said what happened is that the meetings were held, but they were not attended. Although employees should have had the information, the press jumped right on the survey when the Board started rolling it out. In open government, there is not an opportunity to have discussions and then meet with individuals to let them know how they will be affected by changes. Harney said he likes open government, but in this situation, it made it very difficult to present the information to members before the press published it in the newspaper.
Stutsman mentioned a meeting that was held in a small conference room. Neuzil said it was rushed. Stutsman said the press wasn’t there, however, and more work sessions like that were needed, involving only the Board, department heads, and elected officials. Sullivan said without getting into specifics, he thinks a little more thought should have been put into the process of submitting the survey. Harney said he agrees the process to complete the survey took a long time, and then there was suddenly a deadline to get it done right away.
Stutsman told Executive Assistant Andy Johnson that she would like to change her scores for numbers two and four. She said her lower score was a reflection of what she thought was going on with the salary survey. If that is going to be included under number two, she wants to flip her scores. Johnson asked if Stutsman wants number two to be 3.5 and number four to be 4.0. Stutsman said yes. Johnson said he thinks the new score is 4.1. Neuzil stated the score of 4.2 would change to 4.1.
Neuzil said the Board will work on some verbiage. He thinks they could probably include something after the word “form” in the second to last sentence. Johnson confirmed the word to which Neuzil was referring. Neuzil said he thinks that is a good place to add a comment. Sullivan said the Board wishes more thought had gone into the presentation of the salary survey results. Neuzil asked how that would read. Johnson told the Board that the new line would read that the Board wishes that more thought had gone into the presentation of the salary survey results. Sullivan asked if that is okay. Rettig said the first line states that not all identified goals were met, but most are on their way. She thinks ‘their way’ should be changed to ‘the way’. Neuzil asked if Johnson got that change. Neuzil said the Board has now collectively scored a 4.1 for number two and asked if everyone is comfortable with that.
Harney said Shramek gave herself a score of 4.5 for Decision Making/Problem Solving. The Board gave her a 4.0. He read aloud that Shramek makes her decisions and recommendations after thorough research and analysis. She dissects an issue almost to a fault, however, she provides accurate information and recommendations. Human Resources negotiated three collective bargaining agreements for FY10, including Administrative, Secondary Roads, and Sheriff Units. All six units are up in FY11.
Stutsman said Shramek gave herself a score of 4.5 for Quality of Work. Stutsman asked Johnson if the Board’s score for her will change now. Johnson said the score is now 4.3. Stutsman read aloud that affirmative action equal employment opportunity (AAEEO) efforts continue to be completed and well-coordinated. This past year, the Human Resources Department has satisfied State Auditors from Public Health and have expanded action steps, such as increasing the places the County advertises to recruit more minorities. Human Resources Coordinator Vanessa Wierman has been working on taking the County’s AAEEO Plan to the next level. Volunteered information from each application received is logged into Human Resources’ newly created tracking spreadsheet. In addition, the County has hired five minority candidates, which is two more than last year. Shramek has developed a written hiring policy and procedure, which includes direction of hiring managers in the AAEEO compliance process. Neuzil asked if the Board is okay with that information.
Stutsman said her only concern with that item is that all they mention is the AAEEO efforts. She asked if there is anything else Shramek has done well this year. She thinks Shramek did quite well on this, but it seems like there are additional things that could be mentioned. Neuzil said they could pretty much repeat everything included for the other questions. He just included an example of a quality of work that he thought was different than everything else they had just written. Stutsman asked if they can just say that there are many areas in which Shramek has demonstrated excellent quality of work. Sullivan said her work is consistently good. The Board expects it to be good, and it always is. Neuzil agreed and said they can include a lead-in sentence and use AAEEO as an example. Johnson asked if he should write that Shramek consistently demonstrates a high quality of work. Rettig and Sullivan said yes. Johnson said an example is the affirmative action equal opportunity efforts that continue to be completed. Neuzil and Sullivan said yes.
Neuzil stated that Shramek gave herself a score of 4.0 for Productivity. The Board collectively gave her a score of 4.2. He read aloud that Human Resources has been very good at providing a high volume of work while meeting timelines as instructed by the Board. Though there were some delays with issues involving the first salary survey consultant, the Austin Peters Group, back in January 2009, the office did a good job keeping the initiative moving forward. After they terminated the contract, Human Resources successfully recommended P.J. Greufe & Associates, who completed the project by July 1, 2009. The department has stayed on track and performed well this past year, even though Shramek has had to address some health issues. Human Resources handled three employee grievances this past year, without any arbitration, updated the employee handbook Wireless Telecommunications Policy, conducted a dozen retirement meetings, created several new and updated job descriptions, processed 36 unemployment claims, and developed a formal written Johnson County Hiring Policy. Stutsman commented that Human Resources did a lot. Neuzil asked if the Board is okay with the scores. Stutsman said yes.
Sullivan said Shramek gave herself a score of 4.0 for Initiative. The Board gave her a collective score of 4.2. He read aloud that Shramek presented several strategic cost saving considerations for the Board, given the state of the economy. Johnson and individual Supervisors ranked the suggestions, and those with the highest numbers are being pursued through collective bargaining. Shramek helped ensure benefit compliance with the Iowa Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage, she fixed the double coverage situation within the County’s healthcare plan, and she stepped up to temporarily become the County’s Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Compliance Officer.
Rettig said Shramek gave herself a score of 4.25 for Cooperation and Teamwork. The Board gave her a collective score of 4.0. She read aloud that Shramek is dedicated and seems to enjoy her position as Human Resources Administrator. She manages a no-nonsense environment and is very task-oriented. This makes the office productive. However, it is sometimes perceived to be rigid. Shramek and her staff are responsive to requests for information and assistance from employees and department heads. There have been differences with some of the County employees, and those continue to be addressed accordingly. Shramek participated in eight meetings with the County Engineer at Synchrony. The Board is pleased that Human Resources continues to work closely with the County Communications Committee to assist in the Johnson County Fair, the Health and Human Services (HHS) Building Open House, the Employee Appreciation Lunch, Chow Hounds for Charity, and other charitable campaigns. Shramek also chaired nine Safety Committee meetings and five Incident Review Committee meetings.
Stutsman said Shramek sent an email about working with Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne and indicated that they are not on the same page. She asked what Shramek had been referring to in the email. Johnson said it involved a committee and was in response to an email sent by Claiborne. Sullivan said it involved membership on the committee to review job descriptions. Stutsman said it was part of that email. She said some cooperation and teamwork need to be developed in that area too. She said she doesn’t know whose responsibility it is and was going to talk to Johnson about it during their liaison meeting. She said Shramek and Claiborne get into email barbs. Harney said he thinks one of the issues Stutsman is referring to involved Claiborne wanting some information on payroll changes before the Board finished the group pay changes. He said Claiborne wanted to be able to work the information into the budget, and he doesn’t think Shramek wanted to give it to Claiborne until the Board had decided what they were going to do with it. Stutsman said she thinks Shramek and Claiborne need to communicate better. Johnson agreed. He said it’s on his radar screen, although he wasn’t going to bring the issue up with Shramek this week.
Sullivan asked if it was in the past year that there were issues involving coverage of the Board of Supervisor’s Office. He thinks Shramek sent Human Resources Office Assistant Geri Owen there for a couple of weeks, and they should mention it because it obviously took away from Human Resources. Harney said they could probably mention that under Cooperation. Stutsman asked if that is where they are at. Neuzil stated that Human Resources operated in the Board of Supervisor’s Office for a week. Johnson suggested they mention it after “and other charitable campaigns.” Neuzil said yes. Johnson said the Board appreciates the office assistance provided by the Human Resources Department. Harney suggested he add “this past year” to that.
Stutsman asked if the Board wants to mention the issues between Claiborne and Shramek. Sullivan said he doesn’t think he understands the situation fully enough to comment on it. Harney said he always has concerns about including something in an evaluation that they haven’t spoken to the employee about. It just doesn’t seem right to him. Neuzil agreed but said they should certainly bring it up when meeting with her. Stutsman suggested that developing communication could be a goal. Harney asked if the Board wants to hear what Johnson wrote or if they were satisfied with what he suggested. Johnson said he wrote that the Board appreciates the office assistance provided by the Human Resources Department this past year. Harney and Stutsman indicated satisfaction with the statement.
Harney said Shramek gave herself a score of 4.0 for Communication Skills, and the Board collectively gave her a score of 3.9. He read aloud that Shramek assisted all department heads and elected officials in consistent contract handbook application. Human Resources coordinated harassment, diversity, strengths, accountability, customer service, credit scores, and getting-out-of-debt training for employees. Four issues of The Johnson’s Employee Newsletter were also produced.
Stutsman said she scored Shramek lower on Communication Skills, and the score was directly related to the salary survey. She doesn’t think Shramek communicated well regarding her concerns with the survey and rolling out what the Board did. Stutsman wishes Shramek would have spoken to Board members individually. After the Board had held their meeting and made decisions, she told Stutsman she thought it was too much and too many changes too soon. Stutsman wished she would have known that before that time. Sullivan said they did do individual polling. It gets back to the issue of being difficult to do it in open session. Stutsman agreed, but said she wishes Shramek would have shared her related expertise with Board members individually. The Board might have done things differently if they had that information more clearly presented up front.
Harney said he thinks a lot of the issue involves the process involved with using liaisons. It does not solely involve Human Resources. He thinks liaisons get the information but don’t necessarily go back and share concerns with other Board members. It involves decision making, and he thinks it falls upon all of the Board members. Sometimes things like that do not get communicated to all of the Board members. Neuzil said the Board does not have a good process of communicating beyond what they discuss at the end of Board meetings. They don’t have a very good system of sharing the information after liaisons meet. He thinks department heads assume the information is being shared, and it’s not. Harney said it becomes difficult when it involves three Board members at a time. Neuzil said they’re seeing a better situation and mentioned several department heads that send updates to the Board. Sullivan said he thinks the Board needs to encourage all department heads to do that kind of thing.
Harney said he thinks Shramek’s last update was very well done. Sullivan asked if Shramek emailed one. Harney said yes. Sullivan said he doesn’t remember receiving it. Stutsman said she didn’t receive it. Sullivan said Shramek might not have sent it to all the Board members. Neuzil said they will have to look and see. Normally, department heads have a list. Harney asked Neuzil if he got some numbers out of Shramek’s update. Neuzil said he used Shramek’s year end report for a lot of this information.
Sullivan said the Board should take a couple of the updates they have received from County Engineer Greg Parker or Mental Health/Disability Services Director Kris Artley to a department head meeting. They can out black certain information, if necessary, and let the department heads know that is what they would like them to do. Neuzil said they should tell the department heads to forward their list to all of the Board members following each meeting with their liaisons, so they’re on the same page regarding accomplishments and goals that haven’t yet been met. Sullivan said the Board needs to be very clear that this is what they like and what they want. Stutsman and Sullivan indicated that department heads will not score as high if they do not do so. Sullivan said that not everyone has necessarily gotten that message; however, and he doesn’t know if anyone has told Shramek that. Like Harney was saying, he doesn’t necessarily want to grade Shramek on that now, but he thinks everyone would be expected to be doing it next year. Harney said it could be a goal. Sullivan agreed.
Johnson asked if the item should be added to the agenda for the next department head meeting. Neuzil said yes. He said it really involves doing two things: creating a list of what they’ve accomplished since they last met with their liaison and going through their identified goals to provide a progress report regarding where they are with those goals.
Stutsman said Shramek’s lowest score was in this area, and yet the Board basically didn’t list any reason why. Rettig said she was just about to say that. On the last evaluation, they included a sentence that stated how they expect it to improve or their hopes for improvement. Sullivan said it might be the lowest score, but it’s still an above average score. Stutsman agreed, but said she is thinking of how Shramek will consider the evaluation. Shramek will ask why. Stutsman said they need to include something, such as the Board would like more communication with all Board members on a consistent basis. Neuzil said that sounds good. Sullivan said he thinks written communication is important too because he can refer back to them. When he gets a report from a department head two weeks later, he can reference a previous one. Johnson asked if the Board wants to include an example. He said what he has written so far is that the Board would like to see more communication with all Board members on a consistent basis. Stutsman said that it’s not just reports, it is verbal communication too.
Neuzil said when he and Harney have met with Shramek on a monthly basis, she prepares a list that she checks off. It’s just basically that list that needs to be communicated with all of the Board members. Sullivan said there are times that Shramek specifically calls and says there is something she needs to talk to each Board member about. He doesn’t want to give the impression that Shramek doesn’t do that, because he thinks she does do that. Neuzil said they should request better communication with the Board after liaison meetings. Sullivan said the information listed under number four was all new to him. He said it’s good to see that those goals have been completed because they were goals when he was her liaison. He wouldn’t otherwise know that, however. Johnson said updates after liaison meetings were mentioned. He asked if a related comment could be listed after the previous statement. Neuzil and Stutsman agreed and suggested Johnson list it as an example.
Stutsman said Shramek gave herself a score of 4.25 for Professionalism, and the Board collectively gave her a score of 4.1. Stutsman read aloud that Shramek reflects a professional and concerning attitude when dealing with employees and the public. She is understanding, but firm when necessary. Shramek bases her decisions on law, policy, procedure, and past practice. She is confident with her decisions and recommendations, which are most often supported with thorough documentation.
Stutsman said the comments were good. Sullivan said he has a certain amount of sympathy for Shramek because he thinks she’s in the position of having to be the bad guy a lot. Stutsman agreed. Sullivan said a lot of other department heads are not in that position. Shramek has to say no to a lot of things, and he doesn’t know if the Board clearly recognizes the challenge involved. Stutsman said maybe the Board should say that they understand that Shramek’s position requires her to be the tough person a lot and that they recognize and appreciate the fact that she’s doing her job the way it’s supposed to be done.
Stutsman said there was a comment somewhere about Shramek being rigid. Harney said it was under number seven. Stutsman said she thinks the Board wants Shramek to be rigid in some cases, and she doesn’t want it to come across as a criticism. Harney said he doesn’t think the statement is wrong, and he thinks Shramek does come across like that sometimes. Stutsman asked if the Board can state that they know there is criticism that she comes across as rigid and started to suggest a continuation of the statement. Harney said he doesn’t think the statement was bad because it’s true. Stutsman said she thinks the opposite of rigid is wishy-washy, and she doesn’t think she wants Shramek to be wishy-washy when she deals with people. Harney said he is not saying that at all. Neuzil said he doesn’t see it like that, but the Board could comment after that sentence that it isn’t always a bad thing or something of that nature. For example, she may have to tell a particular employee that they are not supposed to be getting a particular benefit that they have been getting. He said it’s hard, but that situation has arisen in the past. Stutsman said she thinks it comes across as a criticism. Neuzil said he can see that, but it’s ok to follow up with something that indicates it’s really ok if she has to be the bad guy.
Johnson suggested starting a new sentence stating that the department is sometimes perceived as rigid, but the Board understands this may be necessary. Sullivan and Stutsman said yes. Neuzil suggested altering it to ‘at times this may be necessary.’ Stutsman agreed. Sullivan said there are certain departments that almost can’t be rated regarding how well everyone gets along with them due to the nature of their jobs. Stutsman said the salary survey is a case in point. She doesn’t think any of the Board members were getting the phone calls, questions, and feedback that Shramek was getting, and continues to get, regarding the salary survey. Stutsman worries that people think it was initiated by Shramek and consists of her suggestions and recommendations. Sullivan said he thinks the Board needs to talk about how they’re handling that when they get to the section regarding goals. Johnson said he changed number seven to state that the department is sometimes perceived as rigid, and the Board understands that, at times, this is necessary. It was included after the sentence ‘this makes the office productive’. Johnson said he added a sentence for number nine, which states that the Board understands that the Human Resources Director must take unpopular positions, and the Board appreciates Shramek’s professionalism.
Neuzil said Shramek gave herself a score of 4.25 under Skill Development, and the Board collectively gave her a score of 4.2. He read aloud that Shramek continues to keep up with continuous legislative changes, which can create short notice compliance challenges. She has attended the National and State Public Employer Labor Relations Association Conferences and the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) Training Conference. It was at those meetings that Shramek learned labor negotiation strategies, including neutrals, perspectives, getting what you need, and what convinces arbitrators in discipline, discharge, and contract interpretation cases. Shramek also attended the Diversity Climate Study Results Meeting during the summer of 2009 and the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) State Conference with her staff and encouraged specialized training for each of them.
Sullivan said Shramek gave herself a score of 4.25 in Supervisory Skills and Staff Development. The Board collectively gave her a score of 4.1. He read aloud that Shramek manages her department well and has reliable staff that maintains an “I can help you” attitude. Sullivan suggested the word maintains be changed to maintain. Shramek and her staff respect confidentiality and are always there to assist and provide updates and training. Shramek identifies specific duties and responsibilities to staff. Her staff has attended training over the past year. Winkowitsch attended Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, Public Risk Management Association (PRIMA) safety training, and H1N1 training. Wierman attended Grievance, Arbitration and Past Practice for Public Safety. There has been some office turnover, which is of concern. However, everyone in the office seems to have a positive attitude. Owen did a good job of developing office procedures, and the Board expects the same organizational skills with Human Resources Office Assistant Emily Fitzpatrick.
Harney said he actually put that Shramek delegates specific duties rather than identifies specific duties. Sullivan said that makes more sense. Neuzil agreed. Rettig said she is curious whether the full names of employees should be used since they were used in previous places, but only the first names were listed in this section. She asked if that is common. Sullivan said the evaluations typically aren’t for anyone outside of seven people or so. Neuzil indicated that it only matters that Shramek knows who they’re talking about. He said one of the reasons for it is that he and Harney kind of cut and pasted stuff when they prepared this. Neuzil said it doesn’t matter either way.
Stutsman said she thought Owen was the only one who left last year. Sullivan said Human Resources Office Assistant Susan Vileta left about three years ago. Stutsman said she thought the Board was just doing the evaluation for this year. To be perfectly honest, she doesn’t think it’s noteworthy to mention that. She said it is normal attrition and people have their own personal reasons. Stutsman said she talked to Owen, and she never got a sense that she left because of the way the office was managed. Sullivan said it’s a 24 hour a week job, and he thinks a little more turnover is expected with those positions. Harney said he received the opposite information from Owen when she left. He said there were issues. Neuzil agreed and said information is obtained from other individuals as well. He said he is okay with either including or taking out the sentence. Stutsman said she doesn’t think it’s any different from any other office. Sullivan said he wonders if it would be better stated as a goal. A question could be asked regarding whether the position is doing what it should be doing and if it is a job description that Shramek can find people to fill and do. Neuzil said he would be sharing more if this was in closed session, but Shramek doesn’t want that. He won’t bring it up because he doesn’t think that’s right. Harney agreed. Sullivan said he doesn’t know anything about it. He can’t tell them not to include the sentence because he doesn’t know what it is. Neuzil said he is ok with removing it. Johnson asked if Neuzil is referring to both of the last two sentences or if the last sentence should be included. Stutsman asked if they should leave ‘everyone in the office seems to have a positive attitude’. Neuzil said he is okay with just taking out the first part of the sentence. He indicated that Fitzpatrick has a pleasant demeanor.
Neuzil said he doesn’t think the final score has changed because they flip-flopped a few scores. In the end, the final collective Board score is a 4.1. Sullivan said last year’s number isn’t on the evaluation, and he is curious as to whether they know what it was. Neuzil say they may not. Stutsman commented that the final score they gave Shramek is close to the score Shramek gave herself, and that is good. Neuzil said a lot of the information the Board normally builds on wasn’t forwarded to Johnson so some information was more difficult to obtain. He said they will just leave it at that. Neuzil thinks Shramek’s score last year was 4.2, based on his information from last year. He said it was fairly close to the current score.
Stutsman asked if any other Board members find it helpful to have the past scores. Neuzil said yes. Stutsman said she likes to have them for consistency so the Board is not clear off the map. She can look back and see if a person did a much better job than during the previous year so the current evaluation reflects it. Neuzil said there will be new evaluation forms, but it would still be nice to have the information, at least for some categories. Neuzil said they will have to start over. Harney said they’re nice to have, but he doesn’t like to reference what employees did last year because he’s evaluating what they did this year. Neuzil said it doesn’t hurt to have them though. Stutsman said they provide an overall picture. Neuzil said a sense of where the employee is moving is obtained. Stutsman said she always thought it was helpful to see where department heads rank because there are some she thinks should consistently be at the top. The details do not always reflect the bigger picture. Johnson said there is a place on the spreadsheet to add previous scores, and he can do so if he has the previous evaluations. Johnson said Shramek’s previous evaluation could not be located. Harney said he thinks there is a tendency to take certain statements as criticism, although their basic purpose is to help individuals improve and make them aware of what other people perceive.
Neuzil suggested the Board move on to the Goal Setting section and start with Review of Previous Goals. Rettig read goal number one aloud: complete the updated employee evaluation form. Not completed. The project is in the final stage. Harney read another goal: to complete certification as a certified labor relations specialist. Not completed. Shramek attended the required training, but has not yet written the research paper required. Stutsman read: complete the salary survey for non-bargaining employees. Not completed. The project is in the final stage. Additional employees are likely to be added for a new study. Neuzil said number four is developing strategies for improving County hiring in regards to AAEEO measures, and that has been completed. Sullivan read number five aloud: provide the Board with training in the preparation and administration of employee evaluations. Not completed. Training will be presented after the new performance evaluation is adopted. Rettig read number six aloud: develop personnel contingency plans in light of the current economic conditions. Completed. Harney read: continue to meet with two Board members, Harney and Neuzil. Completed. Harney said he would like to jump back to number two. He said he wasn’t aware that Shramek needed to write a research paper. He asked if the County paid for the training. If that is the case, the Board should certainly encourage Shramek to finish the research paper. Neuzil said yes, he put completing that certification in the Future Goals section. He thinks writing a final paper is one of the requirements, in addition to completing a specific number of hours. He said Shramek has completed all of the hours and just has to turn in the paper.
Rettig said there are seven previous goals, yet only three of them are completed. She asked if the other four goals were too large to complete in one year. Neuzil said it looks like most of the items are basically finished, although he made a note under Planning and Organizing. Stutsman agreed. Sullivan said it is sometimes a 13-month process rather than a 12-month one, as Neuzil was kind of saying. Sullivan said he thinks Shramek is a good example because they told her to do the salary survey a few years ago, but then the Board didn’t fund it so Shramek couldn’t do it. Rettig said it’s not like Shramek could have achieved the goal then. Sullivan said it was the Board’s fault Shramek couldn’t achieve it so they had to acknowledge that when they did her evaluation. Neuzil said it's also hard to question why the employee evaluation form has not been completed when the committee has had 16 meetings. Sullivan said Rettig is right that it’s something the Board needs to think about though. They need to make sure the goals are achievable, and if they are not, they at least need to document that. Neuzil added that the employee would not be penalized as a result. Stutsman said one of Parker’s goals hasn’t been met, but it’s at the County Attorney’s Office so it’s not fair to penalize him. Harney said a lot of times the Board includes them as motivation to do something. As Sullivan said, it sometimes goes beyond the time frame, just like the salary survey, and that’s coming to a conclusion. The goals at least give them motivation to get started on those projects.
Neuzil indicated they would move on to the section for Future Goals and Priorities Resulting from Feedback Session. Sullivan said number one is for Shramek to complete the updated employee evaluation form. Rettig said number two is for Shramek to complete certification as a certified labor relations specialist. Harney said number three is for Shramek to implement the Compensation and Classification Implementation for non-bargaining employees. Neuzil suggested changing the word ‘implement’ to ‘finish’. Stutsman said it looks like number four is a repeat. Neuzil said no, and indicated that number four refers to adding additional positions. Stutsman said okay and read implement Compensation and Classification Study for addition non-bargaining employees, as assigned by the Board. Neuzil asked Johnson to change number three to include the word ‘complete’. He said that project is obviously almost done. Neuzil said number five is to further develop and expand Johnson County’s AAEEO Plan. Sullivan said number six is to provide the board with training in the preparation and administration of employee evaluations. Rettig said number seven is to help the Board implement personnel contingency plans in light of the current economic conditions. Harney said number eight is to make customer service contacts with two departments per month to assess what Human Resources services are needed and desired, and customize accordingly. Neuzil said that is a goal that Shramek had, and they will have to obtain additional information. Sullivan said that is a good idea.
Stutsman said there are two separate goals regarding the employee evaluation, and she wonders if the Board should combine goals one and six. Sullivan said everyone who does evaluations will need training, not just the Board. Neuzil said this goal was one he specifically took from a previous evaluation. He said department heads get quite a bit of supervisory training, but the Board doesn’t normally attend those trainings so he included that goal. Sullivan said he thinks the Board had a training fairly soon after he started, and he found it very helpful. Stutsman said she thinks Shramek needs to concentrate on training now. Harney suggested changing it to ‘implement’ to get it done. Stutsman suggested including the phrase ‘provide the Board and staff’. Neuzil said number one could say implement the updated employee evaluation form. Number six, which says to provide the Board and department heads with training and the preparation in administration of employee evaluations, can then be added to number one. He asked the Board how that sounds. Sullivan said it’s not just going to be department heads either. In some cases it will be Supervisors, and it could be elected officials. Neuzil said it will be elected officials if the County Sheriff wants to incorporate the new study.
Stutsman said it really bothers her that the Board isn’t consistent with these employee policies, and she wonders if that should be a goal too. She knows elected officials can do their own thing or whatever, but it’s not fair. Sullivan asked Stutsman if he can interrupt her because she just hit on something he wanted to say regarding this issue. He thinks the Board needs to have Shramek report inconsistencies to them because he can’t keep them straight. Stutsman said she can’t either. Although it may not be a goal for Shramek, she thinks the sick leave payout issue needs to be dealt with. Sullivan said that is an issue for the Board to deal with, but he thinks Shramek needs to explain differences related between departments. Harney said the County Auditor rarely uses Shramek’s services. Although it might be better now, it was almost null for awhile.
Rettig said she thinks that’s a good point. Although she shortened her employee orientation because of a Board meeting, Human Resources employees told her that multiple things will differ by office. She understands that would have to be true because of elected officials, but she thinks the Board should be aware of where it differs. Stutsman agreed. She said the Board doesn’t always take advantage of their budgetary authority regarding these matters. If someone has a $17,000 payout at the end of the year, the Board doesn’t necessarily have to fund it. Stutsman said the Board may need to send that message to departments. If they’re not following the rest of the County’s policies, there’s no reason why the Board has to fund the payout. She said she was just using the aforementioned situation as an example.
Stutsman said the Board needs to have that information so they can maybe make related decisions. Neuzil agreed and said the same goes for the Sheriff’s Office. At least in the Board’s initial plans, they’re not going to be funding longevity in the future, but they are offering an opportunity for merit. The Sheriff would then have to implement that; however, he doesn’t have to. Sullivan said Shramek has certainly told the Board where there are differences, but he needs a sheet of paper that lays them out. Stutsman agreed and thinks a matrix or graph would be helpful to the Board in making these decisions. She said the Board has to have that information.
Johnson said he listed providing the Board with a summary of varying employment policies within the County departments and offices as number eight. Both Stutsman and Sullivan agreed that sounded good. Stutsman asked who the liaisons will be and if Harney is one of them. Harney said yes, unless they don’t want him to be one. Sullivan asked if this is where Rettig should jump in. Stutsman said it might be a good one for Rettig to learn. Rettig said that sounds fine. She said Johnson told her she has a list that they’ll discuss on November 5, 2010. Neuzil agreed and indicated that Rettig will take some of the responsibilities of other Board members to prevent them from having too many. He said the Board members generally want to have four or five. Rettig asked if Neuzil is referring to liaisons. Neuzil said yes. Sullivan said three is probably a little low and five is probably a little high. Neuzil said he is coming off of some and needs to get on some others. Rettig asked if the Board reassigns them in January 2010 anyway. Sullivan said no. Neuzil said they normally make liaison changes during the evaluation process. Rettig said ok. Neuzil said they try to keep one current liaison and bring in one new liaison.
Harney asked Johnson if he knows if Rettig’s nameplate has been ordered. Johnson said yes. Harney said it usually happens within a day or so. Rettig said that is all right because she knows her name. Johnson said it was his understanding that Secretary II Jo Hogarty ordered it.
Recessed at 10:16 a.m.; reconvened at 10:22 a.m.
Motion by Harney, second by Stutsman, to enter into Executive Session at 10:22 a.m. for an annual evaluation of County Engineer Greg Parker under section 21.5(1.i), Code of Iowa, “to evaluate the professional competency of an individual whose appointment, hiring, performance or discharge is being considered when necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to that individual’s reputation and that individual requests a closed session.” Roll call: aye: Harney, Stutsman, Neuzil, Sullivan, Rettig.
Motion by Rettig, second by Sullivan, to leave Executive Session at 11:19 a.m. Roll call: aye: Harney, Neuzil, Stutsman, Sullivan, Rettig.
Adjourned at 11:19 a.m.
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary