DISCUSSION: JOB DESCRIPTION FOR DIRECTOR OF BUDGET AND FINANCE
Stutsman: Discussion of budgeting process. Do we want to...
Jordahl: How much time do you have?
Stutsman: All right. The job description on the Director of Budget and Finance. Jonathan Kell and I worked on this Friday. Did you all get copies of that?
Peters: I think there was one attached to the agenda.
Stutsman: Oh, OK. I was hoping that we would have time for people to review it and maybe to discuss that today. I don't know if you want to do that or not.
Jordahl: May I sort of cast framework around this just for starters?
Stutsman: Sure. Sure.
Jordahl: In line with our recent discussion of space needs, we are putting the Human Resources person in an available space rather than spending money and we're looking forward into the future to ways of more globally meeting the other space needs. Of seeing things in the larger perspective. In the same way, it is possible to look at the overall question of implementing performance based budgeting as something we could do starting out as we have with the Human Resources Office with existing facilities. In this case existing staff and making some initial steps toward implementation of that process without hiring people specifically to do it. Whether that be consultants or specific people to run the process. As in the case of the Budget Director position we have before us. It would be possible to work with the departments as we are proposing to do. On November 3rd we have the joint strategic planning meeting with the department heads. To begin to talk about what types of performance measures make sense in terms of the visions that those offices will establish for themselves. So it's key to performance based budgeting that we're not doing this or some professional is not doing this to people. But rather that department heads in order to get some real buy in will be doing this for their own offices and identifying categories of budgeting that make sense in terms of representing their functions as they see them as part of the real basic division of their office. So we're already moving in that direction. We have the Strategic Planning Session laid out. We've done a couple of presentations to talk about his. We've got the CD-ROM that's out there for people to look at and have been encouraged to do so. The Auditor has some interest in information that he is willing to make available to department heads as well. So the question is as we are already in the budget cycle for this year, is it realistic to hope that we're going to be able to either hire a consultant or hire a Budget Director who will make a significant difference to this budget cycle or are we looking ahead to next year's budget cycle and working in that direction through what we're doing in strategic planning. And formulating perhaps categories for reporting for the budget for the following fiscal year cycle. If we sort of stretch out the timeline, we have talked about a 2 or 3 year staged implementation program. It might be possible for us to kind of say, see how things go in working with the department heads through the strategic planning process and with the assistance of the Auditor's Office and with the resources available through the CD-ROM we're got. Through some outside reading. With some assistance that's been proctored by Dawn Jinjich from Cedar Rapids, that she might be able to help out some, to move in the direction of performance based budgeting for the following budgeting cycle. Then determine as we move through the following few months and try to focus in on this, whether we can in fact do this significantly with in house resources or whether it's necessary to bring someone in from outside. Whether that person is a consultant or whether we need to hire a person to run this process in a more direct way. We've got here the Budget Director position description which envisions a great deal of direction of this process coming out of that office.
Lacina: Jonathan your point is what?
Jordahl: My point is that we can't get this person hired in time to make a difference for this budget cycle and therefore, what we're talking about in terms of this Budget Director position description is not something that needs to be urgently filled today in order to facilitate this budget process. But rather something that exists in the context of our plan to implement performance based budgeting and that we might have some breathing room in here before hiring this person to see what we can do with in house staff and see how that affects the characterization of this position description.
Lacina: The timing of the position should not affect the job description. The job description should be established to give you the information and tools to make those judgments. So I guess I'm missing... I'm agreeing we've got some time to hire the position but I missed...
Jordahl: Well I'm saying that it's kind of similar to talking about putting in all of the improvements to space that we're talking about. That it's an expensive part of the puzzle and the question is...
Stutsman: What you're saying is that we can go ahead and hire this Financial Director and that we may not have everything in place for the performance based budgeting this year.
Lacina: Oh, that should be stated right up front. It's going to take us years to get to the point of where we can really have really good hard tools, but there is learning curve. You get the person in the position, they start meeting the department heads, they all start to work on the performance measures. But the question...
Bolkcom: We don't... The thing I hear, partially hear, is we don't really know what we need. I mean we have a job description. It's wonderful. Right. But we don't know if need them.
Jordahl: (inaudible).
Bolkcom: Maybe the assistance the Board is going to need is a half time position helping with budget. This is like a couple full-time positions virtually and probably a couple support people. If we're going to have this person analyze, summarize data and make recommendations to the Board on needs.
Stutsman: I don't think that's accurate.
Bolkcom: And do grants and help monitor grants. It's a big thing. The other fundamental question I think is out there is, is the Board taking over the function of putting together the budget from the Auditor's Office?
Stutsman: No.
Lacina: No.
Bolkcom: OK.
Stutsman: The idea is to work cooperatively with the Auditor's Office, but to have the analyst function in this office and the projections, just the whole analyst part of it up in this office. The raw data downstairs. You know I can see no changes in that. You know they send out the budget forms, they get the information, they compile it, but when it comes to the analysis then that comes up here and is done that way. But it's done cooperatively Joe.
Bolkcom: I hear that. That's good. The sense I have about the process is, we're going to heavily rely on our department heads to gather information that they think is important to evaluate what they do. OK? They're going to put it together and we'll probably get a sheet of paper per department. The question is how complicated is the analysis of that? Do we need a full-time... What do we need to analyze it? Is that something the Supervisors can do? It's something we do now every year when we do the budget. I guess the question is until we get going with this it isn't clear to me what level of expertise, what level of support does the Board need? It may be very simple to do this analysis, we may need somebody... One of the things that we do need is somebody to assist the Board in doing the budget this year. I mean we go through all of these questions about, you know there is a list after every budget meeting we have of things we need to check out between now and the next time we meet. Who is going to do that? Is Carol going to do that this year? Kim did it last year. That's kind of a secretarial function frankly. It's calling up this department head to find out if that's been included in this line. Those kinds of basic questions right, checking with Lynette on this. The other thing.
Stutsman: We saw that this position wouldn't change much from what Kim basically did in the past. She just never had the authority to analyze that information. You know, didn't have the support from the Board to do that. I think that's what we're trying to do with this is to continue on with Kim's... And Kim wrote grants. You know she wrote a historical preservation grant and when you talk about grants I don't expect this person to spend full-time but if, for instance, Bob Carpenter has a grant come across his desk that he would be interested in pursuing, this person would be available to help him through that process. So we're asking for somebody that has some experience working with grants. Once you write on grant you know you gain a lot of knowledge and a lot of expertise so that the next one is that much easier to write. But you do have to have that first grant. I don't want to minimize that it wouldn't take some time to do that. But I can see that I think this could easily be a part of this person's job. The budget function would be very, very intense for part of the year. The rest of the year no, I don't see that kind of intensity, unless we would request some special projects or whatever.
Lacina: Actually I do see it as meeting monthly with the department heads and working with those budgets.
Stutsman: Right, but I don't see this as being his or her full-time function.
Lacina: No, there is going to be a lot of overlaps.
Stutsman: Oh, yes. Yes.
Lacina: But the agenda item is way too broad. Let's focus. Discussion of budget process, I mean we could spend...
Stutsman: Oh, I thought we were talking about the Budget Director, or this job description.
Lacina: OK, but are there any suggestions or changes to the document that was handed out? I think you did a good job of summarizing what's needed. Frankly, I can support this, I think it's well done. Are there any suggestions of making changes? Something that might have been missed?
Jordahl: Well one of the suggestions that we talked about on Friday was the word analysis or analyst as a possible alternative to director. You know Joe was talking about support staff and so forth. Director does seem to imply that the person is going to direct someone and that some staff which might be expected to grow, if you're putting in a person at that level. I know that I myself have brought forward the idea of calling this person a director and I'm not necessarily arguing against it, but that is an option that was discussed and I wanted to bring that forward as something the whole Board might discuss.
Lacina: OK, it's state in that first paragraph analyst, so what you'd say is Budget Director/Financial Analyst.
Jordahl: Or you could say Budget Analyst.
Stutsman: Yes.
Jordahl: I could say Analyst/...
Lacina: I think the analyst part actually could be more descriptive of what I envision for the position to be as a tool. So that would be fine.
Bolkcom: I don't think it's descriptive. I think there is going to be a couple intense months of budgeting. Like we do now and there's not 12 months worth of work here. So I would have a more generic title to this and a few more details about what else this person is going to do. I mean it's heavily weighted to budget stuff and we knew with Kim's position. She didn't have enough... I mean besides the authority question, there wasn't a clear message from the Board about her authority to gather information. I think that's completely changed. I think it's a separate issue from the actual title, but she was looking for more things to do. So I'd like to see this be, whether it's expanding, taking directly from her job description about the other tasks. But I don't see this as a full-time Budget Analyst or a Budget Director or a Financial Manager. There's not full-time work here.
Jordahl: Well we talked about the grants...
Bolkcom: Yes, there could be.
Jordahl: And we talked about the other projects that would be basically research. The title, one of the reasons it's not up there on the top of this description is that I couldn't figure out how to call this person an analyst and a researcher without taking away too much of the sense of authority that we wanted to give.
Bolkcom: How about Special Assistant to the Board?
Jordahl: Well, what's Carol's job description.
Lacina: See but if you have a Financial Manager that can be construed into looking at our insurance plans under Carol's direction or anything that does what the financial from the standpoint of helping the Treasurer going out with a fiscal investment plan. I think and let's take a straw poll. I support the idea of the title of Budget Analyst/Financial Manager. I think that gives us a lot of flexibility.
Jordahl: The manager part does help give that a power in a sense.
Lacina: The director does imply a controlling concern that I think the other elected officials would be concerned about, where analyst is more working with.
Bolkcom: I think the other thing about this job description is your putting somebody in a position to make recommendations to the Board about who to fund and who not to fund. Right? I think we should be clear about what that means.
Lacina: No.
Bolkcom: That's what I said...
Lacina: They'd be making recommendations or ratios.
Stutsman: Right.
Lacina: For example when they come in we're going be able to deal with documents managed per individual cost of administration expense per employee. We'll be the ones that will make the decisions of where the money goes.
Bolkcom: It was what Jonathan's description says.
Lacina: Because it's noon, getting us back to the title, should we leave it Budget Analyst/Financial Manager.
Jordahl: Well the manager is again a problematic word because it sounds a lot like the accounting manager and the question is who's running this place? You know is it the manager or is it we? Obviously, it's supposed to be the Board of Supervisors.
Stutsman: Should it be Financial Analyst.
Bolkcom: Just change it to...
Jordahl: Financial Officer.
Lacina: OK how about if we go with Budget/Financial Analyst? Would that work?
Jordahl: It doesn't ring real well. I don't mean to malign your use of English, but I don't want something that's...
Bolkcom: How about analyst?
Jordahl: Yes, that's too weak. I like Budget Analyst and Financial something.
Lacina: Somebody throw out an option that would work.
Jordahl: Well I'm trying to here.
Bolkcom: I don't think it's a full-time budget job.
Stutsman: We're not making it a full-time budget job.
Jordahl: Budget Analyst.
Bolkcom: I know but I think in the title anybody that applies for it we should be clear about what the duties are.
Jordahl: A special researcher.
Bolkcom: Calling it a budget position, they're going to think it's a budget position. I think there's 3 months worth of heavy budget work. If that.
Lacina: What's the title that Dawn and her boss have in Cedar Rapids? What do they call them?
Bolkcom: That isn't what we're hiring though.
Lacina: Well but I'm just asking a question. What title do they carry?
Jordahl: Well she's the Budget Director.
Bolkcom: Financial Manager and Information Specialist. Is that it?
Lacina: Financial Manager.
Bolkcom: Here's the job description. I don't know if it's her job description.
Jordahl: That's her boss Financial Manager and Information Specialist. She's on the second page following over here, Budget Director.
Stutsman: Well maybe it should be Financial Manager and Information Specialist because I was going to say this doesn't talk to the special projects.
Lacina: Good. Let's do it.
Duffy: No. Wait a minute.
Peters: The information part of that refers to Linn County's computer, the information system.
Stutsman: Oh, that's right. Yes.
Bolkcom: How about Deputy Administrative Assistant?
Duffy: I think it should be Budget Director. Let's not fool the tax payers. Budget Director is the primary...
Stutsman: That doesn't say anything. Deputy Administrative Assistant doesn't say a thing.
Bolkcom: Well that's what Kim was.
Stutsman: I know.
Duffy: Budget Director has to be in there someplace.
Jordahl: Budget and Research Analyst. Research Analyst seems a little redundant.
Stutsman: Oh, Budget and Research Analyst.
Duffy: It should be Budget Director and Research Analyst.
Jordahl: Do you like Budget Director Charlie?
Duffy: That should be in there. That's the primary reason this person was hired as a Budget Director and the taxpayers want to know where their money is going.
Stutsman: Budget and Research Analyst.
Jordahl: If you're saying Budget Director, as Charlie is promoting.
Duffy: Unless you want to answer all of the questions when people call up. We've got another entity here now that is going to decide the budget.
Bolkcom: The other question I have for the Board is the whole relationship that has not been defined yet of Kim's position and what's the future of that? The suggestion that we need more clerical help. The whole review that we talked about in our Strategic Planning Process of how our orphans is organized, how current staff spend their time and how they relate to this. Those 3 items have not really been thoroughly discussed and here we are talking about another position which is really kind of a remake of Kim's job I guess.
Stutsman: Yes, this is a remake of Kim's job.
Jordahl: Yes this is really not another position.
Stutsman: Yes.
Jordahl: It's just an attempt to focus in what we wanted from Kim's job and try to get away from the problems that we had with Kim's job.
Lacina: OK, let's go back to the first question. Title?
Duffy: Budget Director and...
Jordahl: Budget Director and Financial Analyst, except it seems like that's 2 positions.
Bolkcom: Budget and Research Analyst was the last one.
Lacina: Budget and Resource Analyst.
Bolkcom: Research.
Lacina: Research.
Stutsman: And that would tie in the special projects.
Lacina: OK, so Budget and Research Analyst, that's the title.
Jordahl: Well an analyst though, I'm interested in discussion and not necessarily conclusion here.
Lacina: I'm interested in let's move forward because if we can't get beyond the title. Let's get a title and then let's move quickly through the job description and figure out.
Stutsman: Were you going Charlie?
Duffy: Yes, I'll be back in a second.
Jordahl: The question is what do we in fact want? What did we have with Kim? What did want with Kim? What do want in the future? An analyst does less, I would say significantly less directing a process than a director does. So do we want this person directing a process or not.
Lacina: Can you legally have the director direct other elected officials? That's why I think you'll probably fall back to the analyst's position. There may be certain situations and ratios, for example if the individual goes to the Sheriff who ultimately will make the decision how his resources are spent because under Code we don't get into his budget other than bottom line.
Jordahl: But we do, that's why, I mean Linn County's person is called their Budget Director. I think because that person is given by the authority by the Board of Supervisors to interact with department heads about their budgets with the understanding being that the Board of Supervisors was going to be listening to that individual.
Lacina: OK, so you want Director.
Jordahl: I'm opening that side of the discussion for consideration.
Lacina: But do you want director?
Jordahl: I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
Bolkcom: I think the issue that Jonathan raises is that our department heads and other elected officials need to see us as serious about this process. No matter what we call this person they need to know that we expect their cooperation and involvement. Some people think it needs to be a director, a Budget Director in order to give that authority. I think the authority rests in us and it's a process that we should be directing, not necessarily... This person is our agent to help us implement a process, but fundamentally it's a process that we need to direct.
Jordahl: Budget Officer.
Bolkcom: I don't think we know what we need until we start getting into actually doing this and seeing what kind of support the Board needs to implement it's performance based budgeting.
Stutsman: Part of what I'm feeling though is that I think we need to get this person hired and I don't think we can wait to get all of our ducks in a row as far as with the performance based budgeting. We really can't drag our feet on something...
Bolkcom: Yes, I think we need something. I initially argued for just Kim's position with some more of the finance stuff added to it.
Stutsman: Well I think maybe that's what we're saying here.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Bolkcom: Except that I think the other piece that is added is the analysis part where this person is going to put in kind of a precarious position of recommending policy options to the Board about how we spend County money. It's more that just providing numbers of how many people rode in the ambulance. It's recommending to us whether we need a new ambulance or not. I think that's a difference that we haven't had. That's been kind of something we've decided and I think we should recognize that it will put whoever we put in this position in the position of weighing different departmental requests against each other, which has been our job and putting this person in that position. Kind of a 6th Supervisor if you will, making recommendations to the Board.
Jordahl: I disagree about that Joe. I think it's possible for the analyst to talk about the situation in a department relative to it's past situation. We're talking about trends here, on of the big gains from performance based budgeting is looking at trends and if the analyst would say something like based on past trends there is an increase in the utilization of ambulances now which might justify a new ambulance, however weighed against other County principles. It's (inaudible) we would still be weighing that against other departments. I don't foresee the Budget Director saying we should do an ambulance here and we should not do that there, but would provide the Board with a set of choices that would be highlighted. It's a way of bringing things into focus. Am I too close to the thing here?
Lacina: An analogy is the legislature. They can go and request a white paper which does a cost benefit analysis of the legislation. They don't make a statement as to whether or not they should do it, they just say in the even that you pass this here are the results, here are the consequences and impact. This position is kind of doing the same thing. You need another case worker. OK. You've got so many more cases, if you don't do this you're going to have more people in institutions versus if you do maybe you can do more in County. This is the type of information that they'll be giving us. They're not empowered to make any decisions at all.
Stutsman: Yes, we wrote those policy decisions, but they would give us the facts to assist us.
Lacina: Right.
Stutsman: In making those decisions.
Stutsman: But I don't...
Bolkcom: I agree with that, but it isn't what it says in the job description. I agree with what you said...
Lacina: OK, and you have a very valid point...
Bolkcom: It doesn't say that here.
Stutsman: OK.
Lacina: We do need a component saying to conduct cost benefit analysis for the Board. It does kind of imply, but I'm not sure that is necessarily states it. But we could even decide upon the title. Let's go back to the title and try to get a good succinct description of the position because once we get into the body of the document, there are going to be some suggestions and changes.
Jordahl: Yes, sometimes you write a book and then go back and title it too, you know a working title, then you say well what is this, what are the duties that we want to imply?
Stutsman: Well...
Lacina: I'm getting a little frustrated because we're not making any decision. Give me a quick process that we can cover in the next 15 minutes to make some productive analysis and get something done on this.
Jordahl: Well I say we look through the job description and ask is there anything missing here?
Lacina: Which I did, earlier, I said are there any changes.
Jordahl: Well that's how you started the discussion.
Lacina: OK, going back to Jonathan's question, are there any changes that anyone has, and I do have one, that we want to make in this document now, in the body of the document.
Stutsman: OK, what are your changes that you want...
Lacina: I would suggest we put in there under definitions and duties in that paragraph to conduct cost benefit analysis of different projects of, not different, of various projects.
Stutsman: Cost benefit...
Lacina: Analysis of proposed projects or existing projects, how do you want to phrase it?
Stutsman: Of County projects.
Lacina: Yes, that's fine. Do you think that's...
Stutsman: Is that what we want to say...
Lacina: General description of some of the things we want the position to do?
Duffy: Sounds pretty good to me.
Lacina: I think it would be helpful just to give us more information and tools.
Jordahl: I guess projects might be kind of limiting. Just cost benefit analysis of, we're looking for what is the something, but it could be ongoing activities, not necessarily a project that isn't going on and so... Some alternatives...
Stutsman: Of ongoing...
Jordahl: Cost benefit analysis of... Cedar Rapids they talked about... Or I think Linn County talked about utilization of County resources in a very global sense. That's fundamentally what we're getting at here. Down to various alternative ways of utilizing County resources.
Lacina: How about cost benefit analysis for financial planning? That leaves it pretty well open to anything that has to do with money.
Jordahl: Yes it's the same idea.
Lacina: That leaves as much flexibility as we can into it.
Jordahl: And when I say utilizing County resources it does I think open it up a little bit more to personnel trucks, if we have vehicles in various departments that aren't being utilized to their full capacity, maybe they could be shared. There might be some sort of things that aren't exactly, aren't exactly financial and yet would be a result of an analysis of County functions.
Lacina: I.e. sharing of employees, cross training them, so that the last 5 days of the month, employees could help out Motor Vehicle might be a proposal, might not be an expenditure of funds, but yet a sharing of resources.
Jordahl: Right, this is the wording that I suggested too, to conduct cost benefit analysis of various alternative ways of utilizing County resources. We spoke perhaps to vehicles and personnel in addition to money.
Bolkcom: Would that be a specific duty?
Jordahl: It might be.
Bolkcom: On the back side?
Jordahl: When you were first speaking Steve, I kind of thought to put it under 2 there, collect and analyze budget data, projecting trends, et cetera. It may be like a new number 3.
Lacina: Or incorporate it into 2 do you think?
Jordahl: Yes, I wasn't sure about that because the budget data is sort of like Joe's point about the 1st 3 months of the year around budget time and maybe the cost benefit analysis, alternative ways of using resources would be one of the ways in which this budget person would be active in budget questions throughout the year.
Lacina: So do you want it as a bullet or do you want it included in number 2?
Jordahl: I think a separate bullet.
Lacina: OK, so 2A for now?
Jordahl: Yes.
Lacina: And be expanded, OK.
Stutsman: Carol did you get that?
Peters: No, I was just going to ask for a repeat.
Jordahl: And I don't think it's perfectly, I don't think it's wrong to have something under definitions of duty and in specific duties.
Peters: But they go hand in hand.
Lacina: 2A to perform cost budget correction, to perform...
Jordahl: To conduct you said it first.
Lacina: To conduct...
Jordahl: Cost benefit analysis.
Lacina: Cost benefit analysis...
Jordahl: Of various alternative ways of utilizing County resources.
Lacina: Right.
Jordahl: And that, it's sort of what's mentioned under definition of duties and looks for opportunities for efficiencies in government and outside sources in funding. It's kind of redundant, I guess I kind of like the cost benefit analysis better. Opportunities for efficiencies in government might be kind of offensive to the departments in saying that we're going to look for how you could be more efficient and we're utilizing County resources is a more responsible central function of how are we going to spend tax dollars. How are we going to allocate tax dollars.
Lacina: OK, any other suggestions under 7, I would like to also include, since we've given a specific task of assisting with unannounced visitors, might as well put in there slash answering phone and operation of office.
Jordahl: That's what I specifically wanted to get away from. I don't mean to be argumentative here, but again I want to open that topic for discussion. We do as supervisors answer the phone when necessary. I would like to see Carol do less answering of the phone and I would like to see this person do less answering of the phone than Kim did. If we put it in here as a specific duty, there's a real possibility of the position sort of shading off into exactly the problem that we had with the constant interruptions of Kim.
Stutsman: Well and I guess we had this discussion when we put this job description together and answering the phone would be a major distraction in this position if we're going to expect them to do analysis. It's one thing...
Lacina: And voice mail will help alleviate some of that, OK, so we'll leave that out.
Jordahl: Yes, it's not to say the person would be specifically exempted from answering the phone, I mean we would of course expect the person to answer the phone, but if we put it in here as a job description, then I think it has the possibility of...
Stutsman: I think we need to look for other alternatives to getting the phone answered in this office.
Lacina: Other suggestions under specific duties? Is that pretty well what we...
Bolkcom: I have 2.
Lacina: OK.
Bolkcom: On the first page definitions, second sentence, analyzes and summarizes complex financial data and projects future needs period. Would be a suggestion, and then the other suggestion would be under specific duties number one. Established a cooperate working relationship with all elected officials and department heads.
Jordahl: Good. I like that.
Lacina: I missed it Joe.
Bolkcom: Period.
Jordahl: He's cutting out, in the first under specific duties, he's cutting out either through committee or on an individual basis. It just seems clearer to say...
Lacina: Oh, OK.
Bolkcom: Establish a cooperative working relationship with elected officials and department heads. The stuff I cut again is...
Stutsman: Making the recommendation.
Bolkcom: You could add another, the 2nd one it says collect and analyze budget information and make it available. I'm pulling out, I think we just put someone in a difficult, they're going to make recommendations to us, but I just think if we want somebody to develop a good working relationship with department heads, I think we want to make sure that person isn't pulled into the political part of how we make decisions about who gets staff, who gets the car, who gets this, all right.
Jordahl: Oh, I see that.
Bolkcom: I just think it's, and maybe we'd have a super person who could do that and stay with good working relationships with everybody in the course of doing that, but I think we should shoulder that and let this person be just the information gatherer, the analyst person...
Jordahl: Well those recommendations are one of the things I really wanted to get though from this position. I don't find the same tension that you do between having an array of options. I mean there may be options suggested by this analyst, director, whoever, that I wouldn't think of. I don't know about, because this person is familiar with government finance and is able to say you know this could be done with a grant that is out there and we don't have to pay for all this and cut the county budget as a result.
Lacina: So is everybody in agreement with Joe's idea that we'll cut either through committee or individual basis, that's out, right?
Jordahl: Yes.
Stutsman: Either through committee or on an individual basis, I guess I would share Jonathan's feelings about that. I don't have the problem with making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors because if they're not going to make recommendations, if we said they will make the final decision, but the final decision is still with us and we certainly don't have to take their recommendation, but I'm interested in hearing what based on their factual analysis of these figures what they think, what they see happening.
Jordahl: I hear Joe's concern...
Stutsman: Right.
Jordahl: The, it would be nice to get those recommendations without making it sound like we're going to let this person run the County and we'll just sort of choose which one of the options we might pick.
Bolkcom: Well what if we disagree with what they recommend?
Lacina: OK, but how does this discussion fold back into the job description. What change would we make on this document to reflect that concern?
Stutsman: That we're not going to take their recommendation if we don't want...
Jordahl: Well I think right here, Steve, and what Joe suggested stopping at department heads in number one, and I think we could modify that suggestion by taking out an policy options from that sentence and just saying to provide the Board of Supervisors with recommendations regarding the allocation and utilization of County funds. It doesn't, it even sounds worse that way, doesn't it Carol.
Bolkcom: Yes.
Jordahl: Policy options softens it.
Peters: I promised myself I wouldn't say anything but I just had to.
Bolkcom: I think there will be those cases where there is something that we haven't thought about, that this person is going to, we're going to go god you just earned your salary maybe, but I don't think so. I think most of it is going to be pretty straight forward. Most of the discussion and decision making is going to have to be between the Board and the department heads when we go through this, there's....It's still going to be like making sausage doing the budget. I don't think we're going to get to the point like when County has that when the Supervisor's spend 2 hours on the budget and make all the decisions, I don't see that. I don't want that.
Lacina: So would the change be made to number one? To reflect this? Under specific duties? Is that what I'm hearing?
Jordahl: Well the, you know the point that you've added or, I think we've added to the definition of duties part, Steve, does sort of bring that notion of recommending policy alternatives into the general description, but in a less direct way, it says to conduct cost benefit analysis of various alternative ways of utilizing County resources. That sort of says it, but it doesn't make it as succinctly clearly part of the performance based budgeting process. That doesn't necessarily have to be stated so forth rightly here. We could just sort of make that understood in the function as we deal with this person about what, how the budget is being reported to us.
Lacina: So how, what area would that be included in, under specific duties then we add another bullet?
Jordahl: Well I guess that's a good question.
Bolkcom: Well if you want recommendations to be made by this person, don't change the job description, just leave it how it is.
Jordahl: Well I do.
Stutsman: I guess I don't have a problem with the recommendations. I'm thinking that's what we want this person to do, and why wouldn't we want them to do that. It's not to say that because he or she makes a recommendation I'm going to agree with it, but I want them to give some feedback about their analysis. It almost sounds like we want you to analyze and hand us stuff, but we don't want you to go any further than...
Jordahl: Don't draw any conclusions...
Bolkcom: Yes, yes, well that's our job. I would argue.
Stutsman: Carol, did you...
Peters: I'd just like to offer this thought. I think as you look at your various department heads, including your administrative assistant who is not a department head, you look to all of us to make suggestions and recommendations.
Stutsman: Good point.
Lacina: Yes, that's true.
Peters: I think that's why we're here.
Stutsman: Yes, right.
Peters: Is to assist.
Bolkcom: So my concern is we're going to set a new person up and they may disagree with the department, it might be set up disagreement with the...Department heads as we need this and the budget analyst guy/woman, says no we don't. I just think we ought to be able to evaluate that and we want a cooperative working relationship. I can see a situation where department heads have to suck up to this person in order to make sure their recommendation gets through, that they develop this ...It's kind of like computers...
Stutsman: Don't they do that with us?
Bolkcom: Well they do, but we...
Lacina: Where would you incorporate that into this document?
Bolkcom: Not always.
Lacina: To...
Jordahl: I'm not sure which of our...
Bolkcom: There's 5 of us.
Jordahl: The antecedent was really strange there. Incorporate what?
Bolkcom: Be nice to us, I mean.
Lacina: You want that as a bullet? Let's keep working off of this.
Stutsman: I know, I know...the hour is late and my mind is reflecting that so...
Lacina: OK, so are there any other changes right now we've got we're going to build in cost benefit analysis, under the definitions and duties, and we're taking Joe's, the change on the back page under specific duties either through committee or individual basis out, we'll build a bullet 2A, which will become 3 which will deal with cost benefit analysis, Jonathan you had one in there too, which was a change.
Jordahl: Well I suggested...
Lacina: The resource...
Jordahl: The, oh I don't maybe you're talking about something else. I was talking about just the policy options, the part that Carol winced at. I think she was right to wince. What resource? Oh services resource? Talking about research stuff. The provides research support is number 3, where supervisors and to committees of the Board as it's signed. I'm not sure what you refer to as the word resource.
Lacina: Well I'm not sure, I thought you had another change that I missed.
Stutsman: That too, something else that you wanted to include that I don't think...
Jordahl: Well it...In the sentence looks for opportunities for efficiencies and government and outside sources and funding, sources should have been of funding...
Lacina: Under which number?
Jordahl: That's into definitions and duties.
Stutsman: Number 4?
Jordahl: No, the introduction, the first paragraph thing. Says analyzes and summarizes conflicts, financial data, etc. The next sentence is looks for opportunities for efficiencies in government, I wanted to strike that. Just reduce that sentence to looks for outside sources of funding, or investigates outside sources of funding.
Lacina: Except I like the idea of doing analysis for the purpose of looking at efficiencies. I think that's...
Stutsman: I guess I...
Jordahl: Well yes, that's what...I thought your sentence to conduct cost benefit analysis in various alternative ways of utilizing County resources, spoke to that.
Lacina: Well it could be for new, but for example, there may be a way that we would look at a vehicle pool as Linn County does.
Stutsman: Or I'm thinking that when we started discussion last year about the mail service, as far as would we be better to have a...
Jordahl: Oh that, yes. Uh-huh.
Lacina: So should we leave that one in, looks for opportunities for efficiencies? I think...
Jordahl: To me that says the same thing, but whatever. I wrote the sentence, I guess I kind of liked it at the time. It's just that I thought your sentence about conducting cost benefit analysis said much the same thing, but...
Lacina: Except it implies a new project as opposed to looking for efficiencies. I think efficiencies should be stated in there somewhere. But I think it's worked out...
Jordahl: Well we can put them both there. I mean if, it wouldn't be the first time a job description had been mildly redundant.
Stutsman: Yes.
Lacina: Let's leave it in.
Peters: So you want it left as what?
Lacina: Look for opportunity for efficiencies in government and outside sourcing.
Bolkcom: Does that include investing money?
Stutsman: Could.
Lacina: Could.
Jordahl: But it doesn't necessarily. It...
Bolkcom: That would be in one of the former descriptions, wasn't it?
Lacina: The catch all is special projects as assigned by the Board.
Jordahl: It's specifically not in this one. Isn't it?
Stutsman: Uh-huh, right.
Lacina: Well, when we talk about other sources of funding and special projects...
Bolkcom: Well we don't need, if we wanted to invest our money differently, we don't need, we could do that.
Stutsman: Well and, right.
Bolkcom: We don't need a person.
Jordahl: But how would we?
Lacina: Talk to the treasurer, set up a different procedure.
Duffy: Yes, if we talk about that, we should have the treasurer up here.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Bolkcom: It's not on the agenda.
Jordahl: And it's not in this job description.
Duffy: That's right.
Lacina: So right now we've got 4 changes, anything else?
Jordahl: Well we've still got the title question.
Bolkcom: How did number one read now?
Lacina: We basically took out your proposal, what you said, either through committee or individual basis and I thought the rest was left on number one.
Jordahl: Uh-huh and left the rest of it.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Bolkcom: On the definition of duties, how does the 2nd sound to you?
Jordahl: That's unchanged.
Lacina: Well we struck and I think analyze some (inaudible) complex financial data and project future needs...
Peters: Period.
Lacina: Period. Yes, right, correct. Recommend to the Board options to...
Bolkcom: We might as well leave the rest in.
Jordahl: Yes, what Joe wanted to strike was not and, but...
Bolkcom: They're both the same point. You left it in on one and took it out on...
Stutsman: Let's just leave it in then.
Lacina: So we do have a period after needs...
Stutsman: No.
Jordahl: No.
Lacina: We do not, OK.
Stutsman: Leave as is.
Stutsman: So, got it.
Jordahl: So now having done all that and look through this, what does this position describe?
Bolkcom: Accounting manager.
Lacina: This basically is Kim's position, but he/she is now empowered to go to the different departments and with our support request data, most of which is already there, to do analysis, to bring that back to us, to either do cost benefit analysis, or at our request to do an analysis and recommendation of projects. That's what I see happening.
Stutsman: I think that's what I had intended for it to be too.
Bolkcom: What role do the department heads play in all this process?
Lacina: Huge role.
Bolkcom: Do they do any analysis?
Lacina: They are the implementation of a lot of the projects. We'll obviously have to work with Tom and Cletus and everybody, and Deb, and have their buy in to get this stuff done. But again, I think it's going to help them be more informed not only from the standpoint of their department, but also the general needs within the whole County. Somebody comes to us and says I need to trade a car and it has 80,000 miles, somebody comes to us and says I need to trade the car, I've got 160,000 on a cruiser.
Bolkcom: Yes.
Lacina: These are things we need to balance across the Board.
Stutsman: You know if we'd be better off to continue to rent space versus build a building.
Duffy: That would be interesting.
Lacina: And a small car with 80,000 miles may be used up versus a large scale one with a heavy duty package. So those are..
Stutsman: You know and those policy decisions are still ours, we will make those final recommendations and we may say no, this is what the Board wants, we want to have a fleet of brand new cars at all times and...
Lacina: Now, if we're in agreement on this document, the position...
Stutsman: Pat, oh I'm sorry, does it need to go through... Oh...
Peters: I would recommend that it goes over to Pat because Pat looks at it with a different...
Stutsman: Right, and I think it would be good to...
Lacina: So I'm suggesting that we take this with the incorporated changes and put it across our desks, we make any additional changes we need, we get a copy to Pat, and we have the position open at the end of this month, right?
Stutsman: November is Karen's last day if we're looking for some...
Lacina: So time wise, by the time we advertise, and get someone in the position, we'll have the opportunity of "training them" for the next budget time.
Bolkcom: It's going to be years before they're doing this job description.
Lacina: Agreed.
Jordahl: Well it depends on who you get.
Bolkcom: Well somebody intimately knowledgeable about this particular County Government, they'd be up to speed right away. But, in terms of trying to understand all the history and...I'm just saying realistically there's a lot of reasons why we do things the way we do them.
Lacina: Your point as new supervisors come on the Board, it takes you a year just to begin to understand the legal aspects of the levies and all this and that so...
Stutsman: But I think with this, we have a much clearer idea of what the Board wants from this person to, that it gives more direction.
Bolkcom: Yes, I think there's probably 2 or 3 full time jobs here to do the kind of analysis that...I really think that our department heads need to continue to feel like they're the point people in the budget. Because anything that we do to analyze what they're doing and want to change it, they're going to have to change it. I think that they have to be seen as the people, not only making the recommendations, or doing the analysis, and making the recommendations about doing things differently or going after a grant, if they're not supportive of a grant to do something in their department, we're not going to probably get the grant, or if we get the grant, how else...I just think we need to pay attention to our in house resources as we go about this. All the analysis and...
Duffy: I don't think it's going to work that way, Joe.
Bolkcom: Well I'm concerned about that.
Duffy: It isn't now.
Bolkcom: I don't know.
Lacina: In thinking about the job classifications and some of the changes we've tried to make over the years in job descriptions, one aspect has been to define management level positions. By that I mean management over limited staff and to make decisions, the individual must be self directed, Carol would you help me out with this? Must be able to take projects and complete them. How do we phrase that? Must be self directed, must be...
Peters: I'd have to go back and look at several others to pick up the specific phrase and Steve...
Lacina: That may be something we want to incorporate, or ask Pat to address that. But somehow we need to get the idea across that we aren't going to hold their hand all the time and move them through the process. We need to say, do this analysis, boom, and like Kim did, she brought back to us 5 year spreadsheets on the histories and cycles and some of those things. Self directed is the term that keeps popping into mind.
Peters: And you using...Letting them know this is a professional...
Lacina: Professional position...
Bolkcom: Do they get comp time?
Jordahl: The...
Lacina: Is it OK if we gel that in?
Bolkcom: Question. What's the salary, I mean how does this relate to the former job description and are you going to be able to hire for the money? Because it...
Lacina: The consensus is that we'll include self directed...
Stutsman: Yes, I guess I would like...
Lacina: We'll go back into the old job descriptions and try to pull up some...
Stutsman: We felt that the same salary range for the...
Bolkcom: Which was...
Jordahl: 31.
Stutsman: 31, oh that's what Kim was making at...
Bolkcom: What's the range?
Stutsman: I don't know what the range was...Carol do you know?
Duffy: 40 to 60 I believe.
Peters: At that time it was 25 to 30. But that was 3 years ago. So I suppose now you would be looking at 30 to 35.
Duffy: How'd I get to 40 to 60?
Lacina: Don't know, that was under HR functions, the 2 individuals that talked to us, both received I think in excess of 50.
Duffy: Oh, that's HR. Yes.
Stutsman: Well if you could make those corrections? Make those corrections and distribute them to the Board and then we'll take this up again Thursday during informal, make any changes...
Jordahl: Do we have a title that we're working with here? One that just occurred to me now that we've discussed is Budget Director and Research Analyst.
Bolkcom: We need...
Jordahl: I think we need..
Bolkcom: We need a 25 to 30 thousand dollar title.
Lacina: Budget and Research Analyst was what we had on the table before.
Jordahl: Budget and Research Analyst is...
Bolkcom: I'm fine with that.
Jordahl: Budget Officer?
Bolkcom: I...
Lacina: Do you want Officer in there?
Jordahl: I don't know.
Bolkcom: I'm careful to say I'm fine with any part of this.
Jordahl: I beg forgiveness for being so focused in on what one word means or how it feels, but the analyst to me is someone who sits back and stuff comes to them and they look at it and they think about it. Now a director is someone who goes out and makes things happen. An officer may be somewhere in the middle. Budget Officer, kind of controls things, but doesn't necessarily tell people what to do. There may be a better word than officer. I want to kind of hold that open for people to suggest something better.
Peters: But research indicates that...
Stutsman: Yes, I guess I don't have a problem with the Budget and Research Analyst. I think that says to me what I had envisioned for this job right now.
Jordahl: Yes.
Stutsman: You know, and I say I think this job will evolve, I think it will change, I don't think it's going to be the same 5 years from now, but I...
Jordahl: Well that's kind of what I was thinking when I started my remarks is that I think that as this process develops, we're going to have a different sense of what this job should be.
Lacina: Good base document, good job...
Jordahl: Thank you.
Stutsman: OK, (inaudible). Pardon?
Peters: Did you... Under other...
Stutsman: Yes. Well let's see, OK, Carol, we're not going to do reports today, if that's OK with everybody on the Board. Carol, did you have anything else?
Peters: Just Research Analyst.
Stutsman: Oh yes.
Peters: (Inaudible). Which the Board of Supervisors and your area legislators could have a joint meeting, somewhere is what you had right? Unfortunately, the date that...(inaudible) last year, December 6. I've had 2 calls back saying forget it, I'll be in Des Moines that date. I did have a suggestion of November 22, which would be right after your ISAC meeting, which remember you were trying to keep this after the ISAC meeting so you'd have the proposals ready to, that you used at ISAC with these people. Unfortunately, November 22 is a Minnesota football home game which I know will cause conflict of scheduling with some people. So...
Bolkcom: What time's the game?
Peters: Football day?
Bolkcom: Is it a later game?
Peters: You could start at 8:00 in the morning...
Stutsman: Compensation Board...
Bolkcom: That's a good point.
Stutsman: Compensation Board meets that day too, I don't know if that would have an impact...
Peters: (Inaudible). So...
Stutsman: I don't go to football games so that's not...
Jordahl: What meeting are we talking about here?
Stutsman: Meeting with the Legislators to talk about...
Jordahl: Oh, OK.
Stutsman: Legislative issues for the upcoming session.
Peters: The other thing if the Legislators do not go to Des Moines until the first part of December, how do your evenings look? I'll go back to trying to get a couple of different evening times.
Jordahl: For late November? What's our time frame that you're wanting to look at, Carol?
Stutsman: Well through the month of December, is that what you're...
Duffy: Saying the 1st?
Peters: What?
Duffy: Should we ask them 1st to see when they can make it?
Stutsman: I think we should give them some options.
Peters: I can do that, but I was hoping to get a couple of suggested dates.
Stutsman: How about the 1st or third of December?
Peters: OK.
Duffy: That leaves me out, I'll be in Des Moines, I can't miss anymore...
Bolkcom: I can't do it the 1st, I could do it the third.
Stutsman: Are you gone that whole week of December, or the 1st week?
Duffy: I'll be probably the 2nd and third, maybe the 1st.
Stutsman: How about the 4th?
Bolkcom: Yes.
Peters: Not the third but the 4th?
Duffy: Yes, the third's out for me.
Lacina: Try...
Peters: OK, so...
Jordahl: The evening of...
Stutsman: December 4th?
Peters: December 4th.
Stutsman: How about December 8th, that's a Monday?
Peters: Well that's...
Duffy: That would be all right.
Peters: that's when they'll be in Des Moines, starting...
Stutsman: Oh, they're in Des Moines starting, oh I was thinking...
Peters: That's the way (inaudible)...
Bolkcom: December or January?
Peters: In December.
Bolkcom: Oh. The session doesn't start until January. He might be out of town.
Lacina: But their committee meetings, they do a lot of work prior...
Peters: Committee meetings is what he was referring to.
Bolkcom: OK.
Stutsman: All right, December 4th, then.
Lacina: Let's shoot for that and see what we've got. Evening.
Stutsman: Or how about 4:30, 5:00, Carol? Would that work?
Peters: I'll try that.
Lacina: Or the old game is if you want somebody to show up, you feed them. Bring in a sandwich at 5:30, 6:00?
Peters: Listen...
Jordahl: Uh-huh, pizza, go somewhere.
Peters: The memo said, yes, milk, juice, coffee, rolls, are all included.
Stutsman: Keeps....
Jordahl: See how that deal at Swisher goes, at Shueyville goes, maybe we'll have a real popular meeting spot, who knows.
Stutsman: Did you want another date or did you want to just try that...
Peters: I'll do this and I'll take...
Stutsman: OK.
Peters: As Charlie suggested, go over and see if they have any other suggestions regarding your proposal.
Lacina: If you don't mind, can we do a press release also? Just that we're going to be meeting, just so that the public is aware that we're going to have a special meeting with Linn County, I know we got a letter on that landfill thing and Jim and Lumir are both on Bluestem's committee and they can give us an update. Again, it's our work session, the public couldn't comment, but they wanted to sit there.
Bolkcom: Yes, it's a good idea.
Lacina: That would be an option for us. If you don't mind, we'll just have Karen whip something up.
Stutsman: OK.
Lacina: Sorry, so we'll shoot for Thursday the 4th in the evening if they can make it.
Bolkcom: For our department head meeting we might want to note to department heads to formulate issues that they might want to bring in for that meeting.
Peters: Right.
Stutsman: I think we've kind of reminded them a couple of times on that, but it will be good maybe to send a memo out to have them thinking about issues that, I think they wanted to wait until after ISAC when all the affiliates met and...
Jordahl: Well and we are getting together on the third of November again with the department heads for strategic planning and it may be that some frame work of issues is established coming out of that.
Lacina: Are we going to have a formal get together with the legislators during ISAC? You know we always used to have the little 5:30...
Bolkcom: What is it...
Stutsman: Usually in...
Lacina: Oh it was, it was supervisors that's right. I was thinking annual meeting, but that's what we're.
Peters: He was going to try to attend part of that ISAC meeting.
Stutsman: Is there anything else? Discussion from the public?
Welsh: 2 very quick things.
Stutsman: OK.
Welsh: With the expansion of the Department of Mental Health, I hope that you will identify the relative costs such as space, equipment, postage supplies, etc. Have an identifiable amount of those costs.
Jordahl: Excellent point.
Welsh: I mean it's one thing to say OK these salaries are paid for in this way, but there are a lot of these other costs and those costs need to be identified for that department and either a part of that department or a part of section 45, if you want to, whichever way you want to go. But those costs should be identified as costs related to that function and not somehow in the transfer the total (inaudible) someplace.
Stutsman: Second point, Bob?
Welsh: 2nd is, and I don't want to sound disrespectful of you all, but I'm not sure when you discuss this new position whether or not you're then going to have the support that you need for the other functions because Kim did a lot of other functions that it seems to me, I keep hearing Jonathan, well I like Jonathan, but Jonathan's saying hey but I don't want to include this in the description. Well the tasks are not going to go away, Jonathan, just because you don't want to include it in the job description. Some place you're going to have to do that. You've got x number of dollars. To me when I hear you all describe this position, I think you're talking about the higher salary than what Kim was receiving. If that was 25 to 30, I think you may be talking about more than that. But irregardless of that, that person is not going to be able to provide the much respected Carol and Joe the type of assistance they need to do your very basic functions. So from, I know you're all saying we're not adding another person, this is the same job, and I have to say to you then make sure you've got that covered in that job description, or else I think you are going to be adding another person.
Jordahl: Well...
Bolkcom: That's right.
Jordahl: I have I think been fairly consistent in supporting the idea of adding another clerical person in this office and I think we need that.
Welsh: But I think that's OK, but then you have to identify that, and I'm not being disrespectful, Sally, I hear you keep saying we're not adding a new position, I think you are adding a new position or you're either not you're either adding a new position or you are being unfair to Carol and Joe.
Jordahl: We're adding a new position, but the position isn't the budget and research analyst. The position is a secretary I think which is less expensive to add than a budget and research analyst. Although I think you may be right about the salary range on that too.
Lacina: Bob had a real good point when we're done with this job description, could we run it through, I'm going to blank out on his name, is it Jerry that's doing the salary survey?
Stutsman: Oh, Jerry Thompson.
Jordahl: Yes, there you go.
Lacina: Just to get a proposal of what, I mean if we're going to do this evaluation process, we might as well just give it to him now and say what range would this normally...
Stutsman: Well that would be included in the salary survey.
Lacina: But let's just give it to him now so that we don't go out and advertise.
Bolkcom: Because it's not a position that exists right now.
Jordahl: I may recall asking him during our discussion of what it was going to cost to do this, whether it would cost any extra to do these elected officials salaries and the answer was no.
Bolkcom: We're not talking about elected officials.
Jordahl: Just...
Bolkcom: We've just created a new position that is not part of what Jerry Thompson is looking at.
Jordahl: Well, actually what we did is redefine an existing position. Whether we add a secretary or not is up for discussion.
Stutsman: Carol, what were you going to say?
Peters: I was going to say he's amenable to including that as he, I also gave him the human resource person.
Stutsman: Right.
Lacina: Could we have him do a real quick...
Peters: Because one of the things that you're asking him to do is to provide a matrix, a range. I just thought that would be a good tool for you to have in the years to come.
Welsh: I think that's an excellent idea. I guess what I would hope you would do is give him a job description, don't give him a proposed salary range.
Lacina: And ask him to come up with...I think that's...
Welsh: Just give him a job description and say if we hire this kind of a person to do this, what should be the salary range. My gut reaction is you all might be surprised.
Lacina: Well in this community with the resources at the University, might be lower than we think too. But anyway, let's run it past him before we advertise and just see what he says.
Stutsman: Anything else from the public? Then we will recess.
Recessed at 12:55 p.m.; reconvened on October 23, 1997 at 9:30 a.m.