Recessed at 10:35 a.m.; reconvened at 10:40 a.m.
DISCUSSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICE STAFFING
Stutsman: Regarding Board of Supervisors office staffing. I put this on the agenda because I wanted to talk a little bit about what we want to do about Kim's position and continuing on with that. We had since talked about sending over that job description to Pat's office, the revised job description. Carol have you done that.
Peters: I retyped it but I didn't get it over there until last week sometime.
Stutsman: Yes. What I'm concerned about is that Karen's last day is the end of November and I'm concerned about how we're going to continue to staff this office in view of the workload. I'm just wondering if we need to revisit that job description and maybe look at not making so many changes and continue as we are until we have a better handle on the workload in this office.
Jordahl: I would suggest that an alternative to altering the job description that we've already altered through so many meetings, focusing on it's participation in the budget process and getting rid of some of the problems that we had with trying to have a clear function for that position.
Lacina returned at 11:42 a.m.
Jordahl: That we discuss at least this morning our office staffing in view of specifically in view of Karen's function rather than either Kim's function or changing the description of the budget analyst position but to ask ourselves do we need an additional support staff person in the office comparable to Karen, to the functions Karen is performing rather than, and leave the question of the budget analyst position as a separate one. That's how I'd like to start the discussion.
Stutsman: Steve, we're talking about the office staffing and Kim's job description, the rewrite of that and thinking about Karen leaving at the end of the month and how to handle the workload and things.
Jordahl: Sally was suggesting that we look at Kim's job description again in view of needing some support assistance and maybe redrafting it to make fewer changes and I was suggesting that we keep the revised description as it is for the time being and to ask the question do we need to keep a function such as the one that Karen is now performing or to create that function in our office in an additional support position. 2 ways of starting the discussion, that's as far as it's gotten.
Stutsman: Or basically keep Kim's job description as was working towards having that more of a budgetary role, but just recognizing that that person is going to have to provide a lot of support. I'm hesitant about talking about another support staff in this office.
Jordahl: I'm not interested in discussion keeping Kim's job description in the way it was, I think that was a mistake as it was... I mean I don't want to be harsh about this but...
Bolkcom: I disagree. I think that hiring Kim, going out with that job description would be a reasonable thing to do and adding more budgetary stuff over time to that would be an appropriate thing to do. The other thing that comes back to me, our conversation about the phone system really started on trying to alleviate some of the work on our staff and we've kind of got this global thing going now in trying to figure out the phone system for everybody, I guess I wonder if we shouldn't move ahead with the short-term. Get the Supervisors to try and alleviate some of our staffing issues to deal with specifically the phone system as opposed to... I would be in favor of spending $2,000 on voice mail than spending $20,000 on another support person because of the crunch we have on our office. I guess the other question is trying to have a broader discussion about Jo Hogarty's time and Carol's time and the kind of a more global view of how are we organized as it relates to Kim's position.
Jordahl: Before we broaden out to talk about 5 topics, I would like to try and handle the 3 that you raised of the voice mail, Karen's position and Kim's position. It is a good point that you raise that the relative cost of having voice mail added here, $2,000 doesn't stack up to the cost of adding another support staff person, way out of scale. So in terms of the economy of should we invest $2,000 that we may not get back if we decide to go with another phone company and do the whole County with voice mail that's relatively small potatoes than hiring another support staff person, so that's a very reasonable question in point that you make and I'd like to discuss that as an issue and that begins to bear on Carol's position and Joe's position. The question of the budget position as one that should continue in it's form as it was with Kim here is to me one that we've addressed repeatedly over the last 2 months in talking about ways of clarifying that position. To continue to go back out with the same job description we've spent 2 months revising I think is to ask that we have another quasi-professional position in our office harried by the day to day phone calls and office and staffing needs and so forth so we would not get the professional function from it that we really want to have. But that's just me.
Stutsman: Well and the reason I wanted to discuss this again is in view of the fact that Karen is leaving and I'm thinking we don't have this support staff position, the job description even finished, let alone are we ready to even begin interviewing or what not. I just don't know how we're going to keep up with the workload around here without another person in place.
Jordahl: Well it would be fairly clear cut to promulgate a secretarial job description wouldn't it?
Stutsman: Well but that means another support position.
Jordahl: Yes. Yes lets be clear here that's what I'm talking about.
Stutsman: Yes. Right.
Lacina: I think part of our problem when we originally generated the position and then hired Kim was we defined it too broadly, so that while we gave her responsibility of going out and generating reports and that, at the same time she was refused information because we didn't stand in behind her and give that position some weight. But at the same time she was expected to make the coffee, answer the phone, which we all have to do but I think the phone did get in the way of a lot of... Occupied a lot of time that she could, have used in a more productive fashion. The voice mail will help but it only does a small portion of the office demand which is to side track a message so that we can retrieve it, instead of having 2 or 3 phone calls hopefully there will be one with a message. But on the result side it doesn't do anything to help with the work load that that phone call generates. So could we have functioned very well in this office without Karen? I think the answer is that we would have had days that the office would have been closed when other people were sick or on vacation. I think having her has really served a valuable purpose to the office and we can all see that need. The dilemma also then is with the job description, the rewrite of Kim's old position. That will also need support staff and will generate a greater workload. So to me I do see the need for support function which is Karen's equivalent however we decide to define that and then on the other I guess there was support by a majority of the Board to go out with the job description we have. Are we talking in the short term, like at the end of this month, what are we going to do?
Stutsman: Well I'm just thinking long term.
Lacina: I see the need for the function that she's providing for us right now. I don't think it has to be a...
Bolkcom: Well I think that's true. I agree with that, but Kim didn't have... She wasn't full-time busy if you recall. She wanted more work, didn't have enough work from time to time and I don't know that we need to hire a support person and then turn around and hire another full-time position. I know Karen's busy now, but I don't have any sense that she's...
Lacina: Well again I thought that has been discussed though. I thought that part of the problem with Kim as I said it was too general. I mean she didn't have the specific and sole task of generating the budget reports that we hoped to receive like Linn, but I thought that had already been visited and we decided we were going to work for that function. So I guess what we're kind of asking since that's already off the table is are we going to replace Karen with an equivalent function or are we going to let that disappear and go back to what we had before.
Stutsman: Carol do you have...
Peters: I guess I... Joe states how Kim wasn't busy and I guess I'm kind of wondering why that was because many times when I was visiting with her about a project she would say she's too busy. So...
Lacina: Well I think she was busy but we had her taking minutes which probably wasn't productive although the committee, the Technology Committee was extremely important in what they accomplished and the resulting document that she generated I thought was great. I'm not sure that just a secretarial position could have done that. But it wasn't in probably the budget number crunching analyst area that we wanted. But I thought she was busy. I thought the operation and office we were...
Peters: A lot of times I'd come out of a Board meeting and ask when you get a break I've got another task and she would just say Carol I'm so busy.
Lacina: I know that when we had a vacation by staff that we did get behind. We drop one person and it made a big difference on the impact of the operation of the office. We got behind. It's due to nobody's fault, it's just simply that there is a big work load coming in.
Bolkcom: Well the other thing that's going on is this human resource position. We're hiring a full-time position that's going to I assume take a little bit of Carol's workload away. I don't know what that is and maybe you don't know what that is, but there is that change going on.
Jordahl: AT that same token does that human resources person not also generate a need for support staff.
Lacina: It's going to take time for the HR to get up... For a long time Carol is going to be busier because there is going to be a transfer of information and documents and history and if anything for awhile that's going to be an increased workload for Carol as opposed to lessening.
Stutsman: Well what are we going to do when Karen leaves, I guess is the immediate question.
Bolkcom: We're not going to have anybody or we're going to have a temporary person if we're waiting to hire a budget person. Because we're not going to have that done. We don't have the job description approved from the County Attorney and it probably won't for awhile. The other thing we haven't really decided, I mean the whole discussion of the budget came up a little bit yesterday in our strategic planning. What are we doing on the budget and do we need that capacity right now to do performance-based budgeting?
Stutsman: Well...
Bolkcom: I kind of got the impression yesterday people feel like we're moving a little too fast.
Stutsman: Well and I guess I feel that the Board doesn't have their act together on performance-based budgeting and I think that we need some time to set back and to regroup and decide how we're going to proceed with this. We've kind of dabbled in it a little bit, but we haven't had a good presentation or a good idea of how we want to proceed with this. I'm maybe we're counting on this budget person to lead with that, we've still kind of thrown around the idea of a consultant coming in. We're all so busy I don't think any of us have the time or the ability to take the lead on that.
Jordahl: Well I'm not content to see that question be pushed aside as though it were something we had not thought about or looked into. I mean you and I and Carol spent time looking into this. I think the Board decided that it was behind this idea to a significant extent. Our many meetings spent looking at the budget position...
Stutsman: I agree with that, that we're, and I'm still committed to the performance-based budgeting. It's the implementation of that we're falling real short of.
Jordahl: Well exactly and I think the question is not whether performance-based budgeting is not whether we want to redefine this position and have someone in the office to enable that to go forward, the question is are we able to take the question of performance-based budgeting from that point of decision to do it to implementation of it by ourselves. I don't... And I think there have been voices certainly raised and people talking about options and alternatives for that implementation. That has the effect of kind of dilating the discussion and saying well all right there is this possibility and there is possibility but how do you move to a decision on that. The notion of hiring a consultant to come in and as it has been said jump-start the process is a clear answer to that question is to say if we're committed then we go, take the RFP out, we have consultants come in. I've spoken with a gentlemen last week who is interested in doing this, I've had a couple other phone calls out to folks that are interested and are playing phone tag. I think we put out an RFP, we get some answers on how much would it cost to have a consultant come in and implement performance based budgeting over the course of the next couple of years. I'm not saying that we're going to create a lot of turmoil in this years budget process. But it is entirely possible to move from where we are to where we want to be by the route of asking for consultants to give us a proposal on what it would cost, review those, and make a decision and go forward, not by leading it ourselves, not by having enough time to monitor it or do it, but by deciding we want to do it and moving forward, hiring a consultant I guess is what I'm saying. That option exists.
Duffy: Sally?
Stutsman: Right.
Duffy: Sally I used to like that word consultant. I don't even like it anymore. That's all we talk about, money and money and money. Does this mean that we're getting paid too much money up here if we have other people doing the work...
Stutsman: Well Charlie are you willing to take the lead to do the performance-based budgeting?
Duffy: Well I wasn't for it to start with.
Stutsman: Are you willing to take the lead to do the phone service? Are you willing to take the lead to do any one of these number of things that we've got committed to do?
Lacina: See we've got some things...
Duffy: What do you...
Stutsman: To put it in place.
Duffy: If I have the expertise on some things, yes, I will take the lead. I think I have taken the lead. But all I hear is consultants, consultants. Iowa City is, I hate to knock Iowa City, but what is it 6 million or something?
Stutsman: Well, we're certainly not talking about spending that kind of money for a consultant.
Duffy: Yes, but that's all I hear anymore, it's consultants, consultants, consultants and...
Bolkcom: Yes. The short term question is we've got a staff position that in a month we're not going to have and I think we all know we need and the question is what does that person do? What are the short term challenges before the Board in the next 6 months or 3 months. Then that would be the budget and maintaining an office. I think that Kim's... Because we haven't decided on the process of performance-based budgeting where it comes to timing; we've decided we're going to do it, it's when we're going to do it, and how we're going to do it; that I'm uncomfortable with proceeding ahead with this full-blown budget analyst position immediately until we make some decisions about that and see a more appropriate fit in the short run being essentially what Sally raised initially and that was basically going out with the same job description maybe with some minor changes, focused on a little more assistance budgeting and hire somebody. That person could be that because we're going to continue to need support. I don't think we have another full time secretarial position, I don't. But we do need some minor support in that area. It's been noted that the human resources person may have some need for support. We're going to free up Carol I think of some of... Initially there will be more work for her but there is going to be some things that will fall away with the human resource person. I think in the short run that's our best bet.
Jordahl: Joe are you looking for a professional or a support staff person?
Bolkcom: I'm looking for a professional person.
Jordahl: A professional person who would provide support secretarial services and answer the phone.
Bolkcom: Might have to do some of that.
Jordahl: I think if we want someone to provide secretarial services we should hire a secretary.
Bolkcom: I don't think there is full time work for a secretary.
Jordahl: I think we've had a full-time secretary here just about and we've used her.
Lacina: I agree with Jonathan on that.
Bolkcom: I don't know if she's actually been full-time busy.
Lacina: There is also a few time bombs laying out there, which when we get into the budget I think again giving weight to Kim's old position and the job description we've got. We know we lost a $93,000 lawsuit, but we also know that we have the maintenance of that individual for the rest of their lives which is going to come against that budget and have some effects that our dollars are going to be diverted from clients. We know we're going to not generate 100 grand to the general fund from SEATS which we've had in the past and we're not going to have in the future given the contract that's proposed. We know given the expenditures that are in place now, and the suggestions and apparent goal of the remodeling for the furniture, that there's $125,000 we've been able to put in the bank from the Recorder's Office that is not going to be coming into the bank. If you go down through the list and you look at revenues that we're not going to be receiving in the future it's going to get much, much tougher to hold the line on taxes unless we have that expertise to get in there and start warning us in advance and say here's what you have to do in this area, here's what you have to do in that. So I think this budget function is really important and I think you guys are beating yourselves up a little bit too much. You started it and it's really good and we need to proceed, but I think we don't want to put it on the shelf and have it draw dust, because we've got some tough things starting to come and unless we want to see escalated taxes because of these bumps that hit us, a few dollars invested now might help us make more prudent decisions. But again as Jonathan has said given the workload in the office, given the drug testing responsibilities and everything, and the support for HR, plus the budget area, we need additional secretarial help. Now HR is an example. We can look at area where part-time employees have by accident gone on our health insurance and we've paid claims. We've got a really sticky one right now, a disability problem where somebody will end up paying about $12,000 back. We've got some problems we've aired in the past, and a little more attention would save us money in those areas. So I see the need for both. Again, I know the departments may or may not like it, but they aren't responsible for the whole picture. They're looking at their department and they might feel comfortable, but when we're balancing the lawsuits, the concern about increases in property taxes and everything, it does come back on our neck, so I just do see the need for additional secretarial and I think you're right, we need to continue in the budget function. Do we go with the consultant? I don't know.
Stutsman: I don't know either. That's going to depend on what kind of an individual and background we get in this position. If they have expertise in performance-based budgeting and the implementing and then there's no need for a consultant, but...
Duffy: Sally, of course Kim did other things. We advertised for somebody to take the minutes at some of these night meetings. We had one person apply. I'm talking meetings like REAP, because I'm on that committee at 7:00 p.m., so Kim would stay here, she'd come down from Marion, wherever she lived and she stayed the whole day and then she'd wait to take minutes and it got so bad that nobody would show up and instead of having the meeting once a month now, it's about 3 or 4 times a year. She stayed for other meetings, and...
Stutsman: Charlie, the point?
Duffy: That was part of the...
Welsh: (Inaudible).
Duffy: That was another thing. She'd do anything that she was asked to do so that's...
Jordahl: Well in the same vein, Charlie, to pursue that question, I think it's an important one, what about evening meetings and staffing them. Coincidentally enough, the Auditor has just come into the room here and your staff does do that function in a number of instances and I wonder if you'd care to speak without preparation to the idea of staffing evening meetings. We're talking about support staff for our office. Do we need a particular type of person, how much of a person, a separate person and so forth for different things. Is your office interested in providing that service?
County Auditor Tom Slockett: Well luckily, the Secretary of State is sitting between me and Casie, who might be directly affected by this. But our office's position is that we will provide the service that you need. If you have night meetings, we will figure out how to staff it.
Bolkcom: But it's a different...Taking minutes is a different issue than staffing the REAP committee. Staffing the REAP committee is doing an agenda, making some phone calls, making sure people show up. At the night of the meeting, somebody take the minutes, different set, I mean I appreciate Tom's willingness to do that, it's an appropriate use of his staff, but staffing these various committees, the Historic Preservation, REAP, etc., is probably more of a professional function than a secretarial function. That's why I would argue for kind of a professional position, much like Kim's.
Lacina: Let's put this on hold while Secretary Pate's time is probably....
COUNTY AUDITOR TOM SLOCKETT AND SECRETARY OF STATE PAUL PATE: VIEWING ELECTION PROCESS
Stutsman: Tom, do you have an introduction for us?
Slockett: Pardon me?
Stutsman: Do you have an introduction for us?
Slockett: Yes, I do.
Stutsman: Secretary of State.
Slockett: Secretary of State Paul Pate has stopped in and he's checking out our election process and making sure everything's up to snuff and giving us some information about what other locations are doing around the State. So I'm very pleased to introduce him here to the Board of Supervisors today.
Stutsman: Welcome.
Secretary of State Paul Pate: It's a pleasure to be here.
Bolkcom: Good morning.
Pate: I, well actually I'm enjoying your dialogue. It's nice to see somebody else wrestling with issues on a local level. I am very pleased to be here, Johnson County is always very aggressive and frankly a leader on a lot of the elections and voter participation programs. So, I told Tom I felt guilty as many times as I've gone from Des Moines back home to Marion, I'm driving to the Iowa City area and I'm not stopping here, so today on election day, I'm going to come here and spend some time watching the Kids Voting program and looking at how your people do it here, and I think it's important. We could bring a little attention to local elections, this is not exactly the highest profile elections, but it's one of the more important ones. It all starts with the grass roots and you know as County Supervisors. So I salute you for the work you're doing and once you have all the answers, please share them with the State so they can get their act together.
Slockett: Our office feels a special affinity for Secretary Pate. Tammy Henrickson is a neighbor of his and Kit said he ran into him at Econofoods, a grocery store in Cedar Rapids; so we're glad to see him here in his official capacity as well.
Lacina: Well it didn't get a lot of press. I'm glad you brought up the idea of the kids involvement, because my wife's been collecting material from the candidates and the elementary kids will be casting votes in the school. Last year, Tom, I think you had a great program to kind of get it off and running where they actually used some of the voting machines and the idea of awareness and a great project so...
Slockett: Yes, and there's kids voting in today's election as well, so hopefully....
Pate: Well it's a crucial area.
Lacina: And they're taking it seriously.
Pate: Well Tom and I were just visiting about that. We recognize, not just only in Iowa, but nationally younger people don't have a high enough voter participation and when I speak to young people, I know the point I make to them is I always ask how many of them are working some place part time and quite a few do. Particularly if they're under 18. I said how do you like being taxed without representation and here's a chance to at least start the process when you turn 18. So we want to make sure that they are involved as much as they can and the Kids Voting program here in Johnson County is important and we hope we can expand on that and still...Hey it's important to be informed. I have to work hard at it at times as you might recognize. I have to do my homework on who the Soil Commissioner candidates are, so that I know who they all are. As well as Regional Library trustees, etc. So it's a lot of names on our ballot, but we're pretty proud of the fact we average an election about every Tuesday in Iowa, franchise elections and city elections and special issues; this is why your county auditor's need to put in a few more hours sometimes. You'll probably get to work an evening or two, you do it all the time now because of elections.
Lacina: The kids elections would be a great follow-up story after the election if things are slow and...
Stutsman: Well and that Kids Voting, I was so glad to see it was being done in an off-election year, not just a presidential year. I was just real pleased that they were spending as much time with city election, because those elections are just as important as any kind of presidential elections with the local officials and things.
Slockett: It will be real interesting to see if we can notice an effect on the turnout.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Slockett: In a smaller election, it might be more noticeable.
Pate: Well I appreciate your time, I don't want to keep you from the County business you have before you, but if there's anything our office can do, we're always available to you and I'm sure you'll hear from me more in other ways too, as time goes on. The Counties are still the front line of defense as I put it sometimes when we try to deal with many of the issues that are coming forward. I appreciate that. In fact, I'll just make a comment. A few years ago, right before I was elected to this post, I went through your association's program on re-inventing government. I got a lot out of it. One of the first books I gave all my staff was that the counties are doing it, we'd better figure it out and it was one of the required readings we all had to start reading, was how to re-invent government and be as competitive as we can be in this time and place. So I do try to borrow a few of your ideas as much as I can so...
Lacina: Well we appreciate the economic development summits that you conducted throughout the State and you're ongoing involvement and commitment to this area and the State. I really appreciate that. We're pleased that you stopped in to see us too.
Pate: Thank you very much.
Slockett: Secretary Pate is a very brave man, too, walking into the mouth of the lion in Democratic country here in Johnson County.
Pate: Oh, no, it's safer here.
Stutsman: A lot safer.
Pate: I'll fill you in on that.
Slockett: Secretary Pate is a good example of how Republicans and Democrats can really work well together. He's done a tremendous job in elections as Secretary of State and I think it's widely accepted that's the truth by members of both parties across the state. We're very pleased with the services.
Pate: Thank you, can I get a commercial for that?
Jordahl: A camera.
Lacina: Public record.
Bolkcom: With or without the goatee.
Pate: I could take the goatee. Well it's... a lot of the credit goes to the people... I mean the staffing and working with Counties. It's quite an education, it really is. I will tell you working with the county recorder and auditors, who my office works closely with, and you Supervisors, we come to you, beg for the money so we can fund things like motor voter and things that are going to impact, are all crucial too. I think as long as we can keep lines of communication open, that's over half the battle. Now we have to figure out how we can agree on some things and keep things moving in the right way. Well have a good week and thank you for letting me take some of your time.
Bolkcom: Thanks for stopping up.
Jordahl: Yes.
Stutsman: Thank you.
Jordahl: Thanks for being here.
Stutsman: Thanks Tom.
Slockett: Thanks for the interruption.
Lacina: Thanks, Tom.
DISCUSSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICE STAFFING CONTINUATION
Stutsman: Back to discussion on Board of Supervisors office staff. Well it appears that we're ready to go ahead with the job description as submitted to Pat White and look at office staffing as time goes on after Karen leaves whether we want to do a temporary or...
Peters: OK, so I need to contact Pat and tell him to please (inaudible) that.
Stutsman: Right.
Peters: OK.
Stutsman: OK.
Peters: And there will be no other assistance in this policy.
Jordahl: See Carol's ready, getting a resignation together here. We do need some support.
Peters: No, I just want clarification.
Stutsman: Yes, and I think that's...
Peters: I just need to know what to expect, that's all.
Bolkcom: Did we decide we're hiring two people instead of one?
Stutsman: No, no.
Jordahl: No, we have not.
Stutsman: I think maybe continue with the temporary basis until we get somebody hired in that position.
Jordahl: In what position?
Stutsman: In the budget position.
Jordahl: All right, so we're...To clarify Joe's question, we're not making any kind of a consensus decision here about hiring additional support staff person at this point.
Stutsman: I'm not ready to make that decision.
Jordahl: Right, well I think we ought to put it on the agenda to discuss it.
Stutsman: I think we maybe need a work session about this office staffing thing. Do you think that's what we need to...
Bolkcom: Well when are we going to, I mean we're making decisions about full-time staff. When are we going to have that discussion?
Stutsman: About...
Bolkcom: About how this office is organized. We're making decisions about spending money and more administrative staff before we've kind of taken a more broad look at things.
Jordahl: Well I want to second that question too. You asked earlier about how does this affect Carol's position and Jo's position? How does that all fit together.
Bolkcom: We haven't talked about that at all.
Jordahl: Let's have that discussion, whether now or at another time. It says the Board of Supervisors office staffing on the agenda.
Duffy: I think I'll agree with Sally to go ahead and have some temporary help like we have now. We can discuss this another time for longer. But right now, especially with the holidays coming up, it isn't easy. Like I say, one time I asked you to keep track of the phone calls on a couple of those days there were 100 phone calls to this office. So I support you on this, Sally.
Peters: Actually I've been asking Karen and Jo this last week to keep track of any contact that they have had either by person or anything that would interrupt what they were doing.
Stutsman: OK.
Peters: Whether it was a person coming to the counter or a person calling on a telephone and I would be glad to have them come set those out for you in a memo to let you know what has transpired over the last week.
Jordahl: I want to... Go ahead, Carol.
Peters: Another question I have, if you want to go forward with a part-time person, how many hours do you want, because Joe had mentioned he didn't feel that Karen had been busy. So...
Bolkcom: No, I didn't say that, I said that about Kim, on occasion she would indicate that...
Peters: Oh.
Bolkcom: It's not, I don't know how many hours Karen's working now.
Peters: About 33.
Bolkcom: OK.
Jordahl: I've gotten the impression that Karen has had things to do. I don't know if that's erroneous, you're more in contact with that day to day.
Peters: Karen has been very busy. She wasn't as busy yesterday as she was usually, simply because I neglected to have the plan set out. That wasn't her doing. I was going to call from the Highlander and I just didn't.
Jordahl: Carol you...
Bolkcom: Maybe we need to have a conversation about what... If we need another support person, we need to figure that out. What is Karen spending her time on?
Jordahl: Well yes.
Stutsman: How about this, have a work session? I'm looking at the calendar on maybe the 10th in the afternoon? Just talk about this office staffing? That's on a Monday.
Bolkcom: I'm not available that afternoon.
Lacina: Do we have a meeting with Zoning on the Comp Plan on the 10th? At 5?
Stutsman: No, I think that was canceled, Steve.
Jordahl: That was an alternative time to the one where we did meet.
Lacina: Oh, OK.
Stutsman: Yes, because I had it crossed off. You're not available at all on the afternoon of the...
Bolkcom: I have a meeting with Craig Mosher at 1:30.
Jordahl: What have we done, by the way with the SEATS Director evaluation for Tuesday?
Stutsman: Well that's Tuesday.
Lacina: Let's handle this first, though.
Peters: Rescheduled it, Jonathan.
Stutsman: Let's see, how about the 12th?
Bolkcom: I'm open.
Stutsman: In conjunction with this office staffing, I wanted to talk a little bit about this PR position. Maybe in view of...
Jordahl: You mean HR?
Stutsman: Yes, I'm sorry, HR position. In view of our discussion yesterday about that this is a real watershed for the Board and for the County, I think we need to really step back and have a real thorough process in place for this interview. I'm suggesting that maybe we have a sub-committee get together and work out some of the details of how to do interviews for this particular position. How we want to organize it. It's too much to expect Carol to do this whole thing. I think it would be helpful if we had a small committee set up. I'd be willing to work on that and I don't know if a department head or elected official or some other supervisors just to organize this. But along with that discussion, I talked with Pat White yesterday and are looking at maybe not doing those interviews on the 12th and 13th, giving us a little more time to organize this. Looking at maybe the afternoon of the 21st and the afternoon of the 24th to do those HR interviews.
Lacina: 21st being a Friday and 24th being a Monday.
Jordahl: ISAC continuing I understand through part of Friday anyway? Friday morning?
Lacina: Resolutions Committee will meet and make a presentation to the Board on Friday morning.
Peters: Well then you have the General Assembly that votes on resolutions.
Jordahl: So leaving Des Moines, a two hour trip if we're back here maybe 3:00?
Stutsman: I guess my experience with ISAC, Iowa State Association of Counties, meetings on Friday have not been worth the time to stay over. So that's where I was coming from.
Jordahl: Steve has been talking about the resolutions for the terms of the legislative agenda. Is that correct?
Lacina: The year in Davenport that the sheriff's came to us and wanted the benefit package and early retirement and that. A lot of the people had left and it was really well orchestrated, because when your sheriff's walk in and sit down beside you, one on each side, (inaudible) are gone. While a lot of people do leave, it probably is a very important point, because we do then take those resolutions and move forward to the legislature to push for it. On the other hand, I think I probably should stay because I'm one of the Supervisors for resolution. However, we also need to move on this, so I guess I could stay up there and try to voice our position if you want to come back and work on it.
Jordahl: Tuesday afternoon the 18th?
Stutsman: Well, it's working around Pat's schedule that's the problem.
Jordahl: Oh, I see.
Lacina: So he's available on the 22nd?
Jordahl: 21st.
Stutsman: He's available on the 21st.
Lacina: Oh, I'm sorry, the 21st.
Stutsman: Well and then the other thing that we might want to consider is that having, I think it's real important that we have 2 sets of interviews with candidates. An initial to go through all the candidates. There were eight that had at least 2 votes from all the Supervisors. My feeling is that because we had 60 applicants that we should interview those 8. From those 8, maybe target 4 or 5 to come back for 2nd interviews. Maybe for that initial interview it isn't important that all the Supervisors sit in on that initial screening. But as we target in on specific candidates, then I definitely think all the Supervisors need to be part of that process.
Lacina: I would agree with that and I think Pat White and Carol are 2 key players in this. So again, I can stay up there, but I think we need to continue the process, and I think if we can narrow it down to the final 3, that I would like to sit in on.
Jordahl: We're not talking about, are we talking about actual interviews that afternoon? I thought we were talking about the work session for the, no this is the interviews...
Stutsman: Yes.
Lacina: We're working with Pat's schedule. So if that's when he can be there, I think that's what's critical.
Jordahl: Well, I just want to, I guess my speaking about 3:00, I didn't mean that to be frivolous or flippant, but rather to try and think realistically. If one did want to sit in through the discussion of the resolutions, what's a realistic time to say those would be concluded Steve? Is that 11, is that 12?
Lacina: I guess I don't know. If there are some... If some of the other affiliates come in with key positions, the Supervisors, I think ours will move fairly quickly when we go to the general body and we have all the other affiliates, I don't know if the assessor's will come in really concerned. I know they're very concerned about the power companies property tax revamp. So I don't know what we're going to see. But again I think the thing to do is continue. We've obviously got this commitment back here.
Jordahl: Are we talking about...
Lacina: We can do both...
Jordahl: Are we talking about 8 interviews on Friday afternoon or 4?
Stutsman: No, 4 on the 21st and 4 on the 24th.
Lacina: I'd go with Pat's schedule. He's the one that's got the court cases.
Jordahl: Yes, I'd agree with that.
Stutsman: All right.
Lacina: So tentatively time wise...
Bolkcom: I'm happy to go on the 24th.
Stutsman: Is there anything that can be changed Joe?
Bolkcom: No, I'm going to be gone the entire week.
Duffy: I have to do, I'd have to look at my agenda, because I crossed some of these off that we changed the dates, but...
Stutsman: Well I think maybe...
Duffy: Indeed, I maybe, a couple would not really have to be there until like Steve says we're going to cut it down to 3 and then all of us, or 5, or what did you say 5?
Stutsman: Well I guess there's 8 that had at least 2 votes from all the Supervisors.
Duffy: So we've got those down to 5.
Lacina: If we have prepared questions, we can review the minutes. It isn't like being here, but at the same time, we should be able to review the information.
Bolkcom: So we're still talking about a 2 committee process at each stage, is that what you're saying?
Stutsman: Right, right.
Bolkcom: So on the 21st and 24th...
Stutsman: There's lots of things to work out with this whole process here. How many department heads are interested in being a part of this? If we have all the department heads and elected officials. So that's why I said I think the committee needs to work on this, but...
Bolkcom: If the 24th works, go on ahead.
Stutsman: OK, why don't we put that down then, the 21st and the 24th. Who would like to help work on this process? OK, why don't Joe and I work on it with Carol. OK?
Lacina: Sounds good.
Stutsman: All right. OK. Getting back to work session with the office staffing. Do we want to look at the 12th in the afternoon?
Bolkcom: It's available.
Stutsman: OK. Why don't we...
Jordahl: Suddenly.
Lacina: What about the 13th in the afternoon? That's our (inaudible).
Stutsman: Well we could... That's going to be a bear of a meeting.
Lacina: We have our night meeting at 5:30. Can we go like at 1:30, or 2? Or...
Stutsman: We have all morning too.
Lacina: Well or what about if we have a work session at 4:00?
Stutsman: Carol are we starting that informal/formal at 5:00 on Thursday?
Peters: Yes.
Stutsman: Yes. OK. Should we, do you want to do it at 1:30 then on the 13th?
Lacina: Sure.
Duffy: I'm not so sure, it's going to be a long day on the 13th.
Stutsman: Or if you want to do it on the 12th.
Duffy: I'd rather do it on the 12th.
Bolkcom: Why can't we do it sooner? Can we do it this week?
Stutsman: I can't do it this week. I've got something every afternoon.
Duffy: I think we'd better let the 13th...
Lacina: I'm going to need a couple of total days just to...
Stutsman: OK, I'm wondering if...
Bolkcom: A meeting at 1:30 on the 13th?
Stutsman: Yes, let's do 1:30 on the 13th then for a staffing, a work session on the Board of Supervisors staffing.
Stutsman: OK. Discussion regarding administrative services and financial agreement for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Iowa and Delta Dental plan of Iowa for Johnson County associated company.
Peters: You have a copy of not the whole agreement, but you do have a copy of the financial part.
Stutsman: OK. We need to get this on Thursday, December 4th for your approval.
Stutsman: Does anybody have any questions about this, or there's not any real drastic changes from last year. Is that right, Carol?
Peters: Just the amount of administrative fees which you talk about that during your budgeting process.
Stutsman: Are there any questions? Are we ready to put that on then for Thursday?
Bolkcom: So this is retroactive to 7/1?
Peters: Correct. The only thing I'd like to draw your attention to is at the bottom of the page, it has individual excess loss coverage. This is lifetime, individual excess loss deductible is $35,000. That's our individual stop loss.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Peters: The plans limit of liability is 100% of claims settled in excess of the deductible. The lifetime individual maximum of one million. What that means is they stop losses up to a million. If you should happen to have a person on our contract that exceeds the million, Johnson County is responsible for anything over and above that. Just a point of clarification. You'll also notice the covered benefits. Medical is marked. This does pertain strictly to medical. It does not include dental.
Lacina: Does it include psychiatric?
Peters: Yes.
Lacina: OK. We've come close in the past, have we ever exceeded the million?
Peters: No.
Lacina: OK. Because when you get into heart and...
Peters: But with the rising cost in medical care, I wouldn't be surprised if we will be exceeding that.
Jordahl: Uh-huh. This is actually one of the things that sort of concerns me about the HR person coming in is that this is going to get a good, different look. I'm not saying your look isn't good, but I think an HR person is going to be looking real hard at this stuff. I really liked... Well, I'm just, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. I'm saying the trend in society is to managed care, to HMO's, to limiting these kinds of costs and we have very nice coverage here in the County.
Peters: The Johnson County Board of Supervisors have reviewed those in the past, they've wanted to go to an HMO or managed care, such as your Alliance Select. It isn't an HMO, but it does have cost containment issues. You've looked at Heritage in the past, (inaudible). Also of course, I'm not sure, these all came before you were here, was Mercy's. They have a, basically it's PPO.
Lacina: Guardian.
Stutsman: Any more...
Peters: Two track, but there hasn't been any interest in changing to this date.
Stutsman: Any more comments on the contract that we have before us?
Lacina: Your recommendation is that we move with...
Peters: Pardon?
Lacina: You're recommendation to us is that we do this?
Peters: Yes.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Stutsman: All right, we'll put that on then for Thursday, OK Carol. Prioritizing the inner ISTEA enhancement applications. We're going to do that next Tuesday, they're just included today to bring everybody's attention to this.
Bolkcom: I thought we were doing it Thursday.
Peters: Actually it's on Thursday.
Stutsman: Oh, Thursday, OK. I was thinking...
Lacina: Can we have the engineer come in and give us a...
Stutsman: Yes, he's going to...
Bolkcom: He's going to come in.
Stutsman: Be a part of that.
Bolkcom: Is he coming back? He was in this morning. He came in this morning to report on...
Lacina: Did he report to you?
Bolkcom: IWV, but we passed on this, he's going to come back on Thursday to talk about this.
Stutsman: If I can remember, this is kind of an exercise in futility isn't it? Because basically aren't we going to recommend...
Bolkcom: Ours are the tops projects.
Stutsman: Yes.
Peters: I was going to ask you, because Mike's going to come in on Thursday in the informal portion, do you feel that you would be ready to take action on that also Thursday? Or would you like to...
Stutsman: Well we'd have to, wouldn't we Carol?
Peters: Wait until the 13th?
Stutsman: 13th?
Peters: There's plenty of time, the 13th.
Lacina: I'd like to wait. I'd like to wait to hear from him and have a chance to digest it.
Peters: OK.
Lacina: My personal opinion.
Bolkcom: (Inaudible) vote.
Stutsman: Well but... I guess I was thinking the 13th we're having the informal and formal at 5:00. Plus...
Peters: It would be just the matter of voting then on...
Stutsman: OK, we'd have enough time to do that. Because we were going to kind of make sure that agenda didn't get too full. Because we'll just have a half an hour to do that so...
Lacina: Well unless you want to do it the 6th. We can...
Bolkcom: We'll put it on for the this week, if we get to it we'll do it, if not we won't feel comfortable...
Stutsman: If people won't handle...
Bolkcom: We'll have the option.
Stutsman: OK, why don't we do that.
Duffy: I think there are some questions I'd like to ask Mike.
Bolkcom: Well he probably only knows about our projects real well. The other projects are all here. You can read through them.
Duffy: But ours are...
Stutsman: Well that information is...
Duffy: Should be discussed.
Stutsman: Is in the packets. We'll see how we get along on Thursday. If we feel that we need more time, then we can always put it on for the following Thursday.
Lacina: So Thursday for informal? He'll give us a brief overview and then...
Stutsman: Uh-huh. Then we'll have it on for formal if we're ready to vote.
Lacina: If we wish to...