• Synchrony Employee Programs Manager Paula Kelly: Performance Evaluation Training

• Discussion: Open Meetings Law

• Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne: FY 02 Budget and Budget Process

• Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek: Travel Time

• Supervisor Sally Stutsman: Communications Committee Update

• Reports/Updates from Department Heads

• Scheduling Date and Time of Next Meeting

Chairperson Lehman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building as a Department Head Meeting at 1:35 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.

Department heads present were: Ambulance Director Mike Sullivan, Conservation Department Director Harry Graves, County Assessor Jerry Musser, County Attorney J. Patrick White, County Engineer Mike Gardner, Department of Human Services Area Administrator Cheryl Whitney, Facilities Manager Mark Bulechek, General Relief Director Mary Kay Hull, Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek, Information Services Director Jean Schultz, Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak, Public Health Director Graham Dameron, and SEATS Director Lisa Dewey. Staff present were: Board of Supervisors Administrative Assistant Carol Peters, Board of Supervisors Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne, Sheriff's Major Duane Lewis and Auditor’s Office Recording Secretary Casie Parkins.

Lehman introduced Paula Kelly, from Synchrony, who presented information to the group about performance appraisals. She gave the group a packet containing an overview of things that she encouraged department heads to remember when doing performance appraisals. Kelly said that her biggest concern was that, often, performance appraisals are the starting ground of performance management, when in fact they should probably be at the end of the cycle. She encouraged the department heads to think of performance management as a year-round function of their jobs, and performance appraisal as the evaluation process. Kelly said that she was going to present on the overall process of performance management, talk about performance planning as well as performance appraisals, discuss some of the skills needed for performance appraisals and mistakes that people can make in writing them. Kelly asked the department heads and Supervisors to help her define the purposes of performance management and appraisals. They gave answers such as for feedback, benchmarks, and motivator. Kelly added that they could be a tool for the supervisors to enhance the performance of their departments. She said that effective performance standards communicated throughout the department, everybody should be on the same page, and working towards some of the same goals. She said that performance standards can also encourage "buy in" that they are all looking for.

Kelly asked the department heads to think of someone in their background who was a good motivator, who got good performance out of them. She asked, what were the characteristics of that person? The department heads and Supervisors gave answers such as having clear goals, honest, direct, clarifies expectations, knows when to push and when to pull. Kelly said that performance appraisals need to be based on open, honest, 2-way communication, and this communication needs to happen all year round. When this happens, she said, the performance appraisal is nothing but a summary of what the employee has been told all year round. Kelly said that proper documentation is part of the process, as is consistent bias-free assessment of the employee’s work. She cautioned against potential roadblocks to a good performance appraisal, including: over-emphasis of areas of weakness or strength, the rating of everyone in the center, especially in a merit-pay situation, the recency tendency (over-emphasizing something that just happened), and the "lot like me" tendency, which highly rates employees who are similar to the supervisor. Kelly said that staff goals should neatly follow departmental goals, all fitting into a pretty cohesive picture. She said that the department heads will only succeed when their employees succeed.

Kelly spoke about accurate, specific, and concrete job-related documentation. She said that the best way to keep personal biases out of the performance evaluation process is to be behavioral. She said that the acronym SOB, Specific Observable Behavior, is helpful in the process. She said that it was easy for managers to get caught up in saying that employees had a bad attitude, but encouraged the department heads to instead focus on behaviors that reflect a bad attitude: rude to the public, tardiness and attendance, negative comments, quality of work. She said that specificity and documentation would help in cases where the employee was a good worker and did their job well, but had a bad attitude. She cautioned against the term "team player." She encouraged the group to instead use more specific and behavioral-oriented phrases such as: does not volunteer when extra help is needed, does not contribute to staff meetings, is not sensitive to the needs of the department, is the first to complain, does not help out when long lines are forming, and does not ask to help other employees when his work is done. Kelly said that the group should not focus too much on the negative, but if there is a negative, they should make sure that it is specific enough so the employee has an opportunity to change it. She said that if an employee is told that they have a bad attitude, this is too general; the employee literally may not know what the behaviors they are expected to change. Kelly said that the group should also be careful that, when writing performance appraisals, they not penalize the employee in more than one place or section for a single decision, weakness, or mistake.

Kelly said that the key to the actual performance review is preparation. She encouraged the group to carefully prepare for these meetings, in order to get some good ongoing discussion with employees. She also said that the group should be sure to clarify what type of review it was: annual, probationary, etc. Kelly said that the group should give advance notice of the review, because no one liked to go to performance reviews. She said that if performance reviews felt threatening to department heads, they probably also did for employees. Kelly said that the performance review process should be interactive. She said the group should encourage employees to come prepared to tell their supervisors how they met personal goals, and how they think they are doing. She also said that a performance review should identify strengths, areas that need improvement, and developmental needs.

Kelly said that one of the things employees often complain about is that their supervisor only looks at certain things instead of looking at all the things the employee does. Kelly said that the performance review cannot deal with everything the employee does, but should focus on their major job responsibilities. She encouraged the department heads to try and find a private place to do the reviews, and said that they should pay attention to the physical proximity of the supervisor and employee. Kelly said that sitting behind a desk was perhaps not the best way for a supervisor to conduct a performance evaluation. She said that she thought the best way to begin was to have the employee give them feedback, and also said that it was good to start with strengths. She said that supervisors should try to solve employees’ problems jointly. She reminded the group that the supervisor’s job was to remove the barriers that impede people from doing their job. She said a performance appraisal should also let people know where they stand, if part of their work is not acceptable or needs improvement. She noted that when an employee signs the performance appraisal, this only indicates that they have received a copy of the report; it does not mean that the employee agrees with what has been said about them.

Kelly said that if the performance appraisal has been a negative experience, the supervisor may want to allow the employee to write something down in their own defense, to explain what is going on. She said that this might not change any of the actions but it can often defuse a hostile situation, because the employee feels as if they were part of the process. She noted that the supervisors lost nothing in allowing this rebuttal to be written; if the employee felt better about it, then nothing has been lost. Kelly noted that the follow-up was critical, and said it was especially important for the supervisor to follow through on what they said they were going to do. Kelly said that the thing she wanted to stress the most was that performance management was an ongoing process, not just the once-a-year appraisal process. She said that in order for people to do good appraisals, they had to know what the goals were at the beginning of the year, and they have to be measurable and obtainable.

Kelly asked the group what problems they had with writing appraisals. SEATS Director Lisa Dewey said that her problem was that the employee’s perception that they have excuses for everything they do and didn’t do. Lehman said that the toughest thing about being a supervisor was the arm’s-length relationship they had with their employees, in order to avoid employees taking advantage of personal relationships. Kelly agreed and said it was hard, especially in a small town like Iowa City, to keep the professional boundary intact. She said that evaluating behaviors, not people, would aid in this problem, as would citing concrete examples.

Kelly said that performance appraisals can become very emotional, with the employee becoming angry or tearful. She said that if the employee starts to cry, let them cry; give them Kleenex and time to get themselves back together. She said that if the employee becomes overly emotional, then the remainder of the appraisal should be rescheduled for a later date. Kelly said that if the employee starts to scream or yell, the supervisor should say that the interview is over, and then stand up so that they’ll leave. If the supervisor is worried about their physical safety, they should have a backup plan in place. Lehman said he thought there could be problems if an employee did not understand the procedures of the performance assessment going into a job. Kelly agreed, and repeated that it was important to tie the assessment into departmental goals. One department head asked about meeting them in the employee’s office, so the supervisor could leave if necessary. Kelly said this could work, as could a conference room, and said that privacy was the important thing. Kelly also told the group that in the case of an emotional employee, the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) could be suggested.

DISCUSSION: open meetings law open meetings law

Lehman introduced County Attorney J. Patrick White, who had circulated some information on how public meetings should be handled. White said that the memo was an outgrowth of some complaints about one particular county commission, and so they had agreed to put into writing some ideas about speaking limits. White said that nothing in the memo was terribly innovative or new; it said to use common sense, and don’t make the rules up as you go. Instead, identify them in advance, and articulate them rather than be arbitrary about them. White also brought some copies of the 9th edition of the Iowa Open Meetings and Open Records Handbook. He said that Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek had asked if all the various committees that have been created, the Communications Committee, the GIS Committee, etc. were subject to the open meetings statute. This would mean that they would have to have a tentative agenda posted 24 hours in advance of the meeting, the meeting needs to be accessible to the public, and the committee needs to keep minutes at some length. White said that there is some misunderstanding about the right to speak at the public meeting, and he said that he touched on this on his written memo. He said that the open meetings statute does not guarantee anybody the chance to speak; it guarantees only that they can be there and see and hear what is being discussed. The only right to speak at a meeting, White clarified, is where there is a public hearing, and by statute, the public is entitled to comment. He said that as a practical matter, most meetings of the Board of Supervisors include an opportunity for the public to speak, but that’s a policy discretionary judgement that has been made by the Board.

White said that electronic records were going to continue to be an item of some deliberation over how it applies to the public record statute. He said that it does apply: a record is a record, regardless of what form it is in, including electronic form. He said that people are doing a lot of electronic communication without recognizing that they’re creating a public record that is subject to being inspected and copied by a member of the public. White said that last summer there had been a media survey of law enforcement agencies which had subjectively concluded that law enforcement was not doing a very good job of complying with the open records statute across the state. In response, White continued, the Attorney General’s office and the County Attorney’s Association set up an Iowa Communications Network training for law enforcement, a 2-hour training at 60 sites, training over 800 people around the state. White said it was fairly valuable, and a good use of time. He noted that he had recommended, to no avail, that the need for that sort of training was much broader than law enforcement, and said that his hope was that this public records training could reach a broader spectrum of county or city officials.

Lehman noted that White’s memo was a good reminder that committees should make some ground rules up front, rather than do it halfway through. He said this can become a real problem. The Board of Supervisors and White had some discussion about how some meetings have included booing, cheering, and applause. White said it was good for the public to have an opportunity to vent, but said that one goal would be to avoid audience participation other than a speaker who has the floor to deliver whatever their message is.

Lehman introduced Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne to touch on some ideas and heads-up going into next year’s budget. Horne said that they had just completed the budget earlier this month, and said that all had gone fairly smoothly at the end. He said that the process had not changed much because this had been his first year in his position. Horne said that he had met with the department heads in the fall, getting some input from them on what they’d like to see. He said that he would like to propose a few changes for next year, and said that one would be lengthening out the budget season. Horne explained that department heads shouldn’t wait until they have their forms in hand to start working on their budgets. He said that decision packages might be something they want to start formulating in early August, and noted that the department heads did not need the forms from the Auditor’s Office at that point. Horne said that when they got the forms from the Auditor, then, it would only be a matter of filling them in.

White said that this was assuming the forms would be the same, and said that this year had been the first for a good many years that they had had the same format. White said that this had been the historic reason for not wanting to start early; the forms had changed every year. Horne said that this was not going to happen much anymore, and White said that he thought this was a step in the right direction. Horne said the number one thing he would like, and what he thought would help the Board the most, is if the budgets were turned in on time. Horne said that there had been several departments who had come in for their presentations and had literally turned in their budget that day. Horne said that this had not allowed adequate time for review for the Auditor’s Office or for himself to work with the Board and the departments on some give and take. Horne asked the group if there was any one thing that they would like to see changed in the process. Ambulance Director Mike Sullivan suggested keeping the forms regular from here on out. Thompson asked if there was anybody who didn’t use the computer for their budget, but had printed it out and worked on it with pencil and a calculator. Sheriff's Major Duane Lewis said he had worked on it with a pencil, but had submitted it on the computer. Thompson asked if he wanted more training so he could do it on the computer, as it would save him hours and hours. Several department heads discussed, and agreed, that certain parts of the budget, such as line items, were best done on the side, with pencil and paper. Lehman interjected that Horne was available to help the department heads as needed.

Horne said that the goals that were turned in were very uneven, and noted that there had been a lot of confusion as to what, exactly, that meant. Horne asked if the department heads wanted to keep the goal format in a budgetary sense, or if a short narrative about your department would be better. Sullivan said that they had had this discussion before in department head meetings, and noted that it depended on the department. He said that some goals are very difficult, if not impossible, to measure, while other departments have goals and benchmarks that can be easily measured. Public Health Department Director Graham Dameron said that they had struggled with this over a long period of time, to try and make something that would work for the Board during budget presentation time. He suggested that some departments might benefit from the narrative, while others would be better served by setting benchmarks and measurable goals. Horne said that his goal was a smoother process for everyone, for the departments as well as the Board of Supervisors, and making everyone more comfortable and providing consistency in the process.

White said that the department heads had started using goals a couple of years ago in response to the Board’s desire that they use performance standards. White said that he didn’t think the Board had understood how difficult that was going to be in a service delivery system like the County’s. White suggested to Horne that if he could make time to go to every department with a pre-budget interview in a standard format, that would say what do you think as the 3 or 5 most pressing budgetary issues in your department? If you had more money, what would you do with it? White said it would be helpful if Horne would try to draw some policy identification or issue analysis out, just with Horne as the point person, leading up to the submission of the budget. White said that this would get standardized a little better filtered through Horne. White said that, obviously, some department heads and elected officials might be a little nervous about a new staff person filtering budget input, but White said he thought it would work.

Dameron said that a couple of department heads could accompany Horne on his visits to other departments, and White said that a couple of Board members could also do this. Horne said that he viewed himself as the liaison between the department heads and the Board of Supervisors. SEATS Director Lisa Dewey said that she thought there was confusion about the process once the budget was approved, with regard to appropriations, budget transfers, capital projects and capital expenditures issues, etc. She said that these issues were confusing for both new and experienced department heads.

Lehman said that in the budget presentation, they were trying to be educational and not just trying to hammer numbers down the public’s throat. Lehman also thanked the department heads who had been present that night, and also complimented Horne for his work on the budget process. Lehman also complimented the department heads for their work in estimating the budgetary needs of their departments far in the future. Dameron said that Horne’s idea of lengthening the timeline of the budget process is a good idea.

White said that the killer, in terms of time, is the payroll worksheet. Other department heads agreed. White said that this ought to be automated. Lehman asked if they could do that centrally. Horne said that when they get their new financial system, a lot of these issues will be addressed. Dameron added that the problem was that they had to start from zero, and suggested that maybe some of them could be filled in with the information, and then the department heads could make the changes. Then, Dameron said, the department heads could put in the exceptions, rather than starting from scratch. Other department heads agreed, and said that having this section of their budget work computerized would be extremely helpful. Department of Human Services Area Administrator said that Department of Human Services Accountant Kathy Lynch has the payroll worksheets computerized and Horne should visit with her.

Shramek said that there were some factors to keep in mind regarding whether or not employees should be compensated for travel time. She said that first of all they look at whether the employee is exempt or non-exempt, and explained that employees that are non-exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act are usually those employees that are paid hourly, as most County employees are. For those employees, travel time, in addition to their regular time worked, is likely compensable. Exempt employees, primarily managers, administrative employees, and some professionals, receive a straight salary, regardless of the number of hours they work or travel in relation to their jobs. Next, Shramek said, they looked at whether or not the employee is required to attend the training. If the training was at the employee’s request, then it is often not compensable, but if the County is supporting or requiring the training, it would be compensable. Shramek said that the employee’s normal hours of work are also important to consider. She said that if the employee is substituting travel for their normal duties, then they should be paid at their normal work rate. Shramek said another consideration is whether the employee is driving, or if they are a passenger. Drivers are compensated for all the time that they are driving, even outside of normal working hours. Passengers, on the other hand, are only compensated for their regular work hours. White asked why this is the case, what the rationale is for this law, and said he had never been able to figure it out. Shramek said she's not sure about the rationale.

A couple of the department heads asked about overtime in the case of long trips, and Shramek said that each case was unique, but overtime could result. She did say that it was situational. She also noted that if there is a specific clause in an employee’s contract that was over and above what the law required, they would go by that. Dewey asked if the training was required, then they wouldn’t necessarily have to pay employees for the travel time, even though it was during the normal work week? Shramek said that if the training was scheduled during their work time, then the County was allowing them to take off work to go to it, so this would be supporting it financially, so the travel time would be paid in that instance. Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak asked about air time, and Shramek said that this would be considered as a passenger, unless they were flying the plane.

Shramek continued by saying that travel hours on Saturdays, Sunday, and holidays that correspond to an employee’s normal working hours on the other days of the week must also be counted as time worked. She said, however, that bona fide meal periods, periods of 30 minutes or more, would not be included in compensatory time. She explained that there are special circumstances where travel time may not be compensable; these include specialized or follow-up training outside of working hours and required by law imposed by a higher level of government may not constitute compensable hours of work. If training takes place inside of working hours, though, Shramek said it would be compensable. Shramek said that EMT training falls in this category. Shramek said that if the department heads have question about travel time, they should call her and they would get the answer and document from the Division of Labor.

Dvorak inquired about meal reimbursement, if the theory was the same where if the County supported or required it, the meals were compensable? Shramek replied that in principle this was the same. White said that compensation should be clarified before they go; if there was to be public expense, the department head needs to know before the employee leaves. Shramek read that it was worded, "An employee conducting official county business outside the county is reimbursed for cost of meals. A receipt for the meal is required." White said that the question, then, was whether or not it was official county business. He said that for it to be official county business, it needed to be with the department head’s approval and direction. He said that once the department head sends them, it’s official county business. White said that if it was something the department head was giving them permission to go to, rather than sending them, then it is not official county business. He said that one of the reasons this is important is that it could have a significant impact if somebody gets hurt, with worker’s compensation claims and county liability. White said that it was very important to be clear before the worker leaves as to whether they’re on their own or on county business. White said that there are situations where people do things on their own time, that isn’t leave, that is county business.

Stutsman said that last Thursday, the Board of Supervisors had formally approved an increase in the mileage rate, effective July 1st; it would go from $.24 per mile to $.28 per mile.

Stutsman said that one of the things the Communications Committee has developed is the media brochure, and asked Neuzil if it was ready. He said that it was not ready to be handed out, that he wanted to go over it with the Committee one more time. He said that the idea was to provide the department heads with a media guide so that if they had information that they wanted to get out into the community, this would be a useful tool. He said it would be a folded piece of paper containing reasons that information should be sent out, a sample press release and some tips on how to write a press release, and fax numbers and email addresses of all the local media. He said that this would be finished and reported on in the next committee meeting, and distributed to the department heads. Stutsman said that it would be easier for the department heads if all that information was in one place, instead of everybody reinventing the wheel each time they wanted to send a press release to the media.

Stutsman said that the Communications Committee would also like to develop a Speaker’s Bureau, and explained this was motivated by the Board of Supervisors’ goal to be more visible in the community, as far as County Government. She said that one of the ways to do this is to talk more about what they do in the county. Stutsman said that they were asking people if they were willing to put their name on a list and be available to a service club, high school class, etc. Stutsman said that they would put a letter together to inform the public of the program. She said that it was strictly voluntary; if department heads did not want to participate, that was fine. If they did, though, Stutsman said they would include their name in the Speaker’s Bureau.

Stutsman also told the department heads that the Board was looking into having permanent display cases downstairs when they remodel the front part of the building. She said that they would have rotating displays of different county departments, and set up a schedule so that each department could have a chance to have a display. Stutsman said that they were also planning a summer potluck picnic, August 22, at one of the shelters at Kent Park. She said that it would be at one of the shelters. She said it would be open to the families. She also said that there would be a booth at the County Fair again, July 23-26. Stutsman said they would have a sign-up sheet for people to volunteer to man the booth.

Neuzil added that if the department heads wanted to get some of their information out, or promote a particular department, activity, or event, he had a radio show on Sunday mornings, which they could come on. He said that this is another opportunity for department heads to reach out to the community, if they wished. Stutsman said that they are looking for new people to be a part of the Communications Committee.

Lehman introduced Mark Bulechek, the new Facilities Director.

White said that in remodeling the 3rd floor restrooms of the Courthouse, he has gone over the plans several times but had quite a surprise last week when he realized there were no partitions around the toilet stool in the men’s room. White said he thought this was nuts. He said that now they were at the point where they can’t make it ADA-accessible if the partitions go in, and if the partitions go in, there is no privacy without locking the door. White said he was really angry when he realized what had happened. He said that the message of it was if there was going to be construction at the jail or at the Administration building, if you thought you had spent enough time with the plans, you probably haven’t. He recommended taking more time, and said that he thought if Bulechek had been on board, he probably would have spotted it. White said he was, and still is, pretty frustrated. White said that the architect’s plan was to put a lock on the door, so you could have privacy. He said that he wondered what was going to happen if somebody got sick, and needed to get to the bathroom in a big hurry.

Sullivan said they are gearing up for EMS Week, and said that he wanted to talk to Neuzil about the radio show.

Information Services Director Jean Schultz said that they have an upcoming Financial Software Work Group Meeting. She said this would be a good time for departments to think about whether or not there were additional payroll needs or budget reporting needs, or things from the payroll worksheet that would be helpful. She said it would be helpful if the department heads could get those thoughts to the committee. Schultz said that departments will be welcome to participate in the committee, either on a regular basis or when they got to a particular topic of interest. Schultz also said that the GIS Coordinator had started yesterday. She said that he had already been around to meet several people and would continue to come around to other departments. She said that their web-training person was starting on Monday. Stutsman asked if that would be the trainer too? Schultz replied yes. Schultz said that if department heads had specific classes that would be helpful for people in their department, that would be good to know. She said that she and Information Services Assistant Director Gary Yoder would be scheduling meetings with various departments to find out future needs, training needs, other information that should be put out on the web, etc.

County Assessor Jerry Musser said that they had not mailed Assessment Rolls yet, and said that 15,000-20,000 would be mailed in about 2 weeks.

Board of Supervisors Administrative Assistant Carol Peters said that the Board of Supervisors was going to meet with the larger cities and school boards in May. She told the department heads that if there were any items that they wished to have discussed, they could forward those agenda items to the Board, or to Carol.

The Department Heads and Board of Supervisors set the next meeting for May 15, 2001 at 1:30 p.m.

Adjourned at 3:22 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary