BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM COUNTY RECORDER
Stutsman: Back in session. Discussion regarding Interim Recorder appointment. We had conducted interviews on 5 applicants yesterday. One withdrew her application. We didn't have any discussion, so now is the time for us to discuss those applicants and to make a recommendation to vote on informal meeting about who we want to appoint for that Interim position. Any comments. Charlie?
Duffy: I might as well start. How would you like to be in my seat today?
Deputy Recorder Deb Jensen: I would like that. Very much.
Bolkcom: One taker.
Duffy: The applicants I feel are all friends of mine. I've known them for quite a long time. Deborah Conger gave a very good report. League of Women Voters and indeed I have a long history of attending their meetings. Then we've got Debbie Jensen here, a very fine person that I've known for a number of years that withdrew her application in favor of Steve Lacina. Of course I know Steve Lacina. Marlene Perrin is a very good woman that meets the public well and I've known her for years and years, then it really gets to be... Down here Denise Shannon who lives in the Solon area, Solon address, she's my neighbor. And last, but not least Jim Wolf who indeed gave very good information to us during the interview is an usher at St. Wenceslaus Church with me. Like I said I know all these people, but one person has really stood out and that person is Steve Lacina. With the support from the staff and the withdrawal of Debbie Jensen in support of Steve Lacina, Steve is first on my list. I hate to lose a... if he's selected for this position, he is a very fine Supervisor, but then again whatever he does I think he is a person that would do good at any department. It must be brought out that years ago that almost the same thing happened at the Treasurer's office. Donald Krall, my next door neighbor, was a very fine Supervisor and then there was an opening in the Treasurer's office. The Treasurer became very ill and so he said I'd rather be... I'd like to be Treasurer and helped build that department and helped select Cletus Redlinger. Who by the way talking about that department, because they are involved or will be involved in the decision making of the Recorder's department, Cletus was at one time in 1993 appointed ISAC Iowa Association of Counties, we belong to that and spend several thousand dollars per year going to meetings, but was the only President of the Association of Counties we have had in this county and that dates back to 1958. So that this isn't a new thing, but I will indeed support Steve Lacina for this position.
Stutsman: Thank you Charlie? Good comments. Any discussion as far as Steve Lacina? I think we just have to decide where the votes are, because we do need 3 votes to put in an interim director. Jonathan or Joe, any comments?
Bolkcom: Well I think we had 5 good applicants and in trying to look at what kind of qualifications I came up with a number of things that I looked at. Including is this person a team player? Does this person have communication skills? What does their experience tell us in past employment about those 2 issues? What have been their accomplishments? Try to make some judgment about their judgment in dealing with issues that might confront them. Also the issue of consolidation, the question was raised to all applicants about what their role would be? How helpful they would be to that? And then the question about maintaining the existing staff. There's been a fair amount of anxiety among our staff about this change and I think it's understandable given the fact that it is a fairly significant change. I think everybody answered that question fairly appropriately. But when I look at all those considerations that I'm trying to weigh in terms of qualifications, I lean toward supporting Deb Conger for this position.
Stutsman: Jonathan?
Jordahl: I similarly outlined what I think the primary criteria are as we've just completed appointing 7 members and I think a well balanced panel of people who have entered the idea of studying elimination of the Recorder's position and the consolidation of functions of that office with other offices. That's on the forefront of the agenda as is the maintenance of the functions of the office at the present time. Obviously, the functions of the Recorder's office have to be retained. It seems clear to me that the staff of the Recorder's office ought to be retained to perform those functions. The question that is before the study committee is the elimination of that one seat. So in looking at who to appoint in this interim period, my main concern is and I think subordinate to the idea of keeping the office functioning well, but right after that is the idea that this should be a person who will facilitate the study of the consolidation of these functions and the efficiencies to be gained. Foremost among those is the possibility of saving $50,000 a year in salary and more than that in benefits through the elimination of the Recorder's position. If we can do that and gain efficiency in the operation of the office, then I think we ought to do it. Of all of the candidates, one who clearly who has the ability to step into this position, not only the ability, but the avowed intention to step into this position and then step back out of it after a 20 month period taking a leave of absence from her job at the University and being able to return to that job at the University who also has the experience with managing a large group of staff and the experience with handling sensitive records and with computerizing those records in view of the coming vital statistics and the ongoing implementation of the Computer Needs Committee study report and who has a history with the League of Women Voters of engaging in a non-partisan study of county government with the intention of looking at efficiencies to be gained across county government, not just in the Recorder's office who would then I think be pursuing this job as a continuation of that impartial study is Deb Conger. And I would support her appointment.
Stutsman: Well we have one for Steve and 2 for Deb. So I guess it leaves it up to me for the deciding vote to put in Deb Conger for the Recorder. I guess my feeling is that I want this to move forward. There's been a lot of anxiety on the staff and I think it's time for us to make a decision and to move forward, so for that reason we'll put it on the agenda for Deb Conger to be named Interim Recorder. I thank everybody for coming for your interest in this, obviously there is a great deal of...
Duffy: (Inaudible).
Stutsman: ...just a minute Charlie, a great deal of interest and I'm a firm believer that things always do work out and I'm here to support the staff and I know there's been a lot of apprehension and a lot of anxiety, but I have a lot of faith in your abilities and being able to work with the Interim Director. And that we're here to help make that transition as smooth as we can. Debbie?
Jensen: Now, does this mean that you will vote on this this afternoon and make it... that this is your...
Stutsman: Well next on the agenda. We're going to...
Jensen: How will (inaudible) going to be able to get public input into this decision after right now?
Stutsman: Actually there is discussion from the public item 7 on the agenda.
Jensen: Right here today, right now? Is this the time that we should talk about this?
Stutsman: Yes, this is fine.
Jensen: That's all I want to know. I want to follow the right procedures. I don't want to... I'm not a political person.
Stutsman: I know you're not Deb.
Jensen: OK what I want to say is this Board needs to really take into consideration before they make their final votes some very important things. I hope you trust my knowledge and experience as being valuable to you.
Stutsman: We do.
Jordahl: Absolutely.
Stutsman: I do anyway and I'm sure...
Bolkcom: We do.
Jensen: I had the opportunity to get a phone call from Deborah Conger on Wednesday May 19. It was a very, very upsetting phone call. She asked me if she could come and spend the day following me around so that her interview would be good. And I said well Deborah, did you know I'm also thinking about this and struggling with that decision too, that I might be applying for that position? She said to me in this tone of voice, I am very well aware of that. I was shocked, surprised, and I said well Deborah let me check my schedule, there's a lot of meetings going on, someone's going to be gone, I will get back to you today, can you give me your number. She goes well let me know when I can, I said I will I'll get back to you today. So I put her on... I hung up the phone, I talked to my workers and said I'm going to have to handle a very awkward situation. Would any one of you... and they couldn't handle an awkward situation, they've been under too much stress already. So I called the Assistant County Attorney and I said how do I handle this awkward situation? Do I really help someone get an appointment that I might be considering? I said to him I am a worker for the public, though she is a member of the public I want to give her every consideration on this. I want to come to come with this with an open mind but it was a tough decision and he recommended the same. I said she wants to follow me around for the day, I have a lot of work to do. My work that day might not be... It's very important and that would make me a little uneasy. He said I would recommend that you do what you would do to any member of the public that called you, don't consider who it is. I said OK. That's what I would do then. I will give her the tour that I give anyone that asked us or are interested in the workings of our office. I give them a tour that lasts approximately 45 minutes and it only touches the iceberg of what goes on there, but I at least I will be gracious and professional about this and handle this situation. And I did and I think you can ask the staff I handled it very graciously and professionally. They heard everything I said and everything I did that day. This person I thought if she was interested in this position, she would come with questions and I would have notebooks. Like what are your needs? What do you think about working with me? Introduce yourself to the other staff members and ask them the same. I question why she waited till the last day. I should go back on this, I called her back and I said that Thursday would be good and she said she could not come Thursday and I wanted to say, I held myself back because I'm a very professional person, I wanted to say are you interested in this position and you're telling me Thursdays not a good day? You can't find an hour out of that day? I explained to her I'd spend the hour and she was welcome to stay. She's more than welcome to stay. It is a public office, anybody can come in and stay all day if that's what they want. She told me that it was not a good day. So Friday as you know I knew it was going to be a very bad day for me, because that's the day I would have to decide what I was going to do and I didn't know where I was at and it was the last day anyone could apply for this position. So I called her back and I said well Friday I have 2 meetings, but otherwise it's OK if you want to come on Friday instead of Thursday that's fine Deborah, come. Then I said to her 8:00 would be the most convenient time to come, it will not inconvenience the staff or me if you came at 8:00. And I think you need to know what she said. She said to me I am not a morning person I cannot come at 8:00. Well that shocked me, is that the kind of leadership I'm going to have here? Someone that is not a morning person that doesn't want to get here on time? The staff I told them and they said Debbie hang in there you're OK. The Board will do the right thing, don't worry. You will do the right thing for yourself and thus... So I said well Deborah how about 9:30 and she said could we make it any later. And I said 10:00, that's the latest I can go because I have a meeting at 11:30, I have another meeting at 2:00 and she said all right I'll be there. And I said please try to come between 9:30 and 10:00. Well she came at 10:00 and she's a very, very nice person, I'm not saying that... she was very nice, but I don't think she has any idea the political position she's putting herself in and I don't think after spending the time with her she has any idea of the tremendous responsibility she's taking on. She did not once ask me any of the right questions. She did not once ask me about Vital Records. I mentioned to her that we are going to be taking this on. I was trying to help her understand her position if she took this leadership position what responsibilities she would have. That's how we would discuss Vital Records or that's how we were discussing the (inaudible). I brought out to her, because I wanted to know how she really felt. I really want to keep an open mind, handle this professionally, and I really want to know her feelings, her answers, and I don't want to... They know what her answers were and they can all back me up. They were not the right ones for this position. I wish Deborah good luck everywhere and what scared us too is we all, as it is public record, looked at every applicant because this our future, our leader. So we gathered all of the applications on Monday and we all looked them over. And then we just decided let's just take the names off of them and get any personal or political or any feelings out of it. Let's white out the names and make copies and hand them out and you take them home and give them to your families and I'll take them home and give them to my families and then see what they say. Every one of us came back the next day and we had our meeting and every one of us said Steve Lacina was the most qualified candidate. I'm not taking anything away from Deborah, she is a wonderful person.. What scared a lot of us and the comments we got from people we showed these to without the names was if I take this position I will take a leave of absence from my job for 2 years. Do you really want to taxpayers of this County for all of us to invest all of our money and our time in building up knowledge in a position that's going to be very critical, they are going to have help this study committee and they are going to have to know things and they are going to have to make a commitment to that office that even if the study committee which we don't know what's going to happen, but if the study committee says we think the taxpayers of Johnson County can be better served by merging these duties and they give that recommendation to you and the public, it still requires 8,482 signatures on a petition to get that on the ballot. And then it is up to the voters. But also on that ballot needs to be the name of someone that has spent 2 years there, has the knowledge, understands the situation, and will accept any decision the voters give him or her. Because if the voters do not... if this was on the ballot, this petition or whatever it is called and the voters say no and it only gets 10% of the vote then who... here we are again, here we are right back here again 18 months from now. We do not think that's good and that's the things that bothered us about Deborah and you should take into consideration that maybe in this time between now and the official vote you should white out all of the names like we have. Take them to your family, your friends, the general public that walk in your door and say examine these for me and tell me who you think is the best qualified to be in a leadership position to make a commitment to an office. I don't think taxpayers' money would be spent well for us investing all of our time and our knowledge in someone that will leave after 2 years. We do not hire anyone, (inaudible), with everyone in that office. Also in that office everyone there is hardworking, dedicated and very concerned. I told you yesterday that their support was Steve Lacina on qualifications only. They came today and our day is busy, we had 2 volunteers to stay and we took turns, but they came today to express to you also they would like me to speak, they can speak if they want. They do not want to see this go into the hands of an unqualified leader. They do not think that is what is best for them, the taxpayers of this county and that's who we need to think about. Not ourselves and not how Deborah would feel or not how Steve would feel or anything. We need to get all of the names out of this and just look at what is best for the taxpayers of this county. Yes we would have to work with whoever, we have no choice and that's kind of strange. Usually everybody I talk to in private businesses, your boss is appointed and someone from the team is going to give their opinion and they listen. I could go on and on, do you know the liability of that office? I would really be interested did you... John and Sylvia prepared questions for these applicants at the interviews. Did you ask them these questions?
Stutsman: Yes.
Jensen: What were their answers?
Stutsman: Not all of them verbatim, a lot of them were questions...
Jensen: What were their answers on their liability? The liability issues on there in varying... that's one of the most important ones to me, because that's where taxpayers' money will be wasted. If you put someone in there that does not understand the responsibilities and what that leadership position means, the County the lawsuits will start coming if the staff was stressed out with the boss or someone telling them to do things. You can't work unless there is harmony. You can't work in an office where there is tension, stress and uneasiness, where there is unhappiness, where people don't get along. Who does that hurt? Not any of us. The taxpayers, the people of this County that you represent, that's where it hurts. The liability issue is very, very important and I know I think that's why I am so happy that we're having a study committee in many ways. I think this Board needs to be educated on what the Recorder's Office does. I think this Committee needs to be educated and the public. Since I've gotten into this I've seen very irresponsible journalism and I am going to make sure that doesn't happen when the study committee starts. I really feel that you need to think about this. You could be sued bigtime if a $95,000,000 mortgage that we did got put into the wrong place. There are abstractors here that will stand up and tell you that. They rely on these records. If they are wrong, that's not good. If you have a staff that's not happy and under stress, they're only human, could a mistake be made? Yes I think so. I have seen that happen in the past and I have come to their rescue. Luckily, I have been there for them and I plan on always being there for them. I think you need to consider that, because if that happens you will be using taxpayers' money when you make this decision in another very bad way. I don't know there's so many more things I want to say, but I do not want to get into any political or personal attacks on anyone. That is not my agenda, it never has been. People that came to me when I was going through this in my heart, should I apply or not told me things that I would like to address to you no matter what happens here later in executive session. It scares me.
Stutsman: OK and I'm willing to listen to that.
Jensen: It's good, because you need to. I am worried about what people think of your leadership. I thought we had a wonderful Board. Everywhere I went I have a large following. I have a lot of friends and they have a lot of friends. We always spoke nothing, but high things of all of you. People would say can you believe so and so and I said well maybe that's what they felt was best. Jonathan's only been here a short time and my short time here with him I felt I could trust him, that he would do the right thing. Joe I've known and I've felt I could always come to him and say why did you do this or that, there's a concern and he would give me his honest answer and I put my faith in him. He would do what was best for the Johnson County taxpayers and not give into any political pull he feels from anywhere and so would Jonathan and so would you and so would Charlie and so would Steve. I feel you need to really look at this situation seriously and not just consider it's only for 18 months, anybody can just do that. That is not true. Think about that. We will be investing our time and the county's taxpayers' money into someone that will not stay or will not want to go on. That scares us a lot. Also I think you need to look at how these people feel sitting in here and the 2 that are trying to do, all of our work while we're gone. They are your best assets, they are the people that wait on the public. Do you know how our service... do you want to hear complaints about the service? I don't want you to. Have you ever heard complaints about any one of their behaviors to a taxpayer?
Stutsman: No and matter of fact all of the applicants in their interviews talked very highly of the office and how well it provided service, the professional staff and so...
Jensen: That is good to hear Sally, because I was worried about that, I wasn't at the interviews. Because we have strived, do you think I would dedicate half of my life into a job if I didn't care about it? I don't think I can talk anymore, thank you.
Stutsman: Thank you Deb.
Duffy: Yes, Sally could I suggest something? I just wonder I know Steve did not ask for executive session, I don't think Deb did either did she?
Bolkcom: No.
Stutsman: No, Deb?
Duffy: Conger.
Stutsman: Oh Conger yes. No.
Duffy: I'm just wondering if we shouldn't take time here, this is a very important decision to play the tape. Can we put it on the loudspeaker so that everyone can hear these interviews?
Stutsman: Charlie, what would that accomplish? I don't know that...
Duffy: Well I think that would be more involvement with the public. There wasn't anybody here hardly. I'm willing to take the time for a very important appointment here.
Stutsman: Well I think the Board is the ones that are making the decision on the appointment.
Duffy: Yes, but it would be public information, that's all I hear about, get the public involved and I'm not so sure that wouldn't be a good thing to do.
Stutsman: Well people are certainly welcome to come in and listen to the tape any time they want.
Duffy: After we make the decision.
Stutsman: Right.
Duffy: I've got a problem with that.
Sheila Boyd: Sally?
Stutsman: Yes Sheila?
Boyd: I'm Sheila Boyd and again I'm having a hard time as a taxpayer and as a business owner, hearing from staff, their recommendation out of how many years and I too have looked at the applications. I'm a little surprised and I'm not sure... I understand this is your job. I have a feeling you're making a comfortable choice and maybe not the correct one. I'm not sure you have a good read of what the general public is thinking out there, because I have a strong feeling that this will force an election. Because I think there's a lot of people looking at those qualifications. Whether they hear the tape or not Charlie, they have formed opinions. I think a lot of people will assume that you are going to make the choice of somebody that has the experience in County government and not necessarily their short term or long term, yes I realize you have to look, you've got a study coming up, but to take staff recommendations and to go totally the opposite way, I think you're going to hear from your taxpayers, because I do not believe... I believe most of your taxpayers would go from your staff recommendations, from the retiring Recorder. I would not be surprised to say you will have an election on your hands.
Jensen: And I really don't want that.
Boyd: That's coming from a read of the community that I have taken a specific interest in this and I'm very surprised that you would go against staff recommendation I guess, especially with the qualifications.
Jensen: (Inaudible).
Stutsman: Just a minute Deb, I'm going to let Barb have a chance to speak. Do you want to identify yourself please?
Barbara MacDonald: Yes, my name's Barbara MacDonald. I think a lot of people in the community have been very interested in this whole process.
Jordahl: Barbara would you identify our relationship please?
MacDonald: You're the father of my children. You're my husband, however, I also have my own interests and opinions and I believe there has been a lot of public interest in this and a lot of public concern. Speaking for myself and speaking for what I've heard from friends, neighbors, coworkers, people who are very interested in this, there is a great deal of discomfort and distrust when the Board is put in a position where they need to look at naming one of their own members to a position that pays a tremendously higher wage than the current one. I think there have been letters in the paper to that effect. I think just as we need to take feelings of staff and public into consideration, we also need to take into consideration the integrity of our political and democratic processes. I think change is very difficult, change is very scary to be in a place where you've had someone for a generation and then look at somebody else. Especially someone that you don't know. It can be very frightening, but I don't think that fear of the unknown or fear of change needs to stop us. I don't know that change needs to be bad. I don't see that bringing in some new blood and some new ideas is going to result in million dollar lawsuits or a lack of appropriate service to the public. I believe that the Supervisors have debated long and hard about this and have made the best choice according to their conscience. This is how democracy works and at this point it looks like the majority have made a choice and we can choose to live with that and work with that well or we can choose to decide right now that it's not going to work and we aren't going to be positive participants. I really hope that people choose to do the former. That the County deserves that.
Stutsman: Deb, do you have a comment?
Jensen: Yes, I understand that opinion and that's what really bothers me. That's bringing in personal feelings. You should not look at an applicant and say this person wants to better himself. Why should he be appointed, because he's on the Board. He shouldn't go there, because he's on the Board. That would be an increase in his salary, that's why he wants it. I sincerely tell you that that is not true. If Deborah Conger was really interested in the leadership of that office she would've came to me, this announcement was made when February 21st, she would have came to me shortly after that saying I really care about the Recorder's Office and the service you provide and I think I can be an asset to that office. You should not ever tell anyone that they shouldn't ever go after something if the opportunity arises. If someone wants to change careers they should be more than happy to do that and people should support that feeling. There should be no reason why they shouldn't. If you say that it's not fair to the taxpayers and someone on the Board does it for a salary reason then you're not thinking of what's best for that office. Your just thinking about your personal feelings. I think that's very important. Change is wonderful and I've gone through many. You can even ask Mr. Zimmermann when I first started. We were in a tiny little vault writing in books like you see in some old movie and I've always respected Mr. Zimmermann as a matter of fact I'd recommend him. He's a wonderful person and I'm glad to see him here.
Richard Zimmermann: You taught me the law.
Jensen: You know what I enjoy the most too and I shouldn't get on this is that. When I told the Board I was resigning, I told them I had every faith that they would do the right thing. I got a lot of pressure that they wouldn't and I said no I'm sure they will, I've dealt with them. They will base it on qualifications only, but when Mr. Zimmermann and I can remember a lot of times when young attorneys would come in and as I said we would guide them and it is an office that provides a lot of service. I do not think Deborah Conger as the wonderful person that she is, does not have that service, that personality, what do you call it, what would you say she's a people person, no. What you need in a public office is a people person. Not that she doesn't have some other fine qualities and she was a delight to be around. She did not have the skills and I don't think the reason that I read in the paper that says why does Steve Lacina want this, I don't think that's true. I don't think you should ever bring in your personal feelings when you make a decision about the future lives or the taxpayers' money. That's what this is going back to. I don't want an election. I think that is a waste of taxpayers money when we have 4 people up here that I think can look at this open-mindedly. Do not bring in personal feelings about Steve is leaving the Board just to go there and get more money. That is not why he's doing this. He sees something open, he sees where our needs are. He's the only Board member that I've ever been around since he's been in office that has stopped in, besides Charlie once in a while, to say what do you do here, what are your needs are, what are your problems here? That's one of the things I found out when I was going through this. The Department Heads and other elected officials and the other people that are employed here, I'm talking about this whole building. How many people called and came to me? 200 or 300. Concerned that this Board couldn't make this right decision and I said well yes they can. They'll look at the qualifications only and it'll be OK. They came to me with their concerns and that's what I want to address later when this is all over, because I think you need to spend... I know that your schedules are busy and you don't get paid very much for all of the work that you put in. We feel that too. But you need to go to each office even if it's once every 6 months. Ask them is there anything coming up that I can help you with, meet an employee ask them. Did Deborah Conger do this to us? No. Did Steve? Yes, he's been doing it for a long time since I've known him. I think you just need to sit down and consider it and I respect your opinions very much. I do respect your opinions.
Stutsman: Bill Terry?
Bill Terry: I'm Bill Terry, 3575 Hanks Drive, Iowa City. I'm hearing all this rhetoric about why Mr. Lacina might have applied for this, I've read it in the newspaper and I really don't think that's a germane thing. I think that if I were sitting where Mr. Lacina is sitting and I had one or 2 children in college or about ready to go to college I'd sure look at the financial benefits, but that's really beside the point. The point is I've heard leadership, I've seen Steve on the P and Z, I've seen him as a Supervisor, I've seen him where you sit Sally as Chair, and he has led this Board and this County in a very dignified and professional manner. I've heard about knowing what's going on in the courthouse, Steve knows this institution and I think for an interim basis and that's what we're talking about is an interim. Steve is the person that you want to put in there, because you don't have to have anybody get educated as to what's going to go on and how that office is run. He knows how that office is run. I think thirdly if you don't listen to staff you're going to have a very disgruntled organization for the next 20 months and I'll guarantee you this, if Mr. Lacina wishes it... I will go one step further, I will spearhead a special election and I don't think the County residents want to spend another $20,000 on an election for something that Steve can handle right now. You've got a staff that's going to be happy. I also know, I know Steve personally and I know him as professionally as being on the P and Z myself and working with him in different zoning matters, that whatever the study committee comes up with and whatever the voters decide to do Steve will abide with it. Because if nothing else one thing that Steve lives by is called honor and he will honor whatever you, the voters and taxpayers decide to do. Thank you.
Stutsman: A couple more comments then we need to move on.
Ken Stoner: Ken Stoner, I'm the owner and operator of Reliance Title Services. We're a major user of services from the Recorder's Office as well as from the other County offices and we're a substantial purchaser of services from the Recorder's Office especially. It seems to me that the Board has put in place a very qualified committee study whether or not the merger of or consolidation of the Recorder's Office into another department should take place. I think it's a mistake to presume an agenda of putting a person in that temporary position that will further the agenda of eliminating that position. But rather that person should go in with a clear and open mind and let the study committee whom you've already selected make the decision about whether consolidation of that office is appropriate or not and put the qualified person in place that would continue to run that department on an ongoing basis. And much as the Secretary of State Paul Pate would like to eliminate his own office, if Steve Lacina is in that position you must have every confidence that if he sees the consolidation or elimination of that office as appropriate you have to have the confidence that he would go ahead and eliminate his own job. But from everything that I've heard of Steve Lacina we would have to support his position as the next temporary Recorder. Thank you.
Stutsman: Thank you. R.J.?
R.J. Moore: I'm R.J. Moore 4025 Stewart Road NE. I'm not making a comment on your choice just part of the process here. I understand through the rumor mill there's already a petition in place that has enough signature in place that would require a special election. If you appoint somebody especially Deb Conger, who is a member of the League of Women Voters, they've already made recommendations to eliminate that office and two, reduce your number from 5 to 3.
Duffy: That's right.
Moore: I'm wondering if a special election is forced and it costs us $20,000 or so in tax dollars would that person then be willing to run for election and after that 18 months down the road if that position is not eliminated through a special election at our next elections in 1998, would that person then be willing to stay in the office rather than leave the office. I think anybody that runs a business or a County service realizes that continuity in any position provides a higher level of service. If the person you appoint is willing to adhere to the recommendations of your study committee and if those go against what the League has recommended, would they be willing to stay in that position and provide the continuity and professionalism that that office already has? I don't want to see my tax dollars going down the drain if somebody doesn't want to stay with us and provide the service that the County (inaudible). That's the one thing I'd sit and think about, not who you're talking about, but that whole sequence of events there that could happen. We have a person now that you're recommending that is basically from an organization that says eliminate the office. But what if we don't? What if the voters or the public decides we need to keep it as is? Would they then stay in that position and provide us that longevity and continuity?
Stutsman: Well any time you run for an elected office, though R.J. there's never any guarantee you're going to stay in that office. You can be voted out. So I guess I don't see that as a real serious consideration or... I've got a lot of experience, but there's no saying I'm going to be able to use that experience the next time I run for election. I can easily be voted out of office.
Bolkcom: Can I make a comment Sally?
Stutsman: One more comment from the back and then we'll hear from (inaudible).
Mike Jensen: My name's Mike Jensen and I live at 2934 Timberland Place. And yes, I'm related to Debbie. She's my aunt. But I'm here today to show my support for Steve Lacina and also what R.J. was saying I guess when Deb Conger readily admits that she is taking a leave of absence and so she is looking at this as a temporary job. I think the continuity of service is very, very important and I also agree with what Ken had to say and Bill Terry. I'm willing to help Bill with the signatures necessary if that's what we have to do. So thank you for your time.
Stutsman: Joe?
Bolkcom: I guess the question of people's motivations particularly candidates coming into this process, I think everybody has an opinion about whether or not this position could be consolidated or not consolidated, but the final decision is going to be made by the voters of Johnson County, not by the Interim Recorder that we are going to appoint here. It's going to be made by everybody in this room and all the other voters that are out there. It's not going to be made by the Supervisors or this interim person.
Recorder's Office Clerk III Margaret Juels: Could I just make one comment please?
Stutsman: Sure.
Juels: I just want people to be aware of that the changes that our office is going to take on in the next few months. We're getting vital records: births, deaths, marriages. That's going to be a big workload on us and we need somebody who is going to help us, who is going to want to work with us, who is going to want to advance our office and try to make us more accessible to the public and not less. We need somebody who is going to want to work and not just be in a temporary position and not just think we'll get by, we'll just let those people do whatever they have to do, we don't care about those people. I just want you guys to know that we do care about what we do in our office. We want to serve the public well. We want to have somebody who is going to work with us, who is going to be an asset to us and help us grow as workers for Johnson County, as people of Johnson County. And to just make your decision hopefully based on what you've heard from everybody here today. Thanks.
Stutsman: Thank you. I said no more comments Bob, so I think we're going to move on. Any other comments from the Board before we move on to item E.
Duffy: What's item E?
Stutsman: Discussion regarding salary survey.
Jordahl: Well Charlie was suggesting playing a tape and I guess I'd be interested in hearing people that had something to say.
Stutsman: I think we've already had the discussion.
Duffy: Half of them are leaving. I hear about public involvement all the time, it sure seems strange that you didn't want to listen to the tapes. That's real strange. You talk about politics, I think right there you got it.
Lacina left the meeting and audience at 10:51 a.m.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SURVEY OF COUNTY MANAGEMENT SALARIES
Stutsman: OK discussion E regarding salary survey. We have put money aside to do some salary adjustments for next year and before we can do anything with those moneys we need to put in place some kind of salary survey. And we've talked about this, but we haven't taken any steps to begin to move on this. So I just wanted to put on the agenda today to see how the Board wants to approach this. Do you want to look at maybe hiring somebody outside the County? Do we want to wait for the HR person? I can tell you my feelings. I hate to wait for the HR person. I think the HR person is going to have a tremendous amount of things on their plate and I think a salary study is something that's going to require a lot of attention and expertise. And I'm afraid if we put it off, it will be way until the end of next year before we start addressing these salary concerns. So I guess my feeling is maybe looking at getting some bids from outside contractors. I have no idea how much this would cost. If there's other people in the community that have businesses that are available to do this. I just feel we need to get the ball rolling on this thing is my feelings.
Duffy: I understand that Sally, but I understand also that people just got through paying their taxes. And for the next tax period most of their homes are already valuated a lot higher than they thought they would and I just hate to start any new programs, outside person. We're spending the taxpayers' dollars and I'm a little concerned. I've had some calls that even if we did do a good job with our County budget I thought, but some of these new things I don't think I would be for that getting an outside person to look into our County government. There's where experience comes in too by the way.
Stutsman: So are you saying wait for the HR person to do the salary study.
Duffy: I guess, but I certainly wouldn't be for spending the taxpayers money to look into this. I guess I've been around too long.
Stutsman: Well it's a tight budget year.
Jordahl: Yes, I think Charlie's got a good point there. If we are hiring an HR person, maybe we should... we could always give a portion of this salary increase in a lump sum in some sense retroactive to July 1 once the evaluation was made so that it wouldn't necessarily... in some sense postpone the raise, but it would take advantage of the money we are spending for that position.
Bolkcom: I think we should get some costs on doing a survey and just see what it will cost us to do it. I think the HR person is going to be incredibly busy when we get them on board in July. If we could get this done for $1000 or something in that neighborhood, it would be worth getting it done.
Peters: Are you talking about strictly a survey or are you talking about a survey plus evaluations?
Stutsman: Strictly a survey. To do across the board study of middle management salaries, salaries that are outside the union, to see how they compare with other jobs of similar scale and just see are we right on track, are we way below, just so that we can start making the adjustments over a number of years and work towards bringing up salaries so that they are competitive with equivalent jobs. Does that explain?
Bolkcom: Yes.
Stutsman: OK.
Peters: In fact actually I think we've got probably some of that information on hand. It would help you get the study going. It wouldn't be completed, but we do have some of that information on hand that would help expedite the study.
Duffy: Unless I'm wrong, be prepared for higher wages.
Stutsman: Well I'm sure there's going to have to be some adjustments Charlie, because I think we've heard from some department heads that they're finding it hard to retain people, to attract people in the first place, because of salaries. I think we just need to look at this and make some adjustments where it's appropriate.
Jordahl: That's why we specifically set aside some money. I think we were in general agreement about that that there were some inequities. There were some departments that needed particular attention. And that means yes, some higher wages in those departments, but that's to address the question of keeping qualified staff and rewarding people appropriately and keeping the high level of service. I think it's a very relatively small cost for the level of service to be maintained.
Duffy: Well I didn't want to throw cold water on this personally. I just meant we better be prepared and maybe there's some moneys in the budget that we won't have to ask for budget amendment and things like that. Because I just expect, we can't keep up with when you compare us with a city like Iowa City.
Stutsman: And I don't expect us to, but I want us to be fair and competitive.
Duffy: I'm for that Sally, but I'm just preparing...
Stutsman: Carol, do you have some names of some people who do this kind of work? I guess I have a business card from somebody too that...
Peters: There's one company that does this kind of work. It pretty much focuses on governmental entities and then we have names of several other people that have (inaudible).
Bolkcom: Could you use your mike Carol, so people can hear what you're saying?
Peters: Oh I'm sorry. There is one company that I know of just off the top of my head that pretty much focuses on governmental entities such as the cities and the counties. And then we do have letters from other firms that have written and said if ever you need our services, please keep our name on file. So I have 3.
Stutsman: Could you put that together for us maybe in the next couple of weeks and then we can put it back on the agenda.
Peters: Sure. I'd be glad to.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: APPOINTMENTS TO THE COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND BOARD OF HEALTH
Stutsman: OK. Appointments to the Compensation Commission.
Peters: We have an opening on the Compensation Commission due to a death. The reason this is on the agenda is I'm asking permission to advertise for that slot. It would just be an unexpired term that would serve from now until the end of the year, because these are only one year appointments.
Stutsman: Is that alright with the Board to go ahead and advertise for that?
Jordahl: Sure.
Bolkcom: That's fine.
Peters: Thank you.
Stutsman: Anything else Carol on that one? Discussion regarding appointment to the Board of Health. Lorraine Stamus has resigned after serving on the board for 5 years. So we accept her resignation and need to move forward to make another appointment. I asked Carol to put on the agenda applicants who applied for the Board of Health the last... in December for appointments to January. Now Lorraine's term runs until the end of December, so it would be similar to the Compensation board just filling out the end of that term. And I didn't know how the staff wanted to move ahead on this if you wanted to just appoint from the list of those people?
Peters: I was going to say the difference between this one and the previous one is we do have a lengthy list of those candidates who had applied for this board the last time around.
Stutsman: To the Board of Health.
Peters: Yes, to the Board of Health.
Stutsman: And we didn't have that with the Compensation?
Peters: No.
Stutsman: OK.
Duffy: I'd almost say we should advertise again, because it is different circumstances. That was set up so these people that apply and didn't get the position that we keep in our files for a year would not have to apply again. But the players are different. They applied for when we selected Dr. Dobyns and Jim Martinek. It's a different ballgame, so I would say it wouldn't hurt to, and keeping these people in mind too maybe, to advertise just a little bit for this position. I wouldn't go to great lengths, but I think should be probably.
Stutsman: Well I guess...
Duffy: But these are all regular, that's why we keep those Sally.
Stutsman: Right. I guess I'm for just going ahead and appointing from this list of people who have applied. I contacted all of them and I guess I would suggest Craig Zwerling, but whatever the Board wants to do. If you want to open it back up again that's fine with me. Any comments from...
Jordahl: Talk about qualifications, I was just dazzled by this Dr. Zwerling's qualifications. He has a doctorate in the History of Science. MD degree...
Stutsman: And he served on the National Public Health Board.
Jordahl: He has a masters in public health and another MS on top of that in Public Health with a pile of research related to this including rural health issues, a very well qualified applicant. The others are too, but this is amazing.
Stutsman: Joe, did you have any...
Bolkcom: I like Dr. Zwerling. I also think it would be appropriate to open it up again. Have you talked to Dr... is he still interested?
Stutsman: No, and I was going to say I haven't touched base with any of these people to see if they are still interested in serving on the board.
Peters: I hadn't either I was just kind of waiting to see how you folks wanted to proceed, before I...
Stutsman: I guess even if we did open it up we still would contact these people and ask if their applications wanted to be...
Bolkcom: Right.
Duffy: They would be automatic. They wouldn't have to fill it out again.
Bolkcom: I like Diane... I like another applicant here that's got a lot of groundwater experience and that's an area that we deal with on the Board of Health and we could get some other variety of people too, but... So I'd be up for opening it up for a couple of weeks and contacting these folks.
Jordahl: Well you're certainly right Charlie that the situation is different than it was and that might encourage some different applicants to apply...
Bolkcom: And it's likely...
Duffy: That does not slight the people that applied...
Bolkcom: Not at all.
Jordahl: No these people would remain in the pool, if... Yes, that's right. We wouldn't be opening it up, because we have any degree of disappointment with the current pool, but rather.
Bolkcom: Not at all. It is likely also I would think that whoever we appoint to fill out this 6, 7, 8 months would potentially reapply again and be considered again so I look at this as maybe more of... while we make a decision now we can change the decision in December, but it's possible that this person is going to serve for 3 plus years and therefore I would argue if we're looking at that kind of commitment that opening it up makes sense.
Stutsman: OK, so I guess we will go ahead and open up the application process and advertise for 2 weeks, is that what we normally do?
Peters: That would be fine. 2 to 3 weeks. Usually we try to time it so that the applications are back giving staff enough time to compile it for Tuesday's agenda, so if we get it out today probably leave it out there until the 16th and have it back on your agenda the 22nd.
Stutsman: OK that sounds good as well as the Compensation Board too. We can consider both of those at the same time.
Peters: Sure.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: FIREWORKS PERMIT FEES AND DEADLINES FOR APPLICATIONS
Stutsman: Fireworks permits and deadlines, discussion regarding.
Bolkcom: So there is a proposal to raise, currently the fireworks permits are $10 a piece and there is a proposal to raise the permit fee to $20.
Peters: Correct.
Bolkcom: And to reduce the deadline from 14 days to 7 days?
Peters: Correct.
Bolkcom: So people don't...
Duffy: Why? A lot of these are family affairs $20 seems like to double the... I'd probably be for $15. I don't think I'm going to go for $20.
Jordahl: What's the additional fee designed to cover, is there some expense to us besides the printing of the materials?
Peters: Just administrative costs, time.
Duffy: Might hear some complaints.
Stutsman: About the cost?
Duffy: No, about the bang, bang, bang.
Jordahl: Yes, but the fee doesn't address that.
Duffy: I know.
Jordahl: I heard somebody say recently that these fees ought to reflect the cost of the County providing a service and at such point as we had a county-wide training program then I could see charging a $20, $25 fee, but I wonder what justifies this increase.
Peters: Strictly inflation.
Bolkcom: How long has it been $10?
Peters: Since ‘83 I believe. I'd have to double-check.
Stutsman: I would support the $15 increase and going to 7 days instead of 2 weeks.
Bolkcom: Well how much time is involved Carol? Somebody comes in here, they fill out an application, we review it, somebody has to put it on the agenda, it's then sent out to the Sheriff's Department.
Peters: The Sheriff, the Auditor, sent back to the applicant and depositing the money.
Bolkcom: Is there an hour worth of time there or 2 hours?
Peters: No I would say probably a half hour.
Stutsman: The only other time I can think of Kim put in quite a bit of time redoing that pamphlet.
Peters: Redoing the pamphlet and also she did a lot research. That definitely did take time.
Bolkcom: How much do people spend on an average fireworks display?
Jordahl: There's a good question, I bet that's a big dollar amount.
Stutsman: I bet it is too. I bet it's hundreds of dollars.
Peters: I can only speak for one that I know of...
Duffy: Morse?
Peters: Yes and I know what they spend.
Stutsman: What do they spend Carol? You don't have to say it in the meeting.
Jordahl: I bet the figure is in the thousands rather than the hundreds.
Stutsman: Well, when you put it in that perspective $15 isn't that much.
Peters: It's not only the cost of the display, but also somebody has to go get it.
Stutsman: Well and I don't want to get a fireworks permit fee so low that it's sometimes I think by adding a bigger fee you convey a seriousness of the situation too that if you're going to do this then...
Peters: Well and that was the original intent of the 14 day waiting period was to try to impress on people that this is a serious matter and just like any serious matter you do plan ahead for it.
Jordahl: Informing neighbors about noise possibilities for example.
Peters: Well or even just coming in and getting the application. People have had to give it a little bit of thought. If I'm going to have this display on such and such a day, then I'm going to need to start working on this ahead of time.
Stutsman: Well we have a proposal of $15. Is there any?
Jordahl: Well I'm persuaded by a couple of things Carol has said here and you conveying the idea of the seriousness of what this is. $20 and 14 days doesn't sound like a bad idea. It's sort of putting up a fence and saying this is serious business.
Peters: Leave the days as they are? The days right now are 14 days in advance.
Jordahl: Uh-huh. That's one opinion.
Stutsman: I guess we were thinking of lowering the days, because people had run into problems.
Peters: People weren't planning.
Stutsman: Weren't planning ahead. For one thing they didn't know they needed a permit, and then when they realized they needed a permit it was hard to realize the 2 weeks and we thought maybe 7 days would be a little bit more workable.
Bolkcom: I would support 7 days and $20. I think $20 barely if... I would argue $20 probably doesn't cover our costs for the amount of time. It goes through a number of people's hands. It's on our agenda. $20 isn't much money.
Duffy: I guess it all depends just how big a display it is. Somebody shooting off sparklers and a few firecrackers versus down at Morse, they do have quite a show.
Peters: This doesn't cover the firecrackers and sparklers.
Duffy: Well sparklers are all over, but this doesn't cover firecrackers?
Peters: No, you don't need a permit.
Duffy: I would think that sparklers wouldn't be covered, but I'm not so sure about cherry bombs.
Peters: It has to be a certain level of explosives before.
Jordahl: Well those basic fireworks are illegal to begin with in Iowa right? The permit, I don't understand this process really. I mean we're saying you can do something that's otherwise illegal.
Peters: Basically the history on this was people that were applying to buy fireworks displays needed a permit before the vendor would sell it to them and that's why you have a permit process. Basically what you're saying is yes you can have this display in the county, but then they take that with them to their vendor to show that they do have permission from their home entity to purchase and display.
Jordahl: So I want to get back to Charlie's question, I mean suppose a person wants to have some firecrackers, what do they do?
Peters: You can just buy those anywhere in town.
Jordahl: Well sparklers and snakes, but actual exploding fireworks it's my understanding that you cannot have those in Iowa.
Bolkcom: They're illegal. If you were going to be lawful, you'd probably get a permit.
Peters: OK I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing.
Jordahl: I mean in a sense people who are having large displays I assume that would cover the small fireworks, but I think Charlie's question what about a person who wants permission to do small things? Do we not do that?
Peters: No.
Stutsman: We're getting...
Bolkcom: If they come in we'll give them a permit, but I don't think we're having people who have a few firecrackers come in and get a permit. It's bigger displays.
Stutsman: OK, let's get back to the discussion about the fee and the deadline.
Duffy: Maybe we ought to go with the $20 like Joe suggests then. I didn't realize, are you sure we're not talking about firecrackers?
Peters: Are you talking about the little things that you light and they crawl on the ground?
Stutsman: Oh snakes.
Jordahl: No the exploding ones.
Peters: Oh, OK. I'm sorry.
Duffy: No I'm talking about the...
Peters: You're talking about the big ones. You need a permit for the big ones.
Duffy: All right that takes care of that. It isn't that big of deal I suppose an extra $5, but...
Stutsman: Well let's go with the $20 then and 2 weeks, I guess I would support the one week.
Jordahl: I guess I can go along with one week. I would prefer conveying the gravity of the situation and maybe having people with more plans doing this stuff, but one week's OK I guess.
Stutsman: Put that on the agenda then for Thursday.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: COUNTY APPOINTMENT TO IOWA CITY DEER COMMISSION
Stutsman: Discussion regarding Johnson County Appointment to the Iowa City Deer Commission. I have not gotten any interest from the Conservation Board to put somebody on the Iowa City Deer Commission. They're concerned...
Bolkcom: I think Charlie would be an excellent appointment to that.
Stutsman: I guess I would like to see at least somebody from the County sit on that task force as a liaison or communication. We've already done a deer project through Kent Park.
Duffy: I'm familiar with Kent Park.
Bolkcom: Would you consider being our appointment Charlie?
Duffy: That's what you asked me the last time, I think somebody when I was told we need more coyotes to take care of the deer, then I thought boy.
Bolkcom: It's true.
Duffy: Right in this room. Surely there should be, you didn't here from Rod or Tom?
Stutsman: No, and they decided not to suggest anybody because they've got a relationship with the DNR and they didn't want to jeopardize that in any way and they thought by being on this commission there might some misconstrued interests and things. So I would like you to do it too, Charlie.
Duffy: Well how often do they meet?
Stutsman: I don't know. You'll find out at the first meeting. You can...
Duffy: Boy, a glutton for punishment. Well I don't care, it sounds like popular demand. If you want me on that committee, that's what I'll do.
Stutsman: Thank you for agreeing to do that. Any reports from the Board? Charlie do you have anything?
REPORT (DUFFY): RECEIVED PHONE CALLS ABOUT EMBARGOED SECONDARY ROADS
Duffy: I've been having a lot of calls at home especially about the roads.
Stutsman: The roads?
Duffy: Well some of the folks don't understand the embargo on the County roads.
Stutsman: Oh, yes.
Duffy: Really it's going to help this dry weather. I guess that's it.
Stutsman: OK. Jonathan?
REPORTS (JORDAHL): RETIREMENT PARTY FOR JOHN O'NEILL AND APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM RECORDER
Jordahl: Well I think I've been consumed with the Recorder application process for the last few days. I guess we should note that John O'Neill officially retired yesterday and there was a celebration of his long service to the County. A number of awards were made and present for everyone to view. A good attendance and that's what brings us to the position of appointing a replacement Recorder today. So basically thanks to John O'Neill for his service.
Stutsman: Great. Joe?
REPORT (BOLKCOM): UPDATE ON SEATS
Bolkcom: I had an opportunity to ride a SEATS van last Friday morning from about quarter of 7 until about 11:30 and got a good view of the service and as we approach the deliberations with Iowa City it was helpful to kind of get a sense of the volume of service that we're providing which is substantial. We look forward to getting together with Iowa City this week to talk about beginning that negotiation on the new contract. That's it.
Stutsman: I attended a MECCA Board meeting on Thursday and they have set up an office in Coralville for their employee assistance program. They'll be having an open house in the near future so it will give us an opportunity to visit out there. Also attended legislative forums on Saturday morning and interesting to hear what the Representatives had to say about what's going on in the legislature. It sounds like it's never a dull moment up there. Also need to see if there is any interest in anybody taking tours to the REM program in Coralville. I received a call from the director and if anybody is interested in going to observe that program why don't you let me know...
Bolkcom: OK.
Stutsman: ...and maybe we can coordinate some visits so that we're not all going out at different times and maybe we can go out in pairs.
Jordahl: The REM program?
Stutsman: Yes, I'm not real sure what the acronym stands for, but it's a group home in Coralville that deals with severely disabled individuals.
Bolkcom: I'd be up for doing that Sally.
Stutsman: OK, all right. We also need to do a 6 month evaluation of the Engineer that is up on April 7th and I didn't know how the Board wanted to touch base with Ed. If we wanted to maybe have a special session Monday afternoon or do it as part of the Board meeting on Tuesday.
Peters: Actually I would suggest that that be done this week yet.
Stutsman: OK.
Bolkcom: Can we do it Thursday?
Stutsman: Thursday afternoon?
Bolkcom: Thursday as part of our like late morning executive session.
Duffy: I'm not going to be here for that groundwater, but go on ahead and do it though. I wouldn't really, I don't miss too many meetings, but this is too important.
Stutsman: Well the other choice would be Wednesday.
Jordahl: Tomorrow you mean?
Duffy: You can do it on Thursday if you want.
Stutsman: Do we want to set up for Thursday after the regular Board meeting and do an executive session.
Bolkcom: That's fine with me.
Stutsman: Can you contact Ed, then Carol and we'll get that ready.
Peters: I will.
Stutsman: Is there anything else to come before the Board? If not we will recess to formal meeting. Oh, I'm sorry Carol I take that back.
INQUIRY (ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT CAROL PETERS): SCHEDULE FOR UPCOMING STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION
Peters: This is just one of my little housekeeping things, in the process of finalizing the next strategic planning session for April 7th I need to know do you want this to be a working lunch or do you want it to, how much time do you want to spend? We're going to start at 8:00 in the morning.
Bolkcom: 8:00 until 12:00.
Peters: 8:00 until 12:00, OK.
Stutsman: Is that a problem with the room Carol? If we don't have a lunch?
Peters: No, they just charge extra is all.
Stutsman: Well I'm available for lunch that day if somebody wants to stay on at Wetherby's but...
Peters: Well yes I think there should be just about everybody there to continue the morning discussion.
Stutsman: OK, so we'll just to from 8:00 until noon. Charlie did you want to go through lunch? We'll just to from 8:00 until noon and then we're on our own as far as lunch plans are. Is that OK with you Jonathan?
Jordahl: Yes.
Peters: I'll make those arrangements, thank you very much.
Stutsman: Anything else then, Carol? That's it.
Peters: That's it, thanks.
Stutsman: All right we will recess to formal meeting.
Recessed to formal meeting of April 1, 1997 at 11:17 a.m. with Lacina absent; reconvened on April 3, 1997 at 9:17 a.m. with Lacina present and Duffy absent.