DISCUSSION: DIRECTOR OF BUDGET AND FINANCE JOB DESCRIPTION
Peters: I'd just like to remind the Board that when reviewing Kim's job description please remember that the definition in duties, set out there, the additional things are on the back page.
Bolkcom: Don't we need to have a better understanding of the path we're going to take to address budget issues before we can decide what we want? I'll throw that out.
Jordahl: Clearly they're related, in one sense to address the question of how this position ought to be defined is in a way to presume we have the answer to how will the duties of the budget be distributed between the Supervisors and the Auditor's offices. Joe are you suggesting that we defer action on this?
Bolkcom: I'm prepared to talk about it. I just want to make sure that... This is a pretty involved job description, the proposal and the proposed title change and I just want to make sure that we get what we need and not more than we need to move ahead.
Stutsman: I guess the board needs to make that decision, where we want the budget function to be. Do we want it to be in this office and move towards that or do we want it to be in the Auditors Office. I guess my feeling is that I feel that that function needs to be in the Board's Office and I think that we need to have a position that has some clarity and direction that we're going in that direction. Ideally I would like to see both offices work together and coordinate functions between the Auditor's Office and the Supervisors Office. But I think the things that I want from the person in the Board of Supervisors Office is more an individual that can analyze the information that is gotten together in the Auditor's Office and that present that information to the Supervisors. I know that the Auditors Office does a lot of the budget right now and I'm not saying that that should be taken out of there, but I think when we talk more about analyzing the numbers, I think that function should be in the Board of Supervisors Office.
Jordahl: If we're going to... I've depicted this as a bunch of options that we could pursue. Cooperation is kind of an ideal here, to pursue that question of cooperation I would like to see us move away from, if it's possible, and maybe it's not possible to step away from is it here or is it there to how is it going to work. Because ultimately we are going to have communication between the person in our office who replaces Kim, regardless of how that description is made, and the Auditor's Office. So rather than saying it's one or the other I guess I would like to refocus the discussion around what foot do we want to have down in our office that will be part of that process of communication and cooperation with the Auditor's Office. How do we want to configure that, because there will still, there certainly will remain I assume functions that pertain to budget figures, the collecting of those figures and so forth in the Auditor's Office and the analysis and interpretation will be in this office primarily but it will not be completely absent in the Auditor's Office immediately. I would like to find a way of defining this position that emphasizes that cooperation while at the same time clarifying the distinction in function. You know what I'm saying here, I don't want to create a win-lose situation where we say it's coming out of the Auditor's Office, because it's not.
Stutsman: No.
Bolkcom: Well, it could.
Stutsman: Well, yes. It could, we could eventually move to that direction, that similar to the way it's handled in, I hate to keep saying other counties, it strictly is under the Board of Supervisors Office.
Bolkcom: What is the problem we're trying to solve here?
Lacina: Part of it is inconsistency. We have a little bit of a taste of the potential. The Deputy position that we had, Kim was able to generate for us a 5 year average of the expenditures and revenues for the departments and we could see that while some departments may have fully expended the expenditure side on a 5 year average, they historically underestimated revenues, which then had to come out of the general fund. By identifying that trend, we can go and talk to them and not have that shortfall on that side, conversely there were departments that while they were very proud of the fact that they historically generated several hundred thousand dollars per year of excess revenues, the fact was that was not good budgeting. Because if you're doing it every year and you're not projecting it into next year, that's not good budgeting either. So she was able to show us some trend lines and some analysis and some areas we could do a little bit better job. But we did it one or two times and then we aren't going to necessarily have that this fall. To do that you need to do it every year to track it. So I think the generation of the numbers definitely is going to come from the Auditors Office, but when it comes to the analysis that's where I see this deputy function, which we had a taste of continuing to do that for us and do that benchmarking.
Bolkcom: On those 2 examples though about people that don't estimate revenues correctly, they have more or less, since I've been on the Board for 4 plus years we've gotten all that information every year. It's on the spreadsheets, we get for like for a 3 year past history and we've known which departments are not doing a very good job at that for the 4 years and the Board hasn't told those departments to do anything differently. I mean I think...
Lacina: In some cases it has, and it's been ignored.
Bolkcom: Kim did organize some good information last year, but the example you used we've had that information through the Auditor's Office since I've been around. The question is what are we doing with the information once we get it. I mean we have a lot of information now, there are a number of examples that you point out. The Board just said OK, thanks for the numbers, we didn't say in the last 3 years you had 200,000 more dollars in revenue and this year your lowballing, it again, why?
Lacina: Well actually the minutes will show that...
Bolkcom: We didn't ask that.
Lacina: I have brought that up. But the point is the result. Those were 2 analogies to show a couple of extremes. The outcome that we're after is to be more efficient and effective with the resources that we have. I think that means consistency and a plan as this deputy position to say are you aware and at least they presented it to us. Now the Board may decide, there maybe some reason in terms of interest rates or maybe cash flow or other factors that we knowingly decide not to make the change, but at least we knew that. The example of those trend lines is just one very small part of what Linn and Scott and all of the rest of them get. They get a lot of information on that. You can prioritize them and deal with the most serious cases.
Bolkcom: More information about the process, making things clear is good. There is that balancing point of how much information can we assimilate, how much information...
Lacina: And the cost.
Bolkcom: And the cost of having our staff generate a bunch of information and having somebody analyze it all and then trying to figure out what our role is. What does the Board see it's role being in the budget process? Do we simply want to have a bunch of professional staff do the budget and we spend a couple hours a year on it? What role do we see in analyzing the budget? We can have department heads gather data, we can have somebody in our office do analysis and then come in and just tell us what to do. We could have that process. It sounds like it's kind of what Linn County does a little bit from what you guys have explained. I guess I see us having a more active role in the budget. I want more information, I want to be clear and easier for the Board to do the budget But I guess we need to define what our... My sense is, I'm perceiving some interest by the Board to change the role of the Board in the budget by bringing on professional people to do all this analysis or whatever we define it to be. So I guess I need more understanding of that.
Lacina: Well, in discussing this with Houser and Lu and Lumir up in Linn, I think it actually allows them more involvement in the budgeting, because this is an ongoing process. We're going to start here in a month or two and we're going to go through this budget process and after we certify the budget there isn't a lot of oversight. Through their budgeting process they're constantly, monthly doing the reviews, getting the ratios, looking at trend lines, seeing where there is problems. I think they are much more involved in a managerial situation, because of the process that they do have. Because the numbers are more meaningful, instead of having a book that we have to try to dig through and on a monthly basis go through all the printouts.
Stutsman: Right. We get lots of figures and lots of numbers, but I don't feel I'm getting the tools to analyze those numbers to see what kind of impact it has today, what kind of impact it's going to have tomorrow if we continue along this process. We're not doing any management of that budget We're approving it, but as far as looking at you know this is what this means and this is what kind of impact it is going to have down the road, I don't see us doing that. I guess I'm looking for that individual that can help me do that. I don't have the expertise. I don't have a CPA background or a real strong accounting background. So I need a professional staff to help me with that and I think it's good that I'm willing to recognize that rather than trying to make decisions when I don't have all the capability. It's interesting, I saw a videotape talking about hiring professional staff or people. I'm not saying we're hiring a new person, I'm looking for somebody that has this kind of background, that is very good at looking at budgets and analyzing and giving some feedback. But this was an elected official who was down in Georgia, a Commissioner or whatever, and said she had been on the Board for umpteen years, always thought she had a pretty good handle on the budget and she said she didn't have a clue what see was doing until they hired the person that helped her work through that process. Now he felt she was much more effective in her role in the budget process.
Jordahl: And I think my experience as a new Supervisor coming and dealing with the budget process last January was one of having to weed through a lot of lines and figure out how do these things have meaning for a department for their, in terms of the functions they provide for example. We do have a service areas breakdown and a functional budget, but the question of how those many lines that we were looking at translated or how they related to this service that it was directly provided wasn't there. I don't think that adding understanding to the budget process is going to reduce involvement of the Supervisors. I think it will enable us to become more involved with that. I understand your sense of the danger Joe, that if you had a package where you got one sheet that came down and said OK, here's what it all means. It all means you should do this and you kind of look at that and go OK, scratch your head and say yes and check the yes box, it's been taken out of your hands. I think what we're looking for is an interaction with the County departments where they will generate these measures through the strategic planning process and through an ongoing process of refinement of the categories that are being reported. We'll interact with the supervisors about what are meaningful ways of expressing this data. That can make it easier for them to do their budgeting and easier for the Supervisors to see into the process of delivering services to the public and not remove the Supervisors from the process but actually give them more access. That's what we're looking for. If we're not getting that then we should adjust the process, change the process so that we can get it. That's what we're about here.
Lacina: It will allow us to be more futuristic driven. A question from Linn County came down, how are you going to deal with the M & E phase out. Linn County is affected much more severely than we are, but the County will lose about $438,000 with this M & E phase out. Our share is going to be in excess of $100,000. Now the State will be covering that for a 5 year period and then it's gone. So what is the effect to us? I would like to be able to go to our staff and say I want to know the fiscal impact of this legislative change, do this work. To go to the existing department, they're busy, they're doing the State budgets and different things. The allocation of that I'm not sure would be really fair. Plus there will be some political questions involved which we can't delegate down to a department effecting all the other departments. That puts them in a very difficult situation. But again gives, as Sally said, gives us some better tools to look at some resources that in some areas may be even more scarce and do a better job of it.
Jordahl: I think you just made a very good point. I'd actually like to hear you talk more about that, the idea of the political impact of having the Budget Director position or the Budget Director function operate out of the Auditor's Office rather than out of the Supervisors Office, because there is this question of who's job is it? Well, it's our job to do the budget basically. If we delegate that to one office we're really deferring that duty or delegating that duty to another office.
Lacina: Even with Kim in here, when we sent her out to generate some numbers for us, there was resistance in terms of no response, or lack of response, or concern about why are you asking this question. So even when it was here, there was some resistance. Again, I think it's difficult to take another department and say you go out and check on your fellow elected official. That puts him in a bad light as well.
Duffy: Sally?
Stutsman: Charlie.
Duffy: Lest we forget we want to give the public a notion that we just kind of forget about these budgets, we don't know what's going on, because Lynette Hultman from the Auditor's Department does a great job, I've mentioned this several times, with the spreadsheet. We're through the year, say in 3 months is 25% and disbursement should be approximately 25% and the revenue is 25%. If they're not, then we ask questions. Now revenue is, that kind of worries me just a little bit, because that's not a stationary budget. It's a flexible budget and some of the grants, which is really a gift, and the larger grants we do ask questions and we can control things like that. But, some of the other revenues coming in, it's just hard to say 100% a year in advance here are my revenues, unless you have a stationary budget. But I think Lynette does a very good job. I think anybody from the public can understand and I really think we do do a good job on watching the taxpayer's dollars. Because again if we were in debt several million dollars I'd go the other way. She does a very fine job.
Stutsman: I agree Charlie and I think we have done a good job with the budget.
Duffy: I think we have.
Stutsman: I'm just looking to do a better job. When you talk about we aren't in debt, we aren't, but we've got some pretty big things that we're going to have to deal with some time in the future. I'm referring to space needs.
Duffy: Well space needs is a little different story.
Stutsman: How do we plan for that?
Duffy: Well I think we better start.
Stutsman: Well we do.
Duffy: We're getting off of...
Stutsman: Right. Right. But those are all kinds of things that enter into this discussion about which direction we want to go with this. I guess, you know, I like what Jonathan has put together with this Director of Budget and Finance. Maybe we, I'm looking at this Financial Manager Information Specialist, maybe that is a better title for this. I guess I am hesitant to just have this be a budget function in this office. I think that we do need to add into this some of the things that Kim was doing before as far as doing some special projects or whatever. I don't see this as being a full-time job year round. It's going to be very intense during budget time, not that it's put on the shelf during the rest of the year, but I don't think that it will require as much time. So I think that person has to be available to do some other things in the office, because we are so short staffed here and I'm finding with Kim gone. We have a temporary person in her place and it's really needed. We can't do it with 2 people.
Peters: Karen is doing an excellent job, but she doesn't have the background that Kim did to...
Stutsman: So I guess I would like to start with what Jonathan has put together here and then maybe add some things that were in Kim's position before.
Jordahl: We have it under point number 5, in the description that I have written, assist the Board of Supervisors with other special projects as assigned by the Board. The title is Director of Budget and Finance and you can... Under number 4 we have mention of the finance portion of this. Also in terms of grant monitoring, however we want to configure that under number 3. I think what maybe you're responding to is that the general description given in that first paragraph is less inclusive of those other dues.
Stutsman: Right. Right.
Jordahl: That might be the kind of thing that would be pulled out for an add in the newspaper for example. Maybe you should include some statement about those other duties. Something else that occurred to me as we were speaking has been suggested that the title alone won't make the position, but I think there is a world of difference between Deputy Administrative Assistant and Director of Budget and Finance. Now Joe raises the point how much are we going to have to pay to get a Director of Budget and Finance? But during the discussion that we've had just immediately preceding the idea of analysis is the recurrent theme. Now do we need a Director or do we need an analyst? That's a very different role. Budget Analyst or just Analyst for the Board of Supervisors. Financial Analyst or something like that. That's not as authoritative of a job title and to me that makes a big difference in terms of how that position will be perceived by County departments, including the Auditor's Office, to establish what the relationship will be. I'm not suggesting necessarily that we change it to Budget Analyst or Financial Analyst. But just to suggest that the title makes a difference and if the Board is happier with the notion of hiring an analyst than a director, well that's up to the Board to decide.
Stutsman: Any feedback on...
Bolkcom: Again I'd raise the question about don't we need to decide what we're going to do in-house with our budget before we decide on what the title is for the position? If we want to set a tone with the title don't we need to make a decision? If we're going to bring all the budget upstairs I think it's appropriate to have a Director of Budget and Finance. If we want somebody... What I heard the goal of this was to have a budget process that is more clear to the Board and more helpful to the Board and help us do things more long-range. Which I think everybody is in support of, that make total sense. The question is how do we get to that? The other question I have about the... I think we need to define what we want in the long run with this budget process before we can decide what the title needs to be and the duties. In reading the first paragraph, we might have more than one full-time position in this job description. If we're going to have somebody guide the strategic planning process, guide the implementation of the strategic planning process, which is talked about in the first paragraph and then under duties number one. We have 7 different strategic goals that we're working on and we've divided those up among Board members and we're getting some staff support to implement those. If we're going to have this position somehow guide the implementation of that, that could be a fair amount of work if the Board continues to do strategic planning.
Jordahl: That's not what I intended here when I phrased this, it says joint processes of strategic planning and performance based budgeting. I mean there to work with the departments in articulating or bringing together the strategic plan of the departments and their budgeting processes so that there will be a reflection in the categories of performance based budgeting of the things that the department see as their primary mission for, it could be 3, 4, 5, 7 items whatever. So I'm talking there, not about guiding the Board's strategic plan, or not about guiding strategic planning countywide. But rather in fitting them together with the budget process.
Stutsman: I think this top paragraph needs to be reworked because I too saw that was confusing because I think the strategic planning process needs to be managed by the Board of Supervisors not by this individual. I understand when you explain what you're saying now, so I think we just need to look at that.
Jordahl: OK.
Stutsman: Joe, what do you want for the budget process?
Bolkcom: I think it would be helpful, if we're going ahead with performance-based budgeting, which I think we are and I'm supportive of. I think the vast majority of this work is going to happen at the department level. The gathering of information, deciding what information is useful to department heads about how they evaluate their programs and then presenting that in some usable form to the Board. I think that the Board is going to need assistance in organizing that information, with the assistance of the Auditor's Office in putting it into some sort of usable form for us. So that would be one thing. Somebody to help organize information to be presented.
Stutsman: Who is that someone?
Bolkcom: It would be in this position.
Stutsman: In this position or...
Bolkcom: It would be either re-advertising the existing job description, which I think would allow us to get that or tuning it up some with Jonathan's suggestions here. So that's what I would see us needing most. Somebody to make the process more clear, if we're going to do performance based budgeting. Somebody in this office to organize the information so we'd be able to utilize it. That would be the bare minimum kind of think I would see being available to the Board throughout the year on budgetary questions, developing some expertise in this person over time to understand the budget. I mean it's pretty clear that in the short run and the short being probably the next 1 to 3 years, 1 to 2 years, we are going to completely rely on the Auditor's Office for our basic budgeting information and process, where the numbers are, what do they mean, what we should be concerned about, what we should be planning about, because that's where the expertise is. I don't think anybody we're going to hire in the short run is going to understand this complex budget. I mean it takes several years being on the Board as a Supervisor doing the budget to really understand what's going on because it is a complex document. So my interest would be to have some assistant in this office on the budget, during the budget and throughout the year working to implement an incremental approach to performance-based budgeting, which would be led by the Board with the assistance of other elected officials and department heads. So maybe a more low key approach to this than others are thinking about.
Stutsman: I guess it's not so different than what I would say.
Bolkcom: Sure.
Stutsman: My caveat would be I want to spend as little money as possible getting to this. I think we've got a decent process now, it could use more clarity. I think the problem we're trying to solve is more information to make better judgments. It's not that we have an awful process now or we don't know what's going on. I think we probably err on the side of too much analysis.
Stutsman: Exactly.
Bolkcom: In January and February when we do the budget people come in and we root through budgets. It can be tedious in trying to figure out do we need this, do we need that, do we need this other thing? We don't spend money unless people are making pretty good cases for it. So I'm not sure there is a lot broken. I think, as Steve pointed out a moment ago, I think we all think that we can do better. Sally said the same thing. I think that is what this about. I'm for a more low key approach to it.
Lacina: See I think we're all in agreement.
Stutsman: Yes I do too.
Lacina: I think that we may term it high key, low key, whatever, but basically I think we're all saying the same thing.
Stutsman: Uh-huh, just moving toward... I guess I see someday we will have a separate budget office. I'm not saying that's next year, I'm not saying it's 5 years, but with the base on the fact that Johnson County is growing, the County government and our demands are getting more complex. I think the day will come when we will have to have a separate budget office and it probably will not be while I'm on the Board. But I'm looking to start to put the foundation together to get to that point and that's what I see this being.
Jordahl: I think it's important to keep in mind that we are responding in any effort to redefine Kim's position to problems that existed with Kim's position. Not to say that they were any fault of Kim's, but that they were problems with the position. In the ability to get the information that we needed in order to do analysis in the timely fashion and in terms of the way that that position was called upon to perform essentially clerical functions, staffing meetings, and answering the telephone, responding to walk-ins and so forth. So that this person is constantly distracted. I think we, on the high end, we want to add authority to the position and on the low end we want to take the clerical functions out of it and motion in the direction that I suggested here to call this person the Director of Budget and Finance is not intended to create a department but rather to address those 2 concerns. To give this position sufficient authority, by a new title and by direct reporting to the Board, and to give this position sufficient free time, sufficient space mentally to concentrate on these complex tasks. It's not intended to create a department. So I would not like to see us back away from the recognition of the problems that we had with the position in it's current description.
Stutsman: Well I'm going to suggest maybe Jonathan, you and I rework this job description just a little bit and then maybe pass it around and put this back on for Tuesday again for review and go from there.
Lacina: Sounds good.
Jordahl: Yes and maybe we'll hear from Tom. I hope we'll have Tom on the agenda Carol, for this in-house option I think Tom is going to make a presentation.
Peters: OK, actually the agenda will be posted Monday morning and if Tom is unavailable until that time I will have no way of knowing whether he will be available or not.
Jordahl: Well he told me that he would be out this week. Have you heard more recently?
Bolkcom: I haven't. Why don't we just put it on and if he's not here we can just...
Stutsman: Yes, I think we should just put it on and if he's not here, then we'll just proceed.
Peters: I just can't guarantee you that Tom will be ready, because we won't be able to reach him.
Jordahl: Right. He may not be here but I've spoken with him a couple of different times about this, suggested that he prepare for such a presentation in some detail. He led me to believe when I spoke to him earlier this week that he would just be out this week. I don't know if that's true, but...
Stutsman: I think our discussion this morning was good. I think it indicates that the Board is thinking about what we want to do with this.
Peters: I think too, anything when you start out on new territory, I think it takes time to have the situation up and running to the point that you would really like to have it. I think with Kim, to get to the Administrative Assistant here, you were starting to get to that point because Kim was getting to the point where she was being able to furnish the type of information that the Supervisors needed in their budgeting process. There was a problem as you had alluded to before, but that's not a situation that a person in this position, regardless of their title, can alleviate.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Bolkcom: Right. That's an excellent point.
Lacina: One point that I do want to emphasize and Charlie brought it up and I think it probably needs to be said again, we are not in a financial dilemma, in terms of their was a report in the paper that according to City staff was blown beyond the concern on the financial crisis of Iowa City. They were just pointing out that there need to be some changes made. It's not a financial crisis. We're not doing this because we're in a problem, we're doing this in a proactive way to look at good accounting procedures and good steps. Linn County, with the budgeting staff they did have when our budget and their budget was protested, the State came in and ordered them to cut a million dollars out of that budget. Then they looked at our budget and said great, leave it as it is. So we are doing a good job, we're just trying to enhance what we're doing. Charlie was very correct in pointing out the fact that we do work with the budget through the year, we are managing the tax payers money carefully, and that's what we're trying to do. Do an even better job. That was a real important point that you brought out. Thank you.
Bolkcom: That's probably the jumping off point for a philosophical difference here perhaps. The City has a total professional staff doing the budget. The City Council, they see the budget, but if you talk to them about it, they don't really know very much about it, they don't understand it. It's because they're not involved in it. They see it for a few hours, they have a few work sessions on it. We the Board spend hours and hours and hours pouring over it and we approach it in a whole different way. We don't have any problems and maybe one of the reasons why we don't have any problems is because as elected officials we are involved in a very significant way in the process. Just the latest concern about the financial problems in Iowa City, I think they were overblown. But they have another problem and it's called water and sewer rates. They have professional staff overseeing that for years and years and years. Not to beat them up, but that's an example I think of where maybe, if elected officials had been a little bit more proactive about that historically, as I think we are everyday, people in Iowa City might find themselves in a different predicament. So I want to make sure that we maintain significant involvement of the Supervisors in the process and that we don't evolve to a process that says let's hand this over to the professionals, tell us what time it is and what we ought to be doing because I think there are pros and cons to that. There's some examples right here in Johnson County where we should be concerned.
Lacina: If we did go that route than we should almost volunteer as a city council versus our being paid $30,000 in here everyday. Right, if we don't take this seriously and responsibly, which I think we're doing.
Stutsman: Right.
Bolkcom: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Lacina: With this action even more so to be more futuristically driven.
Jordahl: I think the example that you gave a few minutes ago Steve of an ongoing annual monitoring, not annual, but at least a monthly monitoring of the progress of the budget in all the departments through the year to look at trends as they are developing. Our Auditor's Office does some of that. We have Lynette who comes up and gives us reports on things, particularly when there are concerns that she notes. But to the question of involvement of the Supervisors with the budget, I think what we're looking for here again is not less involvement with the budget, but more involvement with the budget. More effective involvement with the budget so that we can actually perceive trends as they develop and do something in the way of projecting where we're going to be, responding to trends as they develop and looking years into the future. Part of this is projection of the future. Then this last budget cycle we instituted some dollars into the capital projects fund to address, to begin to address in a small way the space needs question. We need to amplify that and projecting when are we going to be way beyond our capacity in current facilities and ask what's it going to take to respond to that. That's part of what Charlie and Sally are beginning to look at here with the space needs survey. Our budget process has to incorporate those questions and up until... We have the category that was there in January when I started here in January, but it had to money in it to speak of. We're going to need to have a lot of money there to deal with these things effectively. We've got a I think clarified budget process will allow us to be more effectively involved with the budgeting process not less.
Bolkcom: I don't disagree. The money problem is I think because we're in a budget freeze. I think all... I remember the Board wished we could have put move money aside for capital projects that we know right now we need in the future and it was just a factor of not having the money, we couldn't raise taxes.
Stutsman: Yes. But I don't wan to approach the budget with always raising taxes to solve our problems.
Bolkcom: I agree.
Stutsman: I want to have a good management plan in place.
Duffy: I would say it's more of a case of priorities. That's what's (inaudible) priority.
Stutsman: Well lets work on that job description and then we'll present that Tuesday and go from there. Anything else on the budget process?
Welsh: Sally, let me remind you of one thing. I hear Jonathan talking about eliminating some things from the job descriptions, answering the telephones. I would remind you that if you go in that direction you then need to hire another person.
Stutsman: Well we don't want to do that.
Welsh: Talk to Carol, and I think I've heard Carol say to you, I'm just reminding you what I think she has said, Jo and Carol cannot provide all of the office functions that need to be done by the County Board of Supervisors Office. So you need to bite the bullet at that point and recognize that if you are talking about a person that does these special projects and the budget, not answering the telephones and helping with some of the other clerical kinds of assistance you either need to expect the impossible to your employees Carol and Jo or your going to have to hire another person. Granted that other person would not have to be another 50,000 person, or a 30,000 dollar person, but you are talking about (inaudible). I've heard you say that this is just replacing Kim, but not to have some of Kim's responsibilities, somebody has got to do those responsibilities or else your shifting those to Carol and Joe. My observation, I'm sure not around here as much as you are (inaudible) spending a lot of time and...
Lacina: Kind of like with the drug testing and everything, it only gets worse. I mean there are so many more additional things coming down on us. This new confidentiality law the State has passed down on the Treasurers as far as if someone signs a form, the information cannot be released on their titles and those types of things. All of these additional rules and regulates come down and we have been successful at shuffling things around and getting it done. But you bring up a valid point also, if your paying somebody at the mid 30,000 dollar range, do you want them stuffing envelopes and doing those functions or are they better to have that time spent doing other work and then having some assistance maybe part time during a peak time or something. So your point is very valid but we have to work at the total work load.
Stutsman: I think looking at this phone system might help some of that. If we get voice mail and so I think we have to look at some other options to try to reduce the workload for everybody.
Lacina: Example I've been playing phone tag with an individual now for almost 7 days and he's very busy and unfortunately last week I was out of town a lot. It isn't so much the fact that he needs to visit directly with me. He could leave a statement or message on voicemail and I would have the information but as a result we're both going back and forth back and forth. Those are things that will really help.
Stutsman: Yes.
Peters: Then you have the other person which has happened in the last... Well happens continually actually but this is one person this last week. They keep calling for a person, but never want to leave a message, so it would save them time if they would leave the message. Everybody has a different way of doing things, that's what makes our world great.
Stutsman: Yes.
Duffy: I asked Carol a couple years ago to keep track of the amount of phone calls for a week.
Peters: Oh, Charlie...
Duffy: I remember a couple of them were 100 phone calls a day so...
Peters: That was nothing back then compared to today Charlie.
Duffy: I know a couple of those were 100 phone calls a day so you lose your train of thought when all of those calls come in.
Stutsman: OK. Report from the County Attorney?
Assistant County Attorney Janet Lyness: I just thought I would let you know we are working on finalizing the contracts for SEATS, Ambulance and Social Services and they'll hopefully be to you in a couple weeks. That's our hope.
Bolkcom: Great.
Stutsman: Very good. Anything else? Carol?
Peters: I have just one point of clarification. When did you... Until what date did you want to accept résumé's for SEATS director?
Stutsman: When will the ad be placed?
Peters: It won't be placed until I have the information?
Stutsman: Right I guess I was thinking of a specific date I need to know when it's going to be submitted. Do we want to just say a month? That we'll take résumé's for a month after the ads put in the paper?
Peters: Today is the 16th, so do you want me to put it in the paper that to have their resumes in the paper no later than or must be received by...
Stutsman: November 14th?
Peters: November 14th? OK.
Bolkcom: When is it going in? it will go in this weekend?
Peters: I'll get it in today if possible.
Stutsman: Oh, great. all right, then lets say the 14th. Is that OK?
Lacina: My only concern I would like to have a contract in place so that when we do interviews we can tell the individual here's what you can expect.
Stutsman: I think we'll be in a good position by then? Right. Carol (inaudible).
Peters: Is salary the same?
Stutsman: I guess I would say the same.
Bolkcom: Sure.
Stutsman: OK.
Welsh: If you go the 17th you have the weekend. The 14th happens to be a Friday.
Peters: I just found it easier that when we're getting information in regarding whatever if we put Friday as the deadline it seems to work a little better than if you carry over into a new week.
Jordahl: Gives the mail a chance to get here.
Lacina: its' going to take us some time to consolidate everything into the books and put it together before we actually start interviews anyway sot that will give us (inaudible).
Stutsman: Quite frankly if somebody is interested in the job they'll get it in by the 14th.
Lacina: Will we publish a range on the salary instead of a specific number?
Peters: I'm assuming when you said the same you wanted the same advertisement as the last time.
Stutsman: Right, right. Very good. Anything else? Thanks Carol. Should thank Carol for all of her fine work. She's got a difficult job and she hangs in there very well.
Peters: I just want to make one other comment about the vacant position. I understand perfectly where, well maybe not perfectly, but close, where the Board is coming from on a lot of the comments that have been made and I can... Being a member of the Board of Supervisors has to be one of the most difficult positions there is simply because of the broad range of responsibilities that you have, but thinking of myself, I would hope that however you choose to design your office that there would be a person here to help in covering additional committees that the Board creates, also some of those boards and committees that have already been created in the past.
Lacina: That will require taking minutes and meetings after work hours and a lot of other responsibilities which...
Peters: It has worked out well with Karen. Karen is doing the minutes right now for the Recorder Study Committee. I try to attend those meetings just to make sure I, having the County background, to make sure that when the minutes are produced it encompasses what I feel is really meant by statements, questions, discussions or whatever you know. I am very thankful that we do have Karen (inaudible).
Jordahl: There's a question in my mind about the role of the Auditors Office in doing the staffing for these meetings. Is there some sort of statutory statement about how that should be done. I mean I wonder, they have more staff then we do, spread more broadly across a number of people and the possibility may exist of having some of that function performed by the Auditor's Office.
Peters: I think sometimes though when, and take the Computer Needs Committee, I think that when you create a new committee that you are expecting your staff person to carry through with what the Board of Supervisors wanted to get from that committee, like the best recommendations. Staff person does not to these boards and commissions does not necessarily mean quote unquote taking minutes.
Lacina: In Kim's example...
Peters: It is arranging meetings, getting information, when the Computer Needs Committee met, it was up to Kim to make sure that if they were going to have a presentation by HP or Solutions or whomever it was that that would be accommodated.
Lacina: And she spent a lot of time e-mailing information to the individuals that served on the committee as opposed to as you said just taking minutes. It really was a support position as opposed to a minute taker.
Bolkcom: But on Jonathan's point I think we should feel flexible enough that we can touch base with the Auditor about assistance on minutes when minutes are what's at stake, because Kim did spend a lot of time doing minutes. If Karen is spending a lot of time doing minutes, maybe we could have somebody else do minutes. I think the system has checks and balances built into it about how well the minutes are done. If committee members see the minutes and they've got a problem with the quality or the thoroughness etceteras, there will be some direct feedback about that.
Stutsman: Maybe we can just do a particular project and if we think that needs some staffing from this office fine, if the Auditors Office can handle it, I think we can be pretty flexible on how we do that.
Peters: But keep in mind when your asking the Auditor to staff something of yours that means that the Auditor has an additional responsibility, which means in turn he's going to need people to provide that staffing.
Lacina: In answer to Jonathan's question though, the Code I think does direct the Auditor to take our minutes.
Peters: The Board of Supervisors minutes.
Lacina: But as opposed to, if he's really busy, and he's helped us out in the past a number of times, but if it's budget time and we've got a committee functioning and they're really working downstairs, his Code obligation is first to what it tells him to do. So that's what we have to be sensitive of.
Jordahl: The idea though that Tom may need, or whoever may be in that position, might need additional staff in order to do some support functions is still to get back to the point of how much this person, budget director or deputy administrative assistant be called, still be paid significantly more. It would make sense to pay someone at an hourly rate that would be more commensurate with the task. Whether that person is paid through our office or through the Auditors Office.
Lacina: Probably though if you have this HR function and your doing some budget work, the combination of the additional responsibilities and the drug testing will probably justify some support position, which can also answer the phone and take some of the... So I guess the question is if it is in the Auditors Office you really can't reach down in there and say well now your now going to do some HR stuff. Anytime we look at those positions we definitely have to be able to justify the workload and the addition of that.
Jordahl: Well I'm not arguing against a support person in our office necessarily. I'm just looking for part of the solution to the problem, it being available through the Auditors Office. We may very well need a second support person in our office.
Lacina: I don't know what the answer to that is.
Peters: Can I remind you something that you could work out the same thing through the Zoning Office or Health Department or...
Lacina: Because there have been times that Mary has come down from Zoning and answered phones and covered the office when we weren't around.
Peters: She hasn't done that in a long time, simply because we're running out of people to pull out. Everybody seems to be more and more busy.
Duffy: We did advertise for an outside person to come in and take the minutes for some of these meetings and I think only one person applied. I think it was like $9 an hour or something like that, and then she said she wasn't interested.
Peters: That was several years ago.
Stutsman: OK, well I'll continue to address these concerns so if there is nothing else then we will adjourn.
Adjourned at 10:54 a.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Melinda McCleary, Casie Parkins, Recording Secretaries