MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

JANUARY 6, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Public Health Modernization and Voluntary Accreditation Standards Meeting on January 11, 2010 1

Pre-Evaluation and Goal Setting of Secondary Roads County Engineer Greg Parker................... 1

Executive Session: Evaluation and Goal Setting of Ambulance Director Steve Spenler............... 32

Evaluation and Goal Setting of Secondary Roads County Engineer Greg Parker........................ 33

Executive Session: Evaluation and Goal Setting of Information Technology Director Jean Schultz 44

Executive Session: Pre-Evaluation and Goal Setting of Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia 44

Business from the Board of Supervisors: Reviewing and Changing the Department Head Liaison-Evaluation Matrix for 2010 Evaluations............................................................................................................. 44

      Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 8:06 a.m.  Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.

Public Health Modernization and Voluntary Accreditation Standards Meeting on January 11, 2010

      Executive Assistant Andy Johnson asked Board members if at least three members are interested in attending the Public Health Modernization and Voluntary Accreditation Standards Meeting.  Board members discussed their interest and because there are at least three who want to attend, this will be an official meeting and an agenda will be posted.  Johnson said the meeting is scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on January 11, 2010.

Pre-Evaluation and Goal Setting of Secondary Roads County Engineer Greg Parker

      Stutsman said that the Board will be doing a revised pre-evaluation and goal setting of County Engineer Greg Parker.  They will then have Parker's evaluation shortly after the pre-evaluation.  County Engineer Greg Parker did not want an Executive Session for his pre-evaluation and goal setting.  Stutsman talked to County Attorney Janet Lyness about not having an Executive Session and about what items the Board is allowed to discuss.  Stutsman stated that Lyness said that the Board is free to talk about anything in Parker’s pre-evaluation that they would do in the Executive Session but Lyness did say that the Board may not mention any other names or anything that was talked about in the previous Executive Session with the personnel issue.  Harney said his understanding after having spoken with Lyness is that the Board can have a closed session to discuss the pre-evaluation but when the Board gives the pre-evaluation to Parker, he can have an open session with everyone.  Stutsman said she thought that when the Board had that Executive Session, it was just to deal with a personnel issue rather than the evaluation itself.  Sullivan said that anything that came from the closed session the Board held cannot be brought up in the open session.  Johnson said that the prior closed session was to discuss a specific personnel issue.  Stutsman stated that they did not discuss the evaluation during that Executive Session. 

      Stutsman said in the area of Job Knowledge, Parker gave himself a score of 4.1 and the Board gave him a 4.0.  Stutsman read that Parker is very knowledgeable about the required duties of a County Engineer and does a good job of applying this knowledge to assignments.  He is frequently called upon by other County Engineers for his opinion about projects in their counties.  He is viewed by his peers as very knowledgeable about Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) requirements and procedures and engineering principles. 

      Sullivan said in the area of Planning and Organization, Parker gave himself a score of 4.0 and the Board gave him a 3.9.  Sullivan read that it has been a very busy year for the Secondary Roads Department since several road, bridge, and maintenance projects were planned, designed, and completed.  Most were completed on schedule with the weather playing a key role in the projects that fell behind.  The influx of stimulus dollars meant a lot of additional work for the department.  But Secondary Roads was able to get projects shovel ready in order to take advantage of the Federal dollars.  Managing all of the projects and contracts has required a great deal of planning and organizing by the department. 

      Rettig said that in the area of Decision Making and Problem Solving Parker gave himself a score of 4.0 and the Board gave Parker a 3.6.  Rettig said that Parker is willing to consider other options for road projects due to the current situation with the Secondary Roads budget.  An example of this is his reconsideration from a resurfacing project on Lower Old Highway 6 to a seal-coat surface.  This change would save some money and give the Secondary Roads Department five to seven years before the project would need to be completed.  Even with many budget challenges, Parker has done a good job of managing and staying within his budget.  He demonstrated his problem solving by coming up with a solution to replace the dump truck that was totaled on Highway 218.  There is a tendency to let personnel issues linger.  Parker needs to follow the union contract.  Unless Parker is absolutely sure, he needs to check with Human Resources (HR), which is why HR exists. 

      Harney referred to one instance with the residency requirements that the Board and County Attorney didn't address.  Stutsman said that Parker, as a manager, should continue to follow up on that issue but he doesn’t.  Stutsman said that Parker had stated that Lyness had not gotten back to him.  Stutsman said that he could have followed up with the County Attorney, but he doesn't.  Harney said that Parker had addressed the Board several times about the issue, but that he could not confirm any details about Parker’s contact with Lyness.  Stutsman reported that she does not remember Parker initiating the question about residency.  Sullivan said the Board had a Key Issues Meeting where they discussed it, but that he does not recall anything else or remember how the meeting topic was initiated.  Rettig reminded the Board that she is still not scoring, including the people discussed today.

      Harney continued with the area of Quality of Work.  Parker gave himself a score of 4.1 and the Board gave Parker a 3.8.  Harney said that this has been a busy construction year for Secondary Roads.  The projects that have been completed look great.  There have been many positive additions and improvements to the Johnson County road system.  All bid lettings have been handled well and are on schedule.  Many positive comments were heard about the project on Linder Road. 

      Neuzil confirmed that he had heard some positive comments, but that he had heard from others that Linder Road had not been completed in full.  He said that there is also a large hole/gravel spot.  Sullivan said he had received some complaints recently on that.  Harney agreed about the potholes, but reported that it was because Parker had wanted the section to settle through the winter.  Stutsman asked why it was not completed prior to winter.  Neuzil said that it was one of those deals where Secondary Roads will have to add additional rock more often because the holes are going to come back quickly, especially when snow trucks come through.  Rettig stated that she traveled Linder Road the other day and it is absolutely awful.  Neuzil said that it was one of those projects that they did not get completed, so there will be more maintenance.  Harney said that he had talked with Parker about the road, and that Parker had wanted Linder Road to settle because this situation was going to be similar to what happened to Prairie Du Chien Road.  After winter, Secondary Roads can grade it out and hard surface it, but it will be problematic until then.  He has had many more positive comments about the diligence seen in snow removal, when he typically gets negative comments.  Stutsman added that the Board is getting into the recency factor.  She said that when they give the evaluation to Parker they should say that since the evaluation was written a few months ago, the Board has received comments on Linder Road, which Parker needs to address.  Harney added that it is difficult for Secondary Roads to prepare the road for a hard surface treatment once the ground freezes.

      Neuzil said in the area of Productivity Parker had given himself a score of 4.3 and the Board collectively gave a score a 3.8.  Neuzil said Parker has worked very hard to meet all the time frames set by the Federal government in order to receive Federal Stimulus funds.  He needed to be constantly vigilant to make sure that all of the paperwork had been completed correctly and in on time, which was not an easy task.  He was able to submit several projects that ultimately received funding.  He has received and updated many of the 28E agreements between Johnson County and other municipalities.  There have been fewer complaints of Parker attending meetings and not being present in the office.  There are some occasions where direct instructions from the Board are not done.  For example, he neglected to follow through on the road vacation of 145th Street.  One instance of this type is too many. 

      Sullivan stopped Neuzil and asked if the Board could review a couple sentences.  He was not clear on what it meant when it was said that there had been fewer complaints of Parker attending meetings.  Stutsman explained that people complained that Parker was never in the office because he had been attending meetings.  When Parker was on a national board, it had required a lot of his time out of the office.  Sullivan said the way it is written doesn't quite say that.  Stutsman suggested that the Board should state that Parker was attending meetings outside of the office, or Johnson County, in order to clarify the issue.  Sullivan said that he wondered why people would complain if Parker was in a meeting.  Harney stated that people were complaining because Parker was at meetings held by the State of Iowa and other non-local meetings.  He noted that Johnson County typically encourages their staff to engage in meetings and committees outside of the region and that the Board members also attend many meetings in Des Moines.  Sullivan said the Board needs to be more specific so that Parker knows what the Board is talking about.  Stutsman asked if the Board is OK with the score of 3.8 that was given from the Board.  The Board agreed. 

      Stutsman said that in the area of Initiative, Parker had evaluated himself as a 4.3 and the Board assessed Parker as a 3.5.  Stutsman read from the evaluation that Parker always responds to questions from the public or Board members in a very timely fashion.  He does well communicating to constituents by email or phone.  Few complaints have come from the public regarding Parker’s response time.  Parker worked with the City of Shueyville to prepare a funding plan for the improvement of 120th Street.  The Board will want to see additional options for this project.  Parker has accomplished many of the goals set out in the last evaluation.  But the Board would still like to see more innovative ideas, including funding and projects, and creative solutions to problems encountered by Secondary Roads.  The Board is pleased to see an alternative proposed to current dust alleviation options. 

      Sullivan said that, in the area of Cooperation and Teamwork, Parker had evaluated himself as a 4.0 and the Board assessed Parker as a 3.6.  Sullivan said that Parker works well with other department in Johnson County.  Planning and Zoning Department staff and Secondary Roads are able to communicate with one another on road and driveway issues.  He worked well with County Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne and County Treasurer Tom Kriz in order to come up with a bonding proposal for the Shueyville road project.  Parker did a good job of working with Lyness in developing a 28E Agreement for the Oakcrest Hill Road project.  Parker worked well with the City of Cedar Rapids on the Highway 965 project.  The Board believes that he works well with the contractors and SEATS.  There are still concerns with Parker and the Human Resources department.  His handling of the summer intern was not done according to County hiring guidelines.  Hopefully, he gained proper knowledge of this process for the future.  Parker and Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek continue to attend Synchrony sessions. 

      Rettig said that, in the area of Communication Skills, Parker evaluated himself as a 4.0 and the Board assessed Parker as a 3.4.  Rettig read that communication to the Board about Secondary Roads projects has been excellent.  Parker provides monthly written updates about Secondary Roads activities to his liaisons and they then forward these to the Board for review.  Parker has had to deal with some very challenging constituents this year and he has done this professionally and with patience.  His verbal and writing skills are very good.  Parker is very good at consulting with the Board prior to moving on with something.  An example is the vacation of the Level B road on Johnson/Cedar County Line Road.  The Board appreciates the executive summaries composed for the Board, and feels he has done a better job of presenting information in a timely manner.  Parker also does a good job of forewarning the Board about issues that may be presented to the Board.  Rettig said that the Board appreciates the significant improvement Parker has shown in the area of communication with the Board.  Parker needs to do a better job, however, of communication with his staff, even those employees who may not be easy to communicate with.  Rettig said that the Parker needs to work on communication so staff is comfortable coming to him with issues.  It may take some initial outreach in getting out of Parker's comfort zone but in the long run, the efforts will be worth it. 

      Neuzil said he has some issues with the verbiage, due to the recency factor, and he wanted to score the Communication Skills section lower.  Neuzil acknowledged that it is difficult to talk about any of this because they are meeting in open session.  He explained that he only received one update from Parker, which was important because it was the forewarning.  But now that there have been additional comments from other sources, and Neuzil is not sure he heard the whole story.  Stutsman said that she does not disagree with Neuzil’s concerns.  She acknowledged that there may be two different areas of communication to consider.  In one area, Parker has done well in his interactions with the Board regarding projects.  But he has not been as successful in the other areas of communication with the department and running the department.  Neuzil agreed about the importance of the initial forewarning, but thought that the Board should include more details regarding Parker’s lack of attention to keeping the Board in the loop of other issues besides road projects.  He said that Parker's two liaisons were informed, but there are times when everyone needs to be informed of certain issues.  Rettig said that as a non-liaison, she spoke with Parker on the day that he called immediately after the situation occurred, and that was the last time she has heard about the issue.  Stutsman said that Parker has not even communicated further about this with his liaisons.  Sullivan stated that Parker was in the Board of Supervisor’s office for another reason, and Parker discussed the issue with Sullivan briefly then.  Harney said that he had initiated some conversations with Parker about the situation.  Harney and Stutsman were both curious about the process regarding resolving the issue.  Neuzil asked whether Parker had held a meeting with Lyness and followed up with her.  Neuzil said he was confused about the real story and stated that a real good leader would fight for what they stand for.  Harney stated that he sat in on meetings with Lyness and the liaisons during Stutsman’s absence, but wondered if the liaisons should be giving the Board members further information.  Stutsman recalled Parker saying something at one point in time about having more communication with an employee.  Sullivan said that he spoke with Parker about the issue once briefly after a Board meeting, in the hallway, and that was it.

      Neuzil said that this is the Board’s opportunity to let Parker know how this could have been done better.  Stutsman added what Parker can do in the future also.  Neuzil reiterated that he merely wants to add that forewarning in some situations is not enough.  Stutsman suggested that the Baord say that when there is an important issue Parker he needs to make extra effort to keep all Board members completely informed and up to date.  Neuzil said that he appreciates Parker's updates about road projects, especially when he has to address constituents, but there needs to be more communication on other issues.  Stutsman agreed.  The Board members continued to summarize the semantics of the evaluation sentences in question.  The Board members and Johnson combined their efforts to summarize their thoughts and concluded that the evaluation should be edited to include the following response: while the Board appreciates significant improvements Parker has shown in many of the areas of communication, Parker still needs to do a better job of keeping the full Board completely informed of the status of other issues. 

      Neuzil stated that he is even out of the loop regarding who works at Secondary Roads.  He said he wondered what it would be like to be a staff person in the department not aware of what is going on either.  He said that he is not trying to be nosy about the situation, but that the staff of Secondary Roads is not adequately communicating to the Board members about relevant issues.  He said that even if Parker disagrees, Neuzil wants to have some way to track timelines so that the Board knows where Parker is in the process.  Stutsman responded by questioning the role of the Board liaisons.  She said that she had department heads communicate about paperwork and reports directly with her, which should be the role of the Board liaisons.  She felt that there was a need to clarify the role of liaisons.  Neuzil explained that it seems like the Board is out of the loop.  He said that if a department has an issue that involves the County Attorney, the full Board should be informed of the issue.  He said that the liaisons themselves should be aware of these types of pertinent issues and pay more attention to giving the Board a heads up in the report prepared for the Board.  Sullivan stated that it is not always negative, and that the Board wants to know when something good happens too. 

      Harney referred back to the Cooperation and Teamwork section of the evaluation and wanted to know how the Synchrony sessions were helping.  He said that he has the impression that neither Parker or Shramek are interested in working on the issue and their attitudes need to change for the Synchrohy session to work.  He said that this ongoing discord is making it a difficult working situation.  Stutsman agreed.  Harney explained that Parker should be directed to put a stronger effort into resolving the situation between Shramek and himself. 

      Stutsman recalled Neuzil’s suggestion about lowering the score from the Board in the Communication Section.  Neuzil stated that he already has scored Parker as a 3.4.  Stutsman asked if Neuzil is honestly OK with the score of 3.4.  Neuzil said that he is not necessarily looking for a performance improvement plan, or anything of that nature, but that he is a little disappointed.  Stutsman said that she feels like the Board is doing a very good job of making Parker aware of this disapproval and of the changes that the Board wants to see. 

      Harney said that in the area of Professionalism, Parker gave himself a score of 4.25 and the Board assessed Parker's score as a 3.8.  He read from the evaluation that Parker maintains a professional demeanor while working with the public.  He stands his ground on issues while not becoming confrontational or rude.  He has a strong sense of the road policies adopted by Johnson County and his role in seeing that these policies are followed.  The public may not always agree with Johnson County policies but he is able to communicate, explain, and enforce policies consistantly.  Even if Parker disagrees himself with a Board policy, he is cooperative.  Parker received a Leader of the Year award from the Iowa Chapter of the American Public Works Association (APWA).  Stutsman asked the Board if they were OK with that score.  The Board agreed. 

      Neuzil continued with the area of Skill Development.  Parker gave himself a score of 4.0 and the Board assessed Parker's score as a 3.9.  Parker has not attended the Synchrony Management training that the Board requested last year during his evaluation.  Parker has stated that he often has conflicts with the day and time that the trainings are scheduled because they are on Thursday mornings when he often has agenda items on the Board's Informal and Formal Meeting agendas.  Parker stays current with his course work on his Engineering license. 

      Rettig asked if this is a different Synchrony then what he is attending with Shramek.  Sullivan said that Synchrony gives management training sessions on things like writing good performance evaluations, for example.  He said that several Johnson County employees attend the sessions.  Stutsman added that the meetings that Shramek and Parker have are joint private sessions.  Neuzil asked about other skill development instruction that Parker does or can do.  He explained that the willingness to learn new skills goes beyond Synchrony.  He said it is nice to see that Parker goes to ISAC training, but he is wondering what he can do beyond the training he already receives.  Stutsman said that she is not aware of any.  She said that she was also not aware of any that his staff has gone to, other than the mandatory trainings from IDOT.  Harney acknowledged that he is not aware of what the IDOT training entails, but he knows that Parker attends a lot of the trainings.  Neuzil confirmed that Parker’s situation is different than his other staff because he has to stay on top of what is going on to renew his engineering license. 

      Rettig stated that she had an example of her concern.  She said she had sent Parker and Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak an email announcement of the Iowa Bicycle Summit coming up this month.  In the email, she had encouraged them to send a staff member to attend.  Rettig said that she had received a quick email response from Dvorak to let her know that Assistant Planner Josh Busard would be going.  She never heard from Parker.  Stutsman asked why Rettig didn’t call Parker to tell him why she thought it would be a good idea for a staff member to attend.  Rettig stated that she had encouraged Parker to send a staff person from Secondary Roads to go last year, which he did, but he then told the staff person to leave halfway through the event causing the employee to miss the most important part of the training.  Rettig reminded the Board that the topics that were presented at the Iowa Bicycle Summit have been confirmed as a priority for the County.  She expressed her concern that someone responsible for building these priority facilities for the County should be getting that type of education.  Even though Busard is attending, it wouldn’t have the same effect.  This type of event contributes to Parker’s own skill development as well as his staff’s, and the County should expect him to participate.

      Stutsman said that this type of participation could be included in suggestions in the next section of Parker’s evaluation, Staff Development.  Sullivan stated that if Assistant County Engineer Rob Winstead is actually the one that is responsible for building this type of infrastructure then it would make sense to send Winstead instead.  Stutsman said that maybe it would be good to question Parker about his interest in sending staff people to these types of events.  Sullivan reminded the Board that all of the engineering staff will have a good amount of continuing education because of their licensure maintenance responsibilities.  But he was curious to know if the licensure process is providing training that is applicable to their roles as County Engineers.  Stutsman encouraged caution when each individual Board member has a suggestion that may be a priority to his or herself, but may not represent the viewpoints of the entire Board.  She thought that Rettig should consult two other Board members about whether or not it is valuable enough to suggest sending someone.  Rettig responded by saying that she did not tell Parker and Dvorak that they need to send a staff member, but that she had just made them aware of the event. 

      Neuzil said that he likes the way that Dvorak communicates with the Board when he gets a suggestion to a Board member to attend an event or do some work.  Dvorak immediately contacts his liaisons and asks if it is something that the entire Board is interested in him doing.  The Board agreed that they like this.  Sullivan stated that Dvorak makes it a simple process for everyone.  Stutsman said that she had not heard about this issue from Parker. 

      Neuzil questioned Secondary Roads’ commitment towards trails.  The Board has indicated that trails are a high priority.  The Board may need to ask what Parker is doing to ensure that his staff is staying informed.  Sullivan and Stutsman said that it should be a goal.  Sullivan recalled that a couple years ago addressing the topic of trails development with Parker was similar to pulling teeth, and that it has only gotten a little better.  He said that the Board does not want to have to manage this way.  Stutsman agreed.  She added that a manager should pick up trend cues from the Board and respond accordingly, like Dvorak des. 

      Neuzil said that under Skill Development in Parker’s evaluation, the Board should bring up the issue of wetland mitigation.  Stutsman said that she hadn’t had a chance to discuss this topic with Parker, but has a suspicion that this issue was initiated by Coralville.  She said that the environmental and engineering firm that Coralville hired may have a connection with the Tama County wetland banking site.  Coralville may have been looking for an option to get the mitigation done quickly and cheaply.  Therefore, it took precedence.  Rettig reminded the Board that Coralville was asked to look into it more and the County has not had any feedback.  She said that the Board did not agree to go then.  Neuzil said that this issue could be something that the Board could bring up to Parker, but asked where the Board should put some of these issues in the evaluation.  Stutsman asked the Board to move on to the next section of the evaluation, and thought that maybe some of these topics could be addressed there. 

      Stutsman continued reading the evaluation area of Supervisory Skills and Staff Development.  The Board assessed Parker's score as a 2.4.  There appears to be a tendency for Parker to leave personnel issues unresolved.  For example, the residency issue, until they become major blowups.  There appears to be a perception among Parker’s has favorites among staff members.  The feeling among some staff is that those who Parker favors receive preferential treatment.  Right or wrong, this perception needs to be dealt with if morale is to improve in this department.  Parker needs to do a better job of documenting issues with employees.  There is no excuse for the lack of documentation of disciplinary actions in personnel files.  Discipline of employees is an important part of a manager’s job.  What has been done is inadequate.  The Board was dismayed when they learned that the discipline taken with an employee over the Sand Road paving issue failed to have documentation in the employee's personnel file.  The fact that Parker was ready to fire a long time employee over one incident with no previous progressive discipline was simply not acceptable.  A manager should know better than to even suggest such a drastic move when there is no previous documented discipline in an employee's personnel file. 

      Stutsman asked the Board if the message came across in that section.  Sullivan said that the performance evaluations that Parker has filled out for his staff were very poorly done.  There are probably 100 words total.  He has the exact same form for each professional person with only six total sentences.  He said that it is not an adequate evaluation or goal setting process.  His expectation is that department heads do much more than that.  Rettig said that the evaluation of the long-time employee that Parker wanted to fire had a good evaluation done just a few weeks prior to the incident on Sand Road.  Sullivan said that it was a good evaluation, but there was nothing in it.  Even if none of this had happened, and that there were no personnel issues, and someone had shown Sullivan the employee evaluation, he would say that it is unacceptable.  Stutsman said that she doesn't look at any other departments' staff evaluations.  She said that she asks the department heads if their evaluations are up-to-date, and that is the extent of her input.  She wondered how the Board should handle this piece of information.  Neuzil reiterated his view that there is no need for a performance improvement plan.  He said that he believes this issue can be communicated by the Board.  When Parker needs to have something reviewed in more depth, then that is when a performance improvement plan is necessary.  Given the nature of the incident and hearing stories that weren't disclosed to Neuzil previously, he said that these details need to be resolved now so that it doesn't happen again.  He said that if Parker needs to have some oversight initiated, then this is the time to do it.  He said that they need to slow down and fix some of these things right now.  Sullivan said that it needs to be a goal.  Neuzil said that the Board's collective score doesn't necessarily document this need.  He said that if the Board scores a two or below, the Board is compelled to address something immediately.  He said that the Board will then come up with a six month plan to resolve the issue and that Parker's score is on the border.  Neuzil said that if the Board doesn’t think it is a necessity, then the liaisons need to work harder.  Stutsman said that it should be something that the Board monitors.  Rettig echoed that at two, action is required unless otherwise stated.  Stutsman responded by saying that they could also lower the score to a two. 

      Neuzil said that he doesn't have enough information to get mad about the situation, but he is very close.  Sullivan said that Neuzil has an interesting point.  He said that in the last five years, he has rarely seen a department head staff evaluation given by the 16 department heads in Johnson County.  He acknowledged that this makes it difficult for him to compare Parker's staff evaluation style with others'.  Harney agreed that he did think the three or four of Parker's staff evaluation forms that Sullivan did see were inadequate.  Harney agreed that he had not seen any others as well.  He said that the evaluations are done within the departments and that the only time he views one is if there is a problem.  He proposed the question of whether Parker, or any other department head, needs more training in that managerial skill.  He concluded that perhaps Human Resources should consider this.  Rettig stated that the Board gets to see the final scores that the department heads give on their reviews, but they don't see the final score.  Sullivan and Rettig both said that if the final paper backing up the score is not requested, it is not seen by the Board.  Rettig asked about the new scoring system and if there will be new training accompanying it.  Stutsman said yes.  Rettig said that it doesn't mean that there doesn't need to be an additional performance improvement plan for Parker.  Neuzil said that the score that the Board gave does not reflect the need for a performance improvement plan, but that doesn't mean that there is no need for one.  He stated that there may be more pressure on the liaisons to watch this area of Parker's performance.  Neuzil said that as long as there is a goal that the Board is addressing, then he is fine with it. 

      Stutsman asked the Board members what they want to add to Parker's evaluation regarding Staff Development.  Sullivan said that something about the inadequate staff performance evaluations should be included.  Stutsman reminded the Board that their input on suggesting enhanced staff education should be included.  Stutsman and Rettig concluded that a new sentence should be included which says that Parker needs to do a better job of directing his staff to attend meetings that would enable them to bring back more innovative ideas or concepts to the County. 

      Stutsman said that Parker's overall evaluation score from the Board is a 3.6.

      Stutsman asked Sullivan to begin going over Review of Previous Goals.  He said that item number one is to continue work on planning and funding reconstruction of the Secondary Roads building, which has been completed.  The Board agreed that the work hadn't been completed and they would change the goal to ongoing. 

      Rettig said that item number two is to continue planning on potential shared maintenance employees with SEATS.  Rettig asked why this goal is labeled as complete.  Sullivan responded that they do not think this goal is going to work.

      Harney said that item number three is to continue work on replacement and new location of the Swisher maintenance shed.  He said that this is labeled as ongoing. 

      Regarding item number four, Neuzil said the goal is to work on plans for a sand and salt holding facility at the Oxford and Tiffin shed.  He said that this is labeled as completed.

      For item number five, Stutsman said the goal is to work on strategies with the City of Shueyville to resolve upgrade issues on 120th Street.  She said that this is labeled as completed.  Neuzil and Sullivan responded by saying that the street is not completely open yet.  Stutsman said she implies that the goal is labeled as complete because it is no longer a Board matter.  Neuzil disagreed.  He said that it is an initiative that the Board should continue to work on with Parker.  He said that he could think of twenty solutions to the problem, but that Secondary Roads had only presented one to the Board.  He suggested that it be labeled as ongoing since the strategies are still out there.  The information that Budget Coordinator Rich Claiborne provided the Board at the meeting on January 5, 2010 was more thorough than what Parker previously submitted to the Board.  Stutsman asked whether to label it completed or ongoing based on Neuzil's comment.  Neuzil asked the Board how many strategies Parker gave to them.  Stutsman added that Parker suggested either bonding or putting the money in the Secondary Roads budget.  Neuzil said that he was OK with ongoing.  Harney agreed and stated that it is not complete. 

      Harney said that item number six is to resolve alignment issues regarding the Sharon Center Road bridge replacement and the Cosgrove Street bridge replacement and approach grading.  He said that this goal is labeled as completed.  He said that Sharon Center Road project is completed, but that the Cosgrove Street project is not.  Stutsman said that Secondary Roads is waiting for the environmental clearance. 

      For item number seven, Neuzil said the goal is to finish the Johnson County Road Performance Standards chip seal policy.  He said that this goal is labeled as completed.

      For item number eight, Stutsman said the goal is to solidify road policies by writing and developing a public manual of all policies.  She said that this goal is labeled as ongoing. 

      For item number nine, Sullivan said that the goal is to continue to work with the Planning and Zoning Department and the Board on efforts to determine road designs in heavily residential rural areas.  He said that this goal is labeled as ongoing.

      Rettig said that items number ten is to resolve driveway issues with Planning and Zoning and the Board of Supervisors.  She said that this goal is labeled as ongoing.

      Harney said that item number 11 is to study potential permit fee increases for driveways and culverts.  He said that the goal is not completed due to the economy and Secondary Roads has decided not to pursue this goal for the time being. 

      Stutsman suggested that the Board label goals eight, nine and ten as not completed, instead of ongoing.  Sullivan said that he thinks Parker has done nothing with goal number nine yet.  Harney said that there have been agriculture related issues with the driveway goals.  Neuzil reminded the Board that the driveway goal has been listed for two years and it still has not yet been completed.  Sullivan felt that number eleven has an inadequate answer from Parker regarding the goal's status.  He said that when the taxpayers have to pay for Secondary Roads Assistant Maintenance Superintendent Frank Floerchinger to go out to a residence six times, the County should be able to charge a fee to the person whose problem results in his multiple visits. 

      Regarding item number 12, Harney said that the goal is to continue to address gravel to Level B road upgrades through the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).  He said that this goal is labeled as not completed since funding is not available at this time.

      Neuzil said that item number 13 is to continue to keep abreast of issues regarding Johnson County trails and provide leadership on trail initiatives, which includes working with the Conservation Department in conjunction with the Board and providing analysis of when and if separated trails can be developed when roads are being upgraded or reconstructed.  He said that this goal is labeled as ongoing. 

      Stutsman said that item number 14 is to attend Human Resources training programs and work related professional development activities including conflict resolution with the Human Resources Administrator.  She said that this goal is labeled as ongoing and Parker stated that many of the training sessions are held on Thursday mornings when the Board meets. 

      Regarding item number 15, Sullivan said that the goal is to schedule an annual Secondary Roads tour with the County Board of Supervisors and others in attendance.  He said that this goal is labeled as completed. 

      Rettig said that item number 16 is to improve performance regarding the Iowa Municipalities Workers' Compensation Association (IMWCA) safety report.  She said that this goal is labeled as completed.  She read that the inspection is done and the results show no glaring issues. 

      Harney said that item number 17 is to meet regularly with Board liaisons.  He said that this goal is labeled as completed for Stutsman and former Johnson County Supervisor Larry Meyers.  Sullivan asked Stutsman is she has checked off item number 16 with Human Resources Coordinator Dana Winkowitsch.  Stutsman said no and asked if Johnson was on the Safety Committee.  She asked Johnson if any issues had been brought up regarding Parker's safety report.  Johnson responded that he doesn't think so. 

      Neuzil started reading from the evaluation area called Future Goals.  He said that number one is to solidify road policies into writing and to develop a public manual on all policies.  Stutsman asked if there was a place where the Board could put their expectations for a completion date on these goals.  Neuzil said the established expectation is that Parker is given one year for each item in the Future Goals section. 

      For item number two, Stutsman said that the goal is to replace and relocate the Swisher maintenance shed.  She stated that it is an abominable place for workers. 

      For item number three, Sullivan said that the goal is for Parker to work on strategies for Shueyville to complete the 120th Street upgrade. 

      Rettig said that item number four is to study permit fees for driveways and culverts and to identify any other new fee structures for Fiscal Year 2011 and 2012.

      For item number five, Harney said that the goal is to address gravel to Level B road upgrades as part of the CIP when the budget gets funded.

      Neuzil said that item number six is to stay active in trails activities and to assign a staff engineer to attend meetings.  Rettig stated that she believes this goal should go beyond just attending meetings.  She said that more innovative ideas will come from attendance at events like the Bicycle Summit.  She recalled that the Buchanan County Engineer Brian Keierleber will be there.  She said that he is building brand new bridges for vehicles from boxcars, which results in costs being cut by as much as two-thirds.  Keierleber will be there giving educational presentations regarding roads engineering, not necessarily for trails.  Rettig said that she believes Johnson County is not getting innovative ideas.  Stutsman agreed that this should be placed as an additional goal in the Future Goals section of the evaluation. 

      Harney referred back to item number 11 in the prior section which is named Review of Previous Goals.  He said that item number 11 is in conflict with Future Goals item number four.  He understood that in number 11 the Board is stating that there is no longer an interest in pursuing that goal, yet in Future Goal number four the Board is instructing Parker to pursue it over the next year.  Stutsman added that number four is to be pursued if any new fee structure should arise in Fiscal Year 2011 and 2012.  She said that she thinks the Board is instructing Parker to revisit it.  Stutsman said that she is OK with leaving these two goals in the evaluation as they are currently written.

      Stutsman continued with item number seven of the Future Goals section of the evaluation.  She read that Parker is to continue to attend Synchrony meetings with the Human Resources Administrator. 

      Regarding item number eight, Sullivan said that the goal is to provide the Board with strategies on Secondary Roads staff morale issues. 

      Rettig said that goal number nine is to schedule a yearly Board of Supervisors road tour.

      Harney said that goal number ten is to update and complete the snow removal policy.

      Neuzil said that goal number 11 is to do a work session with the Board on current budget and funding issues, recommendations, and strategies as to where Secondary Roads should be on reserves.  He said that this should be done prior to the due date of the 5 Year Road Plan.

      Stutsman said goal 12 is for Parker to meet regularly with assigned Board liaisons for Stutsman and Sullivan.  Rettig said that number 12 should be moved to number 13.  She said that goal number 12 should cover the staff education issue that was spoken of prior.  Rettig said that they should also get better at learning about new innovative ideas, ways to save money, and funding streams. 

      Neuzil reminded the Board that the goals in the previous section that were labeled as ongoing or not completed could now be moved over to items in the Future Goals section of the evaluation.  He directed the Board to revisit previously discussed numbers one, eight, nine and ten in the Review of Previous Goals section.  Sullivan asked if number nine is really an issue and speculated whether the Sandy Beach Road project would get completed or not.  Neuzil said that number one is an unresolved conflict because Parker has not yet finished the upgrade of a chip seal road.  Stutsman reiterated that this is a good example of Parker not fully giving the Board new and innovative ideas.  Neuzil recalled that innovative ideas were used on Oak Crest Hill Road, which included the use of guard rails.  He said that Secondary Roads claimed that the guard rail was able to be utilized on Oak Crest Hill Road, but not on Newport Road or Prairie Du Chien Road. 

      Sullivan talked about a previous time when the City of Iowa City Public Works Director Rick Foss came to the Board and said that the City of Iowa City was going to finish Lower West Branch Road to the new Saint Patrick's Church parcel and then outlaid their detailed plan for a trail and sidewalk to be completed soon after.  He questioned why Johnson County couldn't also do the same thing someplace else. 

      Sullivan said that the Future Goals section is becoming a long list, but that it contains issues that need to be resolved.  Harney brought up the goal of the driveway and culvert fees mentioned in the prior section and suggested that the Board should request that Parker provide them with a solution regarding the agricultural access problems.  Neuzil stated that this issue is an issue where Parker does not agree with a change in policy.  He also noted that there were three Board members that wanted a change in policy.  Stutsman said that the point of this request is that Parker needs to bring it forward so that the Board can discuss this item.  She said that Parker is currently ignoring the issue and hoping it will go away.  Neuzil agreed that it is a good goal to include. 

      Sullivan said that there were more goals that he would like to add to the Future Goals section of the evaluation.  He said that one is related to his frustration about the maintenance progress during the current budget season.  He recalled hearing from Secondary Roads Maintenance Superintendent Kevin Hackathorn that the County is behind on completing maintenance.  Stutsman agreed.  Sullivan went on to say that Hackathorn illustrated to the Board how much more everything costs and how much less the County is getting done.  This indicated to Sullivan that maintenance has not been managed well.  He felt that if Parker was doing his job, then Parker should be requesting access to the Board to report the increase in expense and to say that Secondary Roads needs to procure more funds in order to maintain status quo.  He said Parker is giving the Board the impression that Secondary Roads is getting by and that they are able to maintain the same as in the past.  He said that, from what Hackathorn said, the County is not maintaining the roads the same as the past and that the Board was not made aware of this.  Harney said that Secondary Roads should see an annual rise in costs, just the same as the cost of living.  Stutsman said that she was stunned when Hackathorn showed that the Board had cut annual inflation increases in maintenance funds out of the budget. 

      Sullivan said that the Board had previously suggested the Secondary Roads put away money in their budget for replacement of major pieces of equipment.  He said, for example, each year Secondary Roads should set aside $10,000 in the budget for a specific piece of equipment, then the department can use that money to replace it with a new one nine years down the road.  He said that Secondary Roads is not doing this, which is inconsistent with how the County handles similar maintenance budget situations in other departments.  Stutsman said that the Board should write a goal for that.  The Board decided to include a goal that stated that the Board wants to be more informed and wants a better maintenance budget plan from Parker. 

      The Board revisited the personnel communication and evaluation goal.  The Board decided to include a goal that said that Parker needs to provide his staff with more strategies, morale, and that personnel issues need to be better documented, including evaluations, discipline, etc.  Rettig said she had spoken to Parker about the discipline documentation problem.  Parker had told her that the progressive discipline strategy had been removed from the employee handbook and that it wasn't an option for him.  Stutsman and Sullivan both contended that what Parker believed was wrong.  Stutsman asked Rettig if she had confirmed this with Human Resources.  Rettig said that she would have not contacted Human Resources two weeks after the conversation.  She said that this misconception is an example that Parker doesn't understand Human Resources procedures.  Stutsman said that the crux of the issue is that Parker has ongoing issues with Human Resources. 

      Stutsman asked the Board if anything was done with the concept of innovative ideas.  Johnson confirmed that this was already covered in Parker's evaluation and goal setting document.  He said that Ambulance Director Steve Spenler was now present for his closed session. 

      Recessed at 9:17 a.m.; reconvened at 9:23 a.m.

Executive Session: Evaluation and Goal Setting of Ambulance Director Steve Spenler

Motion by Harney, second by Sullivan, to enter into Executive Session at 9:23 a.m. for an annual evaluation of Ambulance Director Steve Spenler 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, Neuzil, Stutsman, Sullivan, Rettig.

Motion by Sullivan, second by Rettig, to leave Executive Session at 9:37 a.m.  Roll call: aye: Harney, Neuzil, Stutsman, Sullivan, Rettig.

Evaluation and Goal Setting of Secondary Roads County Engineer Greg Parker

      Stutsman said that Parker did not request an Executive Session for his evaluation and goal setting.  She said that if Parker has any comments during the evaluation, she wants him to bring them up. 

      Stutsman said that she is starting the evaluation with the section on Job Knowledge.  She read that Parker had given himself a score of 4.1 and the Board gave him a 4.0.  Stutsman read that Parker is very knowledgeable about the required duties of a County Engineer and does a good job of applying this knowledge to assignments.  He is frequently called upon by other County Engineers for his opinion about a project in their county.  He is viewed by his peers as very knowledgeable about Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) requirements and procedures as well as engineering principles.

      Sullivan said in the area of Planning and Organization, Parker gave himself a score of 4.0 and the Board gave him a 3.9.  Sullivan read that it has been a busy year for the Secondary Roads Department since several road, bridge, and maintenance projects were planned, designed, and completed.  Most were completed on schedule with the weather playing a key role in the projects that fell behind.  The influx of stimulus dollars translated into more work for the department.  Secondary Roads was able to get projects shovel ready in order to take advantage of the Federal dollars.  Managing all of the projects and contracts has required a lot of planning and organizing by the department. 

      Rettig informed Parker that she is not participating in the scoring at this time.  She confirmed that she will begin that task next month.

      Rettig said that, in the area of Decision Making and Problem Solving, Parker had given himself a score of 4.0 and the Board gave Parker a 3.6.  Rettig said, due to the current situation with the Secondary Roads budget, Parker is willing to consider other options for roads projects.  An example would be his reconsideration from a resurfacing project on Lower Old Highway 6 to a seal-coat surface.  This would save some money and give the Secondary Roads Department five to seven years before the project would need to be completed.  Even with many budget challenges, Parker has done a good job of managing and staying within his budget.  He demonstrated his problem solving by coming up with a solution to replace the dumptruck that was totaled on Highway 218.  There is a tendency to let personnel issues linger.  Parker needs to follow the union contract.  If there are questions, he should check with Human Resources, which is why they exist. 

      Parker asked about specific examples of any lingering personnel issues regarding the union contract.  Sullivan said that he thinks this comment doesn't apply to the contract itself.  He said that one example would be residency.  Parker confirmed his understanding and relayed that this has been addressed.  He said that the Board had previously given him instruction on what to do regarding the residency matter.  He said that one step was to consult Lyness.  He remarked that Lyness is busy and that the residency issue with Parker's department is not as much of a priority to Lyness as it is to others.  Parker explained that he has called Lyness several times, has met with her, and has spoken on the phone to her.  He reported that there is a meeting to discuss this on January 27, 2010.  He said that resolving this matter is a priority for him.  He explained that he is following Board instructions and waiting for Lyness to contact him with an opinion.  He said that he is still waiting for this. 

      Stutsman remarked that this is an open session, therefore everyone needs to be careful about remarks.  She reminded Parker and the Board that specific names and incidents are not allowed due to confidentiality.  Parker stated that he hopes he did not already make an error.  Stutsman confirmed that he did not, but that it was a good idea to go over the rule again before someone does mess up.  Parker reported that following County policy is important to him because it can create issues in Secondary Roads.  He said that the residency issue has been lingering and he does want to see it resolved. 

      Harney continued with the area of Quality of Work, Parker gave himself a score of 4.1 and the Board gave Parker a 3.8.  Harney stated that this has been a busy construction year for Secondary Roads.  The completed projects look great.  There have been many positive additions and improvements to the Johnson County road network.  All bid lettings have been handled well and on schedule.  Many positive comments have been heard about the project on Linder Road. 

      Neuzil stated that the Board was talking earlier about the time in which this evaluation was first drafted.  He said that there were many positive comments about Linder Road at that time.  He concluded that the Board is presently hearing complaints about the condition of the uncompleted portions of the project.  Neuzil explained that, under these circumstances, it could be an opportunity to maintain a higher level of service.  He said that he and Rettig had driven on Linder Road recently and reported on its poor condition.  He reported that rock had dislodged and the potholes had reappeared.  Parker agreed and said that the Spring weather had made it difficult for Hackathorn to complete all of the road regrading.  He said that he knows it will be tough on the residents until Secondary Roads can get the seal coat done in July 2010.  Parker explained that the best practice is to leave the road as a gravel surface and apply dust control.  He said that when this is done, then it allows the road to settle.  He stated that if Secondary Roads had seal coated Linder Road last year, then the road could have come apart.  He said the temperatures were too low to do so.  Neuzil reiterated that he is not questioning the timing of the seal coat work on Linder Road, but that he is requesting a higher level of current maintenance because of its level of use.  Parker said that he appreciates the heads up and will make this a priority.  Neuzil suggested that Parker might need to drive on Linder Road to assess its present condition. 

      Neuzil continued with the area of Productivity, Parker had given himself a score of 4.3 and the Board collectively a 3.8.  Neuzil said that Parker has worked very hard to meet all the time frames set by the Federal Government in order to receive Stimulus dollars.  He needed to be constantly vigilant to make sure that all of the paperwork had been completed correctly and in on time, which was no easy task.  He was able to submit several projects that ultimately received funding.  He has reviewed and updated many of the 28E agreements between Johnson County and other municipalities.  There have been fewer complaints of Parker not being in the office.  There are some occasions when direct instruction from the Board is not done.  For example, he neglected to follow through on the road vacation of 145th Street.  One instance of this type is too many.  

      Stutsman said that, in the area of Initiative, Parker had evaluated himself as a 4.3 and the Board gave Parker a 3.5.  Stutsman said that Parker always responds to questions from the public or Board members in a very timely fashion.  He does well communicating to constituents by email or phone.  Few complaints have come from the public regarding Parker’s response time.  Parker worked with the City of Shueyville to prepare a funding plan for the improvements to 120th Street.  The Board will want to see additional options for this project.  Parker has accomplished many of the goals set out by the last evaluation.  But the Board would still like to see more innovative ideas, including funding, projects, and creative solutions to problems encountered by Secondary Roads.  The Board is pleased to see an alternative proposed to current dust alleviation options. 

      Neuzil announced that he had heard another good comment from a constituent on January 5, 2010.  He said that, in regards to dust alleviation, the constituent was pleased with their ability to open up their windows this past fall. 

      Sullivan said that, in the area of Cooperation and Teamwork, Parker had evaluated himself as a 4.0 and the Board gave Parker a 3.6.  Sullivan said that Parker works well with other department in Johnson County.  Planning and Zoning Department staff and Secondary Roads are able to communicate with one another on road and driveway issues.  He worked well with Claiborne and Kriz in order to come up with a bonding proposal for the Shueyville road project.  Parker did a good job of working with the County Attorney in developing a 28E Agreement for the Oakcrest Hill Road project.  Parker worked well with the City of Cedar Rapids on the Highway 965 project.  The Board believes that he works well with contractors and SEATS.  There are still concerns with Parker and the Human Resources department.  His handling of the summer intern was not done according to County hiring guidelines.  Hopefully, he gained knowledge from this experience so County employment guidelines will be followed in the future.  Parker and Shramek continue to attend Synchrony sessions.  The Board would like to see a stronger commitment to resolving the differences. 

      Rettig said that, in the area of Communication Skills, Parker had evaluated himself as a 4.0 and the Board gave Parker a 3.4.  Rettig read that communication to the Board about Secondary Roads projects has been excellent.  Parker provides monthly written updates about Secondary Roads activities to his liaisons and they then forward these to the Board for review.  Parker has had to deal with some very challenging constituents this year and he has done this professionally and with patience.  An example is the vacation of the Level B road on the Johnson/Cedar County Line Road.  His verbal and writing skills are very good.  Parker is very good at consulting with the Board prior to moving ahead with something.  The Board appreciates the executive summaries done for the Board, and feel that he has done a better job of presenting information to the Board in a timely manner.  Parker also does a good job of giving the Board a heads up if he feels there is an isue that may be comign to the Board.  While the Board appreciates the significant improvement Parker has shown in many of the areas of communication, when significant issues exist Parker needs to do a better job of keeping the full Board completely informed of the status.  Parker needs to do a better job of communicating with his staff, even those employees who may not be easy to communicate with.  Parker needs to work on communication so staff is comfortable comfortable coming to him with issues.  This may take some initial outreach in getting out of Parker's comfort zone but in the long run the effort will certainly be worth it. 

      Neuzil referenced the prior personnel issue by saying that while Parker gave the Board the forewarning, there has been a lack of follow up.  He said that a number of the Board members are out of the loop regarding its status and about whether persons are still working for Secondary Roads.  He said that it is important to communicate with Parker's liaisons and to the Board to keep them more informed about the status of the issue.  Parker asked if Neuzil was referring to the most recent incident.  Stutsman and Neuzil said yes.  Stutsman said that Parker needs to increase communication when it comes to significant issues but that the Board does not expect this type of follow up on minor issues.  Parker said that Shramek had been sending out reports regarding this matter and that he was under the impression that this was the only information that the Board required.  He said that he knew Shramek had sent out emails regarding both actions that were accomplished.  Neuzil responded that a perspective from Secondary Roads would be helpful.  He said what happens is that eventually lower level employees in Secondary Roads may wonder what is going on.  He said this is an uncomfortable position for Neuzil because he has no ability to respond to inquiries about the personnel issue.  Parker reminded the Board that the specifics of the personnel issue cannot be discussed with other employees, which would be his response.  Neuzil said that he should be able to be informed about whether someone is working or not. 

      Harney said that, in the area of Professionalism, Parker gave himself a score of 4.25 and the Board gave Parker a 3.8.  He read from the evaluation that Parker maintains a professional demeanor while working with the public.  He stands his ground on issues while not becoming confrontational or rude.  He has a strong sense of the road policies adopted by Johnson County and his role is in seeing that these policies are followed.  The public may not always agree with Johnson County policies but he is able to communicate, explain, and enforce the policies consistently.  Parker has improved his willingness to cooperate with the Board policies which he may not necessarily agree.  Parker received a Leader of the Year award from the Iowa Chapter of the American Public Works Association indicating that his work his work is appreciated by his peers. 

      Neuzil said that he wanted to discuss Board policy cooperation in situations where Parker may not agree.  He mentioned that an item in the evaluation's Future Goals section covers the issue of driveway access and that the Board wants to see this policy item resolved.  He instructed that even if Parker does not agree with this policy change, three of the five Board members anticipate policy changes anyways and want this to be followed through soon. 

      Neuzil continued with the area of Skill Development.  Parker gave himself a score of 4.0 and the Board assessed Parker's score as a 3.9.  He read that Parker has not attended the Synchrony Management training that the Board requested last year during his evaluation.  According to Parker, many of the trainings are scheduled for Thursday mornings when he has conflicts because of Secondary Roads agenda items on Board meetings.  Parker stays current with course work required for his Engineering license. 

      Stutsman said in the area of Supervisory Skills and Staff Development, Parker gave himself a 4 and the Board gave him a 2.4.  She said that there appears to be a tendency for Parker to leave personnel issues unresolved.  For example, the residency issue, until they become major blow-ups.  There appears to be a perception among Parker’s staff that he has favorites.  There is a feeling among some staff that those for whom Parker favors receive preferential treatment.  Right or wrong, this perception needs to be dealt with if morale is to improve in the department.  Parker needs to do a better job of documenting issues with employees.  There is no excuse for the lack of documentation of disciplinary actions in personnel files.  Discipline of employees is an important part of a manager’s job.  What has been done is inadequate.  The Board was pretty dismayed when they learned that the discipline taken against an employee during the Sand Road paving issue failed to have documentation in the employee's personnel file.  The fact that Parker was ready to fire a long time employee over one incident with no previous progressive discipline was simply not acceptable.  A manager should know better than to even suggest such a drastic move when there is no previous documented discipline in an employee's personnel file.  Performance evaluations are not done adequately and need to be improved.  Parker needs to do a better job of directing his staff persons to attend meetings that will enable them to bring innovative ideas back to Johnson County.

      Stutsman remarked that this is the crux of the evaluation and what the Board sees going on in Secondary Roads.  She said that the Board took a lot of time in crafting these comments so that the Board can communicate about desired improvements.  Neuzil said that one suggestion is to have Parker's liaisons work with him on improving his evaluations with his employees, making sure they're filled out completely.  He said that, secondly, Parker needs to find better ways of integrating innovation from throughout the State of Iowa, and apply them to bridge, trail, and road projects in Johnson County.  He said that this may have the potential to save some money.  Stutsman said she wants this to start a discussion that may weigh out the pros and cons.  Parker agreed and said that he has three licensed engineers in the office that are required to attend training as part of their licensure.  He said he is not aware of any of them not doing so.  He said that Assistant County Engineer Rob Winstead is going to the trails meeting.  Rettig confirmed that he was there last night.  Parker corrected her by saying that he meant the trails event in Des Moines.  Rettig said that she was not aware that Winstead was going to that.  Parker said that Winstead notified him about possibly attending the meeting in Des Moines and asked Rettig if that was what she was referencing.  Neuzil said that would be an example but that Parker should have his liaisons put their attendance to these types of events in his report.  He acknowledged that there are skills and training requirements for licensure, but said that there is also the potential to come up with more creative and innovative ideas.  He referenced a creative idea the Board pointed out to Shramek. 

      Parker asked if the Board wanted him to bring forward the innovative ideas.  Stutsman said that the Board is not saying that Parker should send his staff to an exorbitant amount of meetings, but that she wants him to bring something back that could be applied to Johnson County.  Parker acknowledged his understanding and asked if the Board wanted him to record attendance at these events for Parker's next evaluation.  Stutsman said yes, as part of his liaison reports.  Neuzil said that it is common for other department heads.  He said that the people that go to these meetings should get credit for what they do.  Parker referenced the Oakdale Extension project and said that they are incorporating innovative ideas.  He said they are using contact pre-stress bridges on the road at a considerable cost savings.  He said that there are other examples that he could fill the Board in on going on in the office and he will comply if the Board makes it a priority. 

      Stutsman said that this could be the communication thing again.  Sullivan said that, during an evaluation, it is the time for Parker to inform the Board of his accomplishments but if the Board is not made aware of them, then Parker is not going to get credit.  Parker agreed.  Harney said that this conversation applies to the Professionalism section of the evaluation.  He said that the Board requested notification of any Secondary Roads professional improvement or extended training, including that which is necessitated by the licensure process.  Parker agreed.

      Stutsman said that Parker's overall score was a 3.6, which is good but that there are areas for improvement.  She started reading from the evaluation in the section titled Goal Setting.  She said number one is to continue working on planning and funding for reconstruction of the existing Secondary Roads building.  She said that this goal is labeled as ongoing.

      Sullivan read that number two is to continue planning on potential shared maintenance employees with SEATS.  He said that this goal is labeled as completed.

      Rettig read that number three is to continue to work on replacement and a new location of the Swisher maintenance shed.  She said this goal is labeled as ongoing.

      Harney read that number four is to work on plans for the salt and sand holding facility at the Oxford and Tiffin shed.  He said that this goal is labeled as completed.

      Neuzil read that number five is to work on strategies with the City of Shueyville to resolve upgrading issues on 120th Street.  He said that this goal is labeled as ongoing.

      Stutsman read that number six is to resolve alignment issues regarding the Sharon Center Road bridge replacement and replacement analysis for Cosgrove Road bridge.  She said that this goal is labeled as completed.

      Sullivan read that number seven is to finish the County Chip Seal Policy.  He said that this goal is labeled as completed.

      Rettig read that number eight is to solidify road policies to writing and develop a public manual of all policies.  She said that this goal is labeled as not completed. 

      Harney read that number nine is to continue to work on planning and funding for the reconstruction of the existing Secondary Roads building.  He said this is labeled as not completed.

      Neuzil read that number ten is to resolve driveway issues and access issues with Planning and Zoning and the Board of Supervisors.  He said that this goal is labeled as not completed.

      Stutsman read that number 11 is to study potential permit increases for driveways and culverts.  She said that this goal is labeled as not completed, because in this economy Secondary Roads decided not to pursue it.

      Sullivan read that number 12 is to address gravel and Level B upgrades to the CIP funding streams.  He said that this goal is labeled as not completed, because the funding was not available to accomplish this goal.

      Parker said that he had a question regarding number nine.  He said that Harney had read that it was about the planning and reconstruction of the Secondary Roads building, but he asked why that was ongoing.  Stutsman and Sullivan confirmed that this was accidentally mentioned twice, as number one and number nine.  Parker asked if that goal was in reference to the Swisher building or the new building that is completed.  Neuzil responded that it was in reference to the existing Secondary Roads building.  Sullivan said that this was in regards to reclaiming the old engineers' area of the old building.  Parker gave an update by saying that the north area of the new storage facility is cleared out because the material that Facilities Director David Kempf sold was emptied out.  He said that Secondary Roads can now move the old documents.  Parker said that Hackathorn told him that it was completed, but that Secondary Roads could not remove that until all of the documents were moved there.  He reported that Secondary Roads is now doing deconstruction of the existing office building and if the Board wants to visit the site, then he will give them a tour.  He said that all of the drywall is gone and that only the two by fours are standing.  He said that work is being done on the building despite all of the snow storms because Secondary Roads wants this finished by spring.  Harney asked if Secondary Roads staff is doing the work.  Parker confirmed this.

      Rettig read that goal number 13 is to continue to keep abreast of issues regarding Johnson County trails and provide leadership on trail initiatives.  This includes working with the Conservation Department in conjunction with the Board and to provide analysis of when and if separated trails can be developed when roads are being upgraded or reconstructed.  She said that this goal is labeled as ongoing.

      Harney read that number 14 is to attend Human Resources training programs and work related professional development activities, including conflict resolution with the Human Resources Administrator.  He said that this goal is labeled as ongoing, but that many training sessions are held on Thursday mornings when the Board meets.

      Neuzil read that number 15 is to schedule an annual Secondary Roads tour with the Board and others in attendance.  He said that this goal is labeled as completed.

      Stutsman read that number 16 is to improve performance regarding the IMWCA safety report.  She said that this goal is labeled as completed, with inspections done and showed no glaring issues.

      Sullivan read that number 17 is to meet regularly with Board liaisons for Stutsman and Meyers.  He said that this goal is labeled as completed.

      Rettig said that the Board is now moving on to the section in Parker's evaluation called Future Goals and Priorities.  She read that number one is to continue work on planning and funding the reconstruction of the existing Secondary Roads building.  Neuzil said that the Board really wants this done.  Parker said that he sees that.  He remarked that Hackathorn really wants the new bays done so that he can get the trucks in, so it is a priority. 

      Harney read that number three is to resolve driveway access issues with Planning and Zoning and the Board of Supervisors. 

      Neuzil read that number four is to solidify road policies to writing and to develop a public manual of all policies.

      Stutsman read that number five is to work on the replacement and new location of the Swisher shed.  Neuzil said that, on this goal, it has been noted that the condition of the existing shed is getting pretty bad.  He noticed that this goal has lingered out there for awhile.  He said that when the Board puts this goal back into the Future Goals section of the evaluation, that it means the Board wants more progress.  Parker said that he has expressed to the liaisons over the last year that Secondary Roads has been dipping into their cash reserves, which is how he would end up paying for the building and the potential new property.  He reported that he was nervous about spending those funds, but that everyone understood that.  He explained that if the Board wanted him to proceed with it, then he would go ahead to acquire a new property and move on it.  The Board said yes.  Parker said that everyone is behind the idea of a new facility, but that the progression of this goal was based on a financial issue. 

      Stutsman read that number six is to work on strategies with Shueyville for the 120th Street upgrade.  Neuzil explained that the Board has received a few ideas from Parker about how to proceed.  He said that the Board is getting to a point when a decision needs to be made to determine if this project is going to be accounted for in the budget.  He explained that, on a repeated goal like this one, Parker could have shown more effort in determining alternative potential opportunities for funding, such as the Rural or Debt Service Levy.  He noted that there needs to be follow up regarding the Board's questions in regards to existing red flags about Shueyville's financial responsibility for this.  Neuzil said that it seems like the Board could have had more information to them at this point from Secondary Roads.

      Sullivan read that number seven is to study permit fees for driveways and culverts and any new fee structures for Fiscal Year 2011 and 2012. 

      Rettig read that number eight is to continue to address gravel Level B upgrades as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), when budget gets funded.  Parker asked the Board whether he anticipates that CIP will be funded again next year as part of this budget, or is that going to be on hold.  Sullivan said that he doesn't know if the Board is there yet.  Stutsman confirmed that the Board is not there yet.  Neuzil said that the when part of the budget is not determined yet.  Parker said he was hoping to get a bit of insight into that.  Stutsman said that the Board will notify him when they get done.  Parker said thank you.

      Harney read that number nine is to stay actively involved in trails activities and assign staff engineers to attend meetings. 

      Neuzil read that number ten is to continue to attend Human Resources training programs with Human Resources Administrator. 

      Stutsman read that number 11 is to provide the Board with strategies on staff morale issues.

      Sullivan read that number 12 is that personnel issues need to be better documented, including providing meaningful job evaluations. 

      Rettig read that number 13 is to schedule a yearly Board of Supervisors road tour.  Stutsman remarked that the Board had fun, except for the cold vehicle.  Parker confirmed that the day wasn't so great but it was a good exercise.  Stutsman agreed.

      Harney read that number 14 is to update and complete the snow removal policy.

      Neuzil read that number 15 is to do a work session with the Board on the current budget and funding issues, recommendations, and strategies as to where Secondary Roads should be on reserves, before the 5 Year Road Plan is due.  Neuzil then referred to the conversation regarding the Board being caught off guard about the budget situation.  He said that he is not sure how that could have been communicated better to the Board but for some of them, the amount of impact that Secondary Roads had because the Board froze the Secondary Roads budget caught them off guard with what was happening with maintenance and things of that nature, until the budget work session with Secondary Roads this year.  Parker said that at every budget meeting he attends he explains the repercussions of flatlining budgets, therefore he has brought it up to the Board.  Neuzil said that the Board never really understood the impact that the budget freeze would have on maintenance.  Harney said that the proposed budget should figure in the increased costs to equipment and operations that are due to inflation. 

      Sullivan remarked that he thought the recent report Parker sent to the Board, which gave an outlay of purchasing options based on proposed budgets, was really helpful.  He said it was the type of information he would have liked in the past.  Harney noted that the report also had let him compare the purchasing power difference for this year and last year.  Parker said that for some of those things he won't know until they hit him, but he tries to estimate the cost increases.  He said that he has to do a cost projection for 18 months timeframe, which is difficult to do.  Neuzil said that Parker should come to the Board with a list of consequences when there is a budget freeze to specifically illustrate the impact to Secondary Roads.  Neuzil said this is a good way of advocating for more money.  Parker asked if he had done this during the current budget cycle.  Neuzil said that he had gotten a much better picture for this budget cycle.  Stutsman recalled Hackathorn's presentation to the Board on how much less he was able to accomplish for maintenance due to the budget freeze.  She said that it shocked her to witness the unintended consequences and that the Board wants to be more educated on these matters. 

      Sullivan said that the eye opener for him was that Secondary Roads was not saving money to replace large pieces of maintenance equipment in the future.  Parker contended that the Board had directed him to cut that out of the Secondary Roads' budget, and that he tried to fight for those dollars.  Stutsman and Sullivan both said that it was not made clear to them.  Stutsman remarked that this goes back to communication with the liaisons.  She said that she and Sullivan will be working with Parker and they need to tell him what they expect and what they're not getting so that they're all on the same page.  Parker said that he is looking forward to working with Stutsman and Sullivan over the next year.

      Stutsman read that number 16 is to explore strategies for innovative projects and funding streams.

      Sullivan read that number 17 is to provide the Board with more information and better planning regarding the maintenance budget.

      Rettig read that number 18 is to meet regularly with assigned Board liaisons, Stutsman and Sullivan. 

      Stutsman asked Parker if there was anything he had wanted to add to the list.  Parker said no.  He commented that he was at fault regarding the supervisory issue with his staff and that he can guarantee the Board that it will not happen again.  He said that he was dealing with a long time employee and a professional.  In the view of others, he was given preferential treatment.  Parker said that he assumed that his prior conversation with the Board was sufficient to cover this matter, but apparently it was not.  He said that what happened was unfortunate and no supervisor wants to deal with those issues.  He admitted that friendships do occur while working alongside others and that this aspect is probably the most difficult aspect of his job.  He said that he has clear orders regarding this now and he assured the Board that it will no longer be an issue. 

      Parker confessed that morale is a panacea word for him because of all of the negative things happening in the economy right now.  He said that employees are concerned about their jobs, the future of the County, and the results of the salary study, which is something he has no control over.  He said that he talked to his liaisons and employees about this topic because he was instructed by the Board to keep them informed.  He declared that morale is important to him, but that there is not much he can do for certain individuals to keep them content.  He said that he feels as though he is considerate to his employees and that his door is always open.  If it is a personnel issue that an employee asks about, he may not be able to talk about it with them, but he lets them know that he will give them as much information as he can about the matter.  He let the Board know that keeping 50 people informed is a huge task.  He said he talks to people in his department if necessary, but that times are tough.  He reported that he does not want to shrug off his responsibilities as department director.  He explained that he understands that he is being accused of this and looks forward to working with Stutsman and Sullivan in order to move ahead. 

      Harney reminded Parker that people in supervisory positions have to be careful when telling an employee that they cannot talk about a situation with others, such as Human Resources or the Board.  He said that he understands that Parker is attempting to keep to the confidentiality policy but if an employee is involved, then they can talk about it with anyone, because it is their matter.  The Board has an open door policy as well.  If there is an issue, then the Board wants the department heads to handle it, but the employee can also approach the Board.  Parker agreed.  He said that events have happened over the last 30 days that he was not informed of either.  He mentioned that he holds liaison meetings and wants to be informed of issues so that he can address problems that may exist.  He said that if the Board hears of a problem, he also wants communication from them so he can work on a solution before it blows up, such as what happened last month.  Parker admitted that the residency issue was something that had been going on for awhile, but that he received orders from the Board to wait for an opinion from Lyness.  He said that he has not received anything from her yet.  He also admitted that he has not been persistent about it either. 

      Stutsman said that if Parker is OK with the evaluation, then Johnson has something for Parker to sign so that they can add this to his employee folder.  Parker said that he looks forward to working with the Board for another year.  He mentioned the weather forecast and that Secondary Roads has 800,000 tons of salt left to order before they have exhausted their supply.  Rettig asked if that means that they have two storms or three storms.  Parker said that it is probably more like three or four.  He reported that the problem is that Secondary Roads has to treat each storm the same, whether it is two inches or ten inches.

      Recessed at 10:21 a.m.; reconvened at 10:25 a.m.

Executive Session: Evaluation and Goal Setting of Information Technology Director Jean Schultz

Motion by Rettig, second by Sullivan, to enter into Executive Session at 10:25 a.m. for an annual evaluation of Information Technology Director Jean Schultz 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, Neuzil, Stutsman, Sullivan, Rettig.

Motion by Sullivan, second by Rettig, to leave Executive Session at 10:45 a.m.  Roll call: aye: Harney, Neuzil, Stutsman, Sullivan, Rettig.

Executive Session: Pre-Evaluation and Goal Setting of Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia

Motion by Neuzil, second by Harney, to enter into Executive Session at 10:46 a.m. for an annual evaluation of Social Services Coordinator Amy Correia 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, Neuzil, Stutsman, Sullivan, Rettig.

Motion by Harney, second by Sullivan, to leave Executive Session at 11:22 a.m.  Roll call: aye: Harney, Neuzil, Stutsman, Sullivan, Rettig.

Business from the Board of Supervisors: Reviewing and Changing the Department Head Liaison-Evaluation Matrix for 2010 Evaluations

      Johnson said that there was some talk about changing the liaisons at the beginning of the year.  Stutsman said that they should keep the liaison schedule with the anniversary dates of the employees.  Rettig said that Stutsman is going off of the Social Services Coordinator and Information Services.  Sullivan said that the way that this works is that the liaison schedule changes with the anniversary dates of the department heads.  Neuzil said the new evaluation form is very detailed for scoring.  Stutsman said that the liaisons will have to do the scoring.  Sullivan said that Board members will need to see department heads' scores.  Stutsman said maybe that would be better for Johnson to keep that information in his office and Board members could go there to look at it.  Johnson said he has something similar to that because the Sheriff's Office asked for that.  Sullivan said the raise would be on the payroll authorization but they are talking about the actual score. 

      Adjourned at 11:27 a.m.

Attest:  Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary