Chairperson Harney called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:05 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.

Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek said that all of the departments have been supplied with the most up to date version of the Employee Handbook. Stutsman said it might be good to send an email out to let them know what is the latest copy. Thompson asked how the employee handbook will be amended if there needs to be changes. Shramek said she would like to separate it out into sections, such as the benefits section, compensation section, etc. She said that when sections are updated, that section would be replaced and the footer of that page would have the effective date. She said it is something that should always be up to date as new laws come out.

Shramek said she wants to go through each of the policies briefly and talk about which ones have been updated or need changing. She said the Mission Statement was added by Human Resources about 3 years ago. Shramek recommends combining it into an introduction with the foreword, which is on the following page. Shramek recommended putting all of that information and adding a disclaimer because what they have right now isn’t adequate. She said the Table of Contents would change as new policies are added. Employment and Equal Opportunity policies could be combined into one section, Shramek said. She said the Board of Supervisors needs to think about the last paragraph in the Equal Opportunity section. Shramek said the County Attorney is the designated Equal Opportunity Employment Officer. Thompson said she thought that was going to be changed to HR. Shramek said it has been talked about but never really done. Thompson asked if it is appropriate for HR to do so. Shramek said it is. She said that when she started almost 5 years ago, County Attorney J. Patrick White indicated that he would like to see this transition. She said it would need to go on the agenda for formal action, but they would want to check with White first. She said that when she first started, the Public Health Department was having regular audits by the State Auditor, and one thing they did not have was an adequate affirmative action plan.

Thompson said she was thinking that as each section is revised, it would be brought to the Board for approval and that would make it look routine. She said they don’t want to have a public explanation of why they are taking things out of the County Attorney’s Office. Harney asked if it consensus to change this to the HR Director then. Shramek said they don’t have to decide that today. Stutsman said they are talking about putting this in a binder, but that was not approved for the HR budget last year. She said that she feels this is a good route to go, but they need to put the money where their mouth is. Thompson said that if they could get everyone on the web it would be great and cheaper. She said the State has a sign off page that states the employee received a copy on their employment date and that they agree to keep up with it. Shramek said that Johnson County doesn’t have handbook acknowledgement, but she feels they really should. Stutsman said they need to agree on whether to have hard copies or not. Thompson asked if all Supervisors have access to a web. Shramek said that there are people who don’t have a computer in the County and she thinks there has to be a hard copy, too. Harney agreed that one should be given to the employee. Thompson asked if they could leave it up to the department heads to say they want to keep up a hard copy and they agree to do it. She said that would cut down on the number of hard copies. Stutsman said her concern is that everyone is swamped and changes will be put off. Lehman asked how many times there would be changes a year. Shramek said twice a year. Lehman said the printing and expenses should come out of Central Services. Shramek said she asked for funds again this year, and Budget Coordinator Jeff Horne indicated that those would likely not be funded. Stutsman said that this has been an issue and they need to resolve it. Shramek said she already purchased some 1-inch binders at Sam’s for a very good deal. Stutsman said the Board of Supervisors has stated repeatedly that they want everyone to have access to an up to date hard copy. She said they need to make sure that there are the resources available to do so. Neuzil asked if she means every employee. Stutsman said every department. Thompson said that an employee on their first hire would then get one and sign off. She said that after that they could either look on the web or use their supervisor’s copy, which would be up to date. Shramek said she thinks they should provide the new policies to the employees also. Harney agreed. He said he finds it very hard to enforce something if it is sitting in an office on the shelf and an employee doesn’t get it. Shramek said there could be legal issues, too. Thompson asked if people should turn theirs in when they leave. Shramek said she would ask for the binder back since it is County property. Shramek said this is an investment in the beginning, but most employees are long term and this way they are only replacing the pages.

Neuzil said he would like to know what the cost would be for all of the employees compared to only the departments. Shramek said it would be about $800 for the binders and the printing. Neuzil asked what the other government entities do. Shramek said Linn County has an employee handbook that is spiral bound. Stutsman said binder rings are another option. Thompson said they could use those for summer employees and employees that aren’t going to be there for a long time. Shramek said that right now they provide a binder to every new employee, because it has the employee handbook in it, plus all of the benefit information, the collective bargaining contract and all of their employment information. She said they don’t give temporary employees a full binder, but they do a group orientation and provide parts of it. Stutsman said this needs to be resolved because it has been an issue on Shramek’s evaluation. She said the Board needs to get clear direction and then support it with resources. Thompson said that she is willing to vote for $800 to have the binders. Stutsman and Lehman agreed.

Shramek said that she would change probationary period to introductory period. She said the employee handbook states that the length of the probationary period is decided by the department head. She suggested deleting that sentence. She said she thinks it is important to have a consistent probationary period for everyone and not have that be an arbitrary decision by a department head. Thompson said the law doesn’t allow it to exceed 6 months. Shramek said that there isn’t a law regarding probationary period. Shramek said there isn’t a law, but Johnson County wants it to be 6 months. Stutsman asked if department heads also means elected officials, too. Shramek said this is just in the Employee Handbook. She said the elected official could have a separate policy, but it needs to be on file with the Board of Supervisors. Thompson asked for something in the handbook explaining this to employees. Harney said it should be standard. Stutsman agreed, but said that there are always issues about elected officials having a right to run their office how they want to. Harney said they hire the way they want to, but he said there should be a standard set of rules for their employees. Shramek said there is, but if an elected official wants to have a policy different than what the Board of Supervisors has, then it has to be on file with the Board of Supervisors. Stutsman said that she has never seen any different policies. Shramek said she isn’t aware of any either. Thompson said that as a part of this process, this should be sent to the elected officials telling them that if they want something different to let them know. She said it would stop the business of making policies up. Stutsman said different departments talk with one another and it would help when they question why things are different. Shramek said in the draft introduction it talks about how certain departments have additional policies and procedures that are not in the overall handbook. She said Planning & Zoning has their own personal appearance policy where they wear the County shirts.

Harney said the probationary period is self-explanatory because it states that each employee is on probation for a period not to exceed 6 months. He said that a department head could put it anywhere before that. Shramek said the collective bargaining contracts have it at 6 months. She said she thinks it is good to have a consistent probationary period throughout the County, where the temptation is not there to make one person’s probation period 6 months and another person’s only 2 months. Thompson said she is in favor of taking that sentence out. Stutsman and Harney agreed. Shramek said she would like to add that employees who change job classification also would fulfill a 6-month introductory period to that new position. She said that this would not apply to individuals who have a collective bargaining contract stating otherwise.

Shramek said they have updated the overtime with the flexible time policy, although the flexible time policy isn’t in the Employee Handbook. She said they provide it to all exempt employees when they are hired. She said flexible time replaced the compensatory time policy that the County had for exempt individuals. Thompson said flexible time means they could have a different schedule. Shramek said it means that they are paid to get the work done, if it takes you 80 hours this week, 20 hours next week etc. She said the time could be flexed as long as the Board knows the person’s whereabouts. Shramek said this policy was approved 3 or 4 years ago. Shramek said she is debating whether to put it in there when it doesn’t apply to everyone. She said she thinks that overall it should be in there because otherwise there is going to be loose leaf copies somewhere else. Shramek said that flexible time is covered under the collective bargaining contracts in the County. She said there is a policy in that packet on the last page that it was approved and effective January 1, 1999. She said that it is only for exempt employees. Thompson asked if someone would still be paid for full-time if they are really quick at their work and are able to finish it in 20 hours. Shramek said that if they are able to get the job done then yes. She said the workloads are such that she doesn’t think anyone could do that though. Thompson asked about someone who has to work more than 40 hours a week. Shramek said they would not be entitled to overtime and would be exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. Thompson asked which employees this applies to. Shramek said this applies to exempt employees, so just the categories of management, administrative or professional. She said that most employees are eligible for overtime. Thompson asked if this is different from the Auditor’s and Treasurer’s Offices where the employees work a regular schedule that is not 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Shramek said that is a compressed work week, where they are working 4-10 hour days or 4-9 hour days and a half day on Friday. She said Social Services has a flexible time policy, where if someone is meeting a client at night then that employee could come in at 10:00 in the morning because they know they are going to be staying until 7:00, if approved by a supervisor. Thompson asked if the employees are told which category they fall under. Shramek said yes and it is also in the job description. Lehman asked Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan if he has been getting the flex time reports. Sullivan said he doesn’t usually get those, although he does get vacation and sick time reports. He said that Ambulance Director Steve Spenler and Facilities Director David Kempf do let him know if they are going to flex out. Sullivan said that he suggests to the department heads to send this to him and also copy it to the Board. Thompson asked if someone could take a whole day off if they work extra hours. Shramek said they frown upon whole days. She said it should be a morning or afternoon off. Stutsman said there are staffing problems sometimes in departments. She said that both the Planning & Zoning Director and Assistant do night meetings and then both take the next afternoon off, when one of them should be there to answer questions. Thompson said they aren’t fulfilling the duties of their job if one of them isn’t there. Shramek said the other thing is did they notify someone that they would be gone. She said if something isn’t satisfactory, the Board should address this with them. Stutsman said that coverage is considered part of the duties of the job. Harney said then there is the question of whether they would be paid time and a half. Shramek said absolutely not. She said that then they would be jeopardizing the status of an exempt level employee. She said that exempt employees should not be accumulating comp time, nor are they eligible for it. She said that they are paid a straight and regular salary to get their work done. Shramek said that the second sentence under overtime discusses employees exempt from the FLSA provisions being informed by department heads of how excess hours are compensated. She said that is covered under the flexible time policy, so that sentence would be removed. She said questions about how the act affects individuals should be directed to a department head. She said that sentence should be removed, also.

Shramek next reviewed the employment of relatives policy. She said the employment of relatives in the same department is not encouraged. Shramek said she would like to add that family members should not be placed under the direct supervision of another family member. Thompson asked what a relative is considered to be. Shramek said relative needs to go by the definition in the Employee Handbook under sick leave and funeral leave, which defines it as immediate family. Stutsman asked if this is prohibited. Shramek said it isn’t up to her to decide. She said she also thinks there should be some language that in the event of a marriage or employment change, that reasonable effort should be made to accommodate family members with a transfer. Neuzil asked if this applies to elected officials, such as if Sullivan’s wife chooses to run for the Board of Supervisors, does Sullivan lose his job. Thompson said this would enter into her decision to decide to run for the job. Shramek said she doesn’t think it’s appropriate. Stutsman said the County Attorney would say it is a conflict of interest because they would be determining the pay of the spouse. Shramek said it could also be that since there are 5 members that that person wouldn’t be able to vote on things directly related. Thompson said a more common scenario would be if Secretary Jo Hogarty left, Sullivan couldn’t hire his wife for the job. Harney said that at the City, a husband and wife are able to work in the same department but one just couldn’t supervise the other. Neuzil said this policy says employees and relatives in the same department. Thompson said they should change the whole thing to say that an employee shouldn’t be supervised by a relative. Shramek said she isn’t presenting a new policy today, but rather just some major concepts. Stutsman asked Shramek to explore this further.

Shramek said the Handbook states that normal retirement age should be 70 and she would like to explore the history on that. Shramek doesn’t recommend establishing a normal retirement age. Neuzil asked if basing it on age is discriminating. Shramek said yes. Harney asked if there are federal regulations for specific jobs where they can’t be over a certain age. Shramek said maybe in law enforcement. She said she would also change the word anniversary to compensation review. She said that in the 2nd paragraph of the policy she thinks it is problematic to have, at the discretion of the department head or an employee who has left the employment of the County in good standing and who returns to the same department within a 2-year period, may be given previous employment credit. Shramek said she thinks that you either do or you don’t and it shouldn’t be at someone’s discretion. Stutsman agreed. Thompson said then it should say will be given. Shramek said that would be her recommendation. Harney said he doesn’t think if someone leaves that they should come back and expect to have seniority over someone else. Stutsman said she is inclined to agree with that, too, especially for 2 years. Thompson said that no one would ever come back if they had to start at the beginning of the pay scale. Harney said that is their choice when they leave. Shramek said they have had employees leave and come back and these are all things to think about. Stutsman asked if this refers to their compensation, also. Shramek said it is the same status, meaning their vacation accrual etc. She said that it would have been paid back at the time they left, but if they were in the 3-week vacation bracket, they would enter into that again. Harney said that if they were paid out for it, why would they get to start over. Shramek said they wouldn’t get credit for the 2 years that they were gone. Harney said he thinks that would be an exception for the wage to hire them at again because of their worth, but he doesn’t think they should come back with benefits over everyone else. Stutsman agreed. She said the benefits are the perks of staying with the job at the County. Stutsman said she could go with 6 months instead of 2 years.

Shramek said under the pay period policy she wants to add discussion about direct deposit. She said she would like to add that employees are paid every 2 weeks for hours worked through the previous Saturday, so that a regular pay schedule is established.

Shramek said under group insurance, all of the references to health and dental insurance should be changed to health and dental care coverage.

Thompson asked about employee evaluations. She asked if there are a lot of union contracts. Shramek said that employee evaluation is a mandatory subject of bargaining. She said it isn’t prohibited, but it needs to be bargained. She said that in some of the contracts, the evaluations are specifically mentioned, which would supercede the Employee Handbook.

Harney asked what the change is that she wants to make in the pay period. Shramek said they are going to establish a regular pay schedule for the County.

Shramek said that all of these changes are at the beginning stages and that there is a long way to go. She said that writing and updating policies is not a quick and easy thing to do because of all of the research. She said that she would like to have an Employee Handbook Committee. She said she has that on the agenda to talk about at the next department head meeting.

Thompson said that in the section under IPERS, there are no more exempt categories, so they should change it to all public employees must participate unless specifically exempt. Shramek said that just recently changed with students now for the 2nd quarter. Thompson said that if they use the other language then they wouldn’t have to keep changing it every time the rules change. Stutsman asked if they could say that additional information regarding IPERS can be obtained at the Auditor’s Office. She said that she had an IPERS question and didn’t think about going there instead of to HR. She asked if HR should be included. Shramek said she has a note to add Human Resources or the Auditor’s Office. Thompson suggested including the IPERS 800 number. Shramek said they are extremely helpful at the 800 number.

Shramek said that all of the insurance would be changed. She said that as a County, they are self-funded. She said they are making a contribution, not paying a premium. She said that all of those words really need to be changed in order to be accurate. She said that none of the other benefits have a specific plan mentioned, except the health care. She said she would eliminate the Blue Cross Blue Shield Iowa 500 Plan specific language in there. She said that the Iowa 500 doesn’t truly exist anymore. She said she also thinks that there should just be one section discussing benefit eligibility versus under every benefit. She said that it gets a little long that way. Shramek said she would also like to change the section regarding health, dental and insurance. Thompson asked if she is just going to revise this whole section. Shramek said she thinks that it could be better formatted. Shramek said that under disability insurance she would like to mention that voluntary options for additional coverage may also be available. She said that on the premium payments additional buy of options may also be available at the employee’s expense. She said that she has a new draft of workers compensation and also of accident report. She said there is a minor change on the unemployment insurance. Shramek said that in the 2nd paragraph under deferred compensation, it states the employee may choose any company authorized to do business in his state. She said that is currently problematic because there aren’t any more deduction fields available. She said this might be something they might want to look at. Stutsman asked if there is going to be more fields with the new FinCore. Shramek said there would be more fields. Stutsman said she thinks that people should have a choice. Shramek said she agrees, but theoretically then everyone could have somebody different, which may be all right.

Shramek said that under the holiday section, the 2nd paragraph under the last sentence says that an eligible part-time employees’ holiday pay is half of that of a full-time employee in the same department. She said that this is another one she wants the Board to think about. She said that this in conflict with the Administrative Unit Collective Bargaining Contract. She said administrative employees are paid holidays for their scheduled hours for that day. She said, as an example, that this coming Monday is a holiday and as a part-time employee, if she was scheduled for 6 hours, then she would receive 6 hours of holiday pay as a union administrative employee. She said that as a non-bargaining employee, she would get half of whatever a full-time employee gets. So, in that case, if she was scheduled for 6 hours, she would get 4 hours of holiday and would have to use the other 2 hours as vacation or make it up during the week. Thompson said the first sentence says that only employees working 20 hours per week are eligible. She asked if a person working 30 hours a week would get 3/4. She said that she would like to have it all consistent with the Administrative Contract and she would look at that language to revise it. She said to essentially have them be paid for their scheduled hours when it falls on a holiday.

Shramek said the last paragraph of this section discusses the personal day. She said it states that in addition to the 11 holidays, each full-time regular employee receives one personal day each anniversary year. Shramek noted that this is not really being followed. She said that most department heads are doing it on a calendar year basis instead. Thompson said she doesn’t see anything wrong with having it be calendar year or fiscal year. Shramek said it is easier for people to use it within a calendar year. Stutsman asked if all of the contracts have personal days. Shramek said that Social Services gets 2 additional days. Thompson asked if the contracts use the calendar year. Shramek said that it isn’t specifically addressed in a lot of them. She said that if the contract is silent then one would refer to the Employee Handbook. She said the problem is that the practice is that the majority of the department heads are using the calendar year. Thompson asked if the contract gives employees 2 personal days, do department heads also get 2 days. Shramek said they would only take one. Harney said that at the City uses the fiscal year and it’s lost if not used. Shramek said it is the same here too. She said that they are tracked by the Auditors, too. Thompson asked if they need a sentence that states personal days don’t carry over to the next year. Shramek said they could. Shramek asked if an employee should be allowed to use a personal day during their probationary or introductory period. Stutsman said no. Shramek agreed. Thompson said it does give the new employee a little leeway if they have a vacation or wedding planned and they don’t have enough vacation saved up by that time. Shramek said they are only talking about one day. Stutsman said could still take the day off without pay.

Shramek said the vacation policy was revised July 1, 2002, to add a 5th week and also to add the last paragraph talking about employees being paid out upon resignation for accrued and unused vacation if they provided the adequate notice, which is 2 weeks or 14 calendar days notice. Thompson asked if the County follows the policy that vacation must be taken within one year after it accrues. She said the language the State uses is twice the annual entitlement, which she thinks is easier to follow. Shramek said two years of accruals are allowed to be on the books. She said that if she is in the 2-week bracket, she is allowed to have 4 weeks accumulated, but if she goes 4 weeks and one day, that one day is lost. She said that it probably could be better defined. Thompson said it is slightly different because in the year that an employee changes from 2 weeks to 3 weeks, there would be 5 weeks and not 6 weeks. Shramek said it doesn’t say that, but maybe it should. Shramek said she thinks it is easier to explain it just by saying, whatever bracket someone is in to take that times 2 and that is how much accrual is allowed. Thompson asked if there needs to be a sentence for what happens if an employee is in the middle of their vacation and they get sick. Shramek said that once the vacation starts the sick leave is not allowed. Thompson asked if they should have that included in the policy. Shramek said she thinks it is under the sick leave policy, but will make a note to make sure that it is covered. Stutsman asked if it is assumed or does there need to be documentation about accrued vacation. She said that there was a department where nobody was keeping records. Shramek said she thinks that all of the departments that are responsible to the Board of Supervisors don’t have any problems. Thompson said there also isn’t very good records on department heads. Sullivan said that it is the same documentation that the other County employees go through in the Auditor’s Office, when they take vacation and put it on their timesheets. Thompson said the difference though is that when an employee takes vacation, it is signed off by their supervisor, whereas if a department head takes vacation, it isn’t signed off by anyone. Stutsman asked if this should be delegated to Sullivan. Thompson said they tried but it isn’t signed off by anyone. Sullivan said that some department heads do report when they are taking vacation time and are going to be out of the office. He said he keeps a non-sophisticated spreadsheet of that, but there isn’t any guarantee that it is happening consistently. Thompson asked Sullivan if his matches with the Auditor’s. Sullivan said not always, which is generally to the benefit of the County that it doesn’t match. He said he is usually called and told about it and they have taken more vacation than what is reported to him. Sullivan said he could send another email out to the department heads to remind them to let him know when they are going to be taking vacation. Shramek said to have them also send flexible time. Harney asked if HR tracks vacation. Shramek said they do for their own staff. Thompson said the problem arises when department heads leave and want to get paid for their vacation hours hours they say that they’ve accrued and there isn’t any record. Shramek said she doesn’t think there is a problem with that, other than with one Commission. Sullivan said that there were no Auditor’s records with that Commission, which is what the issue was. Shramek said the Auditor’s Office does not track vacation and sick leave for all of the departments. Sullivan asked if they want this email to go to the elected officials as well. Thompson said elected officials don’t receive vacation. Harney asked how it is tracked if someone is using excessive sick leave. Shramek said it is tracked on the time card. She said the Auditor’s Office and the department heads have that record.

Shramek said that under the paid leaves of absence for sick leave, the County offers 18 days of sick leave per year, which is very generous, when looking at the comparability group of other counties, such as Linn, Black Hawk, Scott, Clinton and Dubuque. She said 4 of the counties have 12 days and Dubuque offers 24. Stutsman asked what Johnson County’s statistics are as far as people using sick leave. Shramek said she doesn’t have access to any of that information, but a couple of years ago they did run reports and the County has a high utilization of sick leave. Stutsman said she thinks that sometimes it is one of those situations where if someone has it they think they should use it. Shramek said she thinks it should stay at 18 because that is what is in the collective bargaining contracts. She said there was consideration to reduce it to 15 days a year and then upping the conversion to 3 to 1, instead of 4 to 1. She said that some of the employees were very interested in it, but it won’t be addressed in this collective bargaining session. Thompson said the State’s sick leave conversion plan says that for every pay period that an employee doesn’t take sick leave, it can be converted at the given rate. She said that if someone takes leave then they can’t convert, which means there is an incentive to not use sick leave. Shramek said the thing to be careful about is not having people come to work sick. Stutsman said sick leave is often used for kids.

Shramek said she would change all of the references for the department head may designate the physician to the County doctor. She said doesn’t think they want the department heads picking out physicians. She said they need to utilize the services with the County physician and Mercy Occupational Health, making sure it is consistent. Thompson asked what sick leave will not accrue on a prorated basis means. Shramek said it means that if someone hasn’t earned their hours of sick leave for the pay period, after they have worked a week they couldn’t say that they want half of that. Shramek said that under misuse of sick leave item 2, the definition of excessive use of sick leave says the use of sick leave to the extent that no sick leave has been accumulated by an employee during any 6 months during any 12 month period, needs clarified. She said they need to add unless it is for an FMLA qualifying reason. She said that they don’t want people with serious illnesses covered under FMLA showing up on a report as a possible misuse of sick leave because of the numbers. Thompson suggested adding a sentence stating that misuse of sick leave is one that affects your performance. Shramek said that if the employee is being provided 18 sick days, then they shouldn’t be disciplined for using what the County has provided as a benefit. She said it would be better to address that with the attendance policy on the positive end versus the other end. Harney said some employees have patterns of using sick leave before or after their days off. Shramek said it does state that this could be considered grounds for further disciplinary action including discharge. She suggested coordinating the extended sick leave with the Family Medical Leave Act later on.

Shramek asked the Board to consider #6, which refers to adoptive parent leave. She said it states that an adoptive parent is allowed to use up to 10 consecutive days of their sick leave within 3 weeks of the child’s arrival. Shramek said the question was brought up that a natural father can use up to 3 of their sick days for the birth of their child, but as an adoptive parent they can use up to 10. She asked if they find this problematic. Stutsman said a mother gets maternity leave. Shramek said they are talking strictly about the father. Neuzil said it does seem inconsistent. Thompson asked if for maternity leave, one can take out all of the sick leave accrued. Shramek said you can only use sick leave for what the doctor disables you. Stutsman said she doesn’t want an adoptive mother treated different than a birth mother. Shramek said the birth mother is treated for her health condition, because the actual pregnancy is considered a disability under Iowa Law. She said that under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), if a birth mother has 10 weeks of sick leave built up, she can only take the 6 weeks of sick leave that the doctor disables her, and then the other 4 weeks would have to be vacation. Thompson said that an adoptive parent could also use vacation. Shramek said yes, because they are covered under FMLA as well, meaning they could take up to 12 weeks off. Shramek said she thinks the paid sick leave is a valid point that they should think about and address. Thompson suggested allowing natural fathers to have 10 days also. Harney said that would be equal. Stutsman and Neuzil agreed. Shramek said she has also heard the comment that a natural father knows well in advance that they are going to be a father and they have the time to prepare the home and get ready. She said that an adoptive parent, however, could get the phone call that the child is ready and then they have to go get the needed supplies. She said that she just wanted to bring it up because it is something that should be addressed. She said that one way to equalize it would be to provide the natural father up to 10 days. Neuzil asked what FMLA says about the father as far as using sick days. Shramek said they don’t govern that, so it is up to the place of employment.

Shramek said that under family sick leave they need to add domestic partner because they are adding that to all of the collective bargaining contracts, under the definition of immediate family. She said that would also be added to the funeral leave. She said they would also want to add domestic partner to the 5-days allowance, since it would be considered along with spouse and child. Stutsman asked if they ask for proof of domestic partner. Shramek said they haven’t before, but if there was a question they could. Harney asked if they have to for insurance. Shramek said yes for insurance. She said that a lot of the situations for domestic partners do not apply for the insurance. Stutsman asked what the definition of domestic partner is. Shramek said it is living in the same dwelling, having a shared account and joint property. She said that with the City of Iowa City they can actually get registered as a domestic partner. Harney said the reason behind that is to cover them for insurance. Stutsman asked how to define funeral leave being appropriate for the domestic partner. Shramek said it did come up in Secondary Roads and the employee wasn’t covered for any paid leave when their domestic partner passed away, so it was later added into the contract.

Shramek said that under the miscellaneous leaves of absence the emergency section is weather related. She said that the last sentence states that employees may make up lost work time due to such emergencies within the same pay period. She said that really should state within the same pay week, so as not to get into overtime considerations. She said that if the snowstorm occurs on the last day of the pay period then someone would have to make up the time during that day. Thompson asked if the County has an inclement weather policy. Stutsman said the County does not close. Thompson said the policy should say that then. Shramek said that during the windstorm of 1998, the County did close early at the end of the day. Stutsman said once when there was a bad storm she asked White if they could close and he said no because it is just too complicated with bargaining units and so the County stays open.

Shramek said the travel reimbursement policy was updated in 2002. She said the Family Medical Leave Act was added January 1, 1999 and was updated in 2001 to reflect 3 weeks. She said alcohol and substance use was added in April 2000, she said it needs revision and the County Attorney’s Office is looking at it and so is Dr. Buck, the County’s physician. Shramek said the respectful work environment was added in 2000 as well, which is the harassment policy. She said workplace violence was added in 2000. Shramek said the County Technology Policy needs some revision. Shramek said the departmental credit cards policy was new in 2002.

Thompson said the grievance policy seems cumbersome to her and asked if there is a better way to do it. Shramek said it is designed to match with the collective bargaining Contracts. Stutsman said there should be consistency.

Recessed at 10:32 a.m.; reconvened at 10:42 a.m.

Shramek said she would like to have an Employee Handbook Committee and would like to announce this at the Department Head meeting on January 21st. She said she has some individuals in mind that she thinks would be excellent contributors to the Employee Handbook, but would need to check with their department heads in advance. Shramek said she doesn’t want too many people involved, but doesn’t want to exclude anyone. She said it is important to have a mix of department heads, management and employees as well. Neuzil asked if she would like to have any Board members. Shramek said that ideally she would like to have one. Neuzil said he is interested, but he is going to be at ISAC on the 21st. Stutsman asked if the function of this Committee would be to review what she has brought up today. Shramek said yes. She said that she also has some new and revised policies that she would like to have most of the legwork done for the Committee so that when they go to review a policy, there is something to work with, edit, add or delete, rather than start from scratch. She said she thinks that Secondary Roads Administrative Assistant Diane Kaster would be a good member. Harney asked if this Committee is going to rewrite what they just discussed. Shramek said they would be looking at it and suggesting changes before she presents it to the Board.

Thompson said she thinks the Technology Policy should be known as the use of County resources or something. Shramek said the one thing the County needs right now is a vehicle usage policy. Stutsman said that if the Committee is going to review these, then she doesn’t think it is necessary to go through these now, unless someone has something specific. She asked if the Board would like to see a personal appearance policy in the Employee Handbook. Thompson said that is touchy. She asked if it is an issue. Shramek said overall, no. Stutsman said it does come up every once in awhile. She said that one time a minute taker came up in shorts, which was inappropriate. She said there is certain attire that is appropriate for the Boardroom and it isn’t shorts. Thompson asked if they would need a policy to deal with something like that or could they just ask the employee to dress better in the future. Stutsman said she shared her concerns with Slockett and he took care of it. Harney asked if department heads could designate certain attire for their offices. Shramek said yes and some do. She said she helped Information Services and the Health Department with appearance policies.

Shramek asked if they want the SEATS FTA Drug and Alcohol Policy, that is already approved, in the Employee Handbook, when it only applies to SEATS. Thompson said that is part of SEATS’ individual department policy. Shramek asked about the DOT Drug and Alcohol Policy that applies to Conservation and Secondary Roads. Stutsman said she thinks that should be in the Handbook.

Shramek said she thinks it would be nice to have something stated about Employee Recognition in the handbook.

Thompson said her thoughts about the vehicle and technology usage is that there should something stating that you are not to do your own personal stuff on County time. Shramek said her opinion is that these can not be combined with the vehicle usage. She said that to her knowledge, the Auditor’s Office is the only office that has a vehicle use policy. Shramek said there is a reason that there has never been a policy and that is because it is going to be extremely hard to draw a common thread through every individual. Thompson said there is also a tax issue, because if someone uses it for personal use, then the County is supposed to keep track of that and then tax employees on the monetary value. She said they should just say the County vehicles are not to be used for personal use, such as going to the store. Harney said he doesn’t personally see a problem with stopping off for lunch if someone is already out on their normal route. Shramek said that there are several issues that would have to be taken into consideration with this. Thompson said that if employees knew that for their little trip to the mall that they would be getting a 1099 tax form then they probably wouldn’t be doing it. Shramek said another issue is the public perception when out in County vehicles.

Shramek asked the Board for their opinion on the smoke free issue regarding County vehicles. Harney said absolutely no smoking. Shramek said that is going to be met with grave resistance. Neuzil said he doesn’t like getting into a vehicle that smells like smoke. Shramek said she has a draft typed up that includes County vehicles. Lehman said the vehicle is just like a workplace. Thompson asked if the County could designate a smoking area, such as the back of the building if it looks bad to the public to have people smoking in the front. Shramek said that employees working in the Administration Building are not permitted to smoke at the front entrance. Stutsman asked about the other buildings. Shramek said that for those it just states that smoking is permitted outside, not blocking doorways, stairwells or propping open doors. Thompson asked if they could have the department heads designate an area for their own buildings. Shramek said most have done so already.

Adjourned at 11:05 a.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary