DISCUSSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICE STAFFING AND SPACE NEEDS
Stutsman: I wonder if we could move down to item G, discussion regarding Board of Supervisors office staffing. I put this on because I want to reach some kind of agreement on what we're going to do on Kim's old position. I don't think that we've really reached an agreement. It seemed like it was 2 to 2 that last time we discussed this in a straw poll.
Jordahl: My memory of that is that we were talking about a strictly secretarial position as opposed to Kim's old position.
Stutsman: Well no, I think we were talking about basically Kim's position as it was written. With some...
Peters: As it was re-written.
Stutsman: Yes.
Jordahl: We were talking about that, yes, but then we were also talking about a clerical position and we were 2 to 2 on the issue of whether it should be a full time. My memory is full time. Steve's nodding his head.
Stutsman: Versus part time.
Jordahl: Clerical person. Charlie wasn't here at the end of that meeting.
Duffy: Well I thought before I left, I was at the meeting with just a few minutes then. Really it was just an informal meeting, I thought we should have part time help and right now.
Stutsman: Yes.
Jordahl: We've gotten that, as far as right now. The question is in terms of the long term. We can't continue, we could, but it wouldn't be ideal to continue with temporary help. So the discussion went to, we had our staff members talking with us about how they perceived the need. There seemed to be unity among the 3 of them that what was needed was an additional full time clerical person to help the office work well. There were, I think 2 of us, I think that was Steve and myself as he's nodding his head that were in favor of a full time position. Joe and Sally I think were in favor of a half time position and you had left the meeting. So it's kind of in your court.
Duffy: Yes, when you've got too many other things to do, that's what happens.
Lacina: Well and again...
Duffy: On something like this, I think it's so close to budget time, it's what you can afford too. But I know that there should be in place in the future a full time person because I don't know how they get the work done up here, I really don't.
Jordahl: Yes, and we've got that HR position coming on full time that we'll need some staff support too.
Duffy: Yes. But just remember, and I've said this, I used the word I a couple of months ago that when you charged kids $300 to take driver's training in the schools and I think that sends one of the messages that (inaudible).
Stutsman: So are you supportive of a full time clerical person?
Duffy: Well I think so, Sally. I don't know what else you can do. Because part time it takes so much experience, you can't have anybody... With part time help you can't expect them to know everything about this department. Maybe some of the things they go about, then refer you to Carol Peters. It takes so long for a person to get oriented, I guess is what I'm saying.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Bolkcom: So how are we going to pay for that, Charlie?
Duffy: Well do you want me to figure out something? I think Joe I'm going to write that down and I'll tell you how you can pay for it.
Lacina: It will be cheaper than a lot of the other things that we're funding. But yesterday, wasn't it yesterday that we had no staff person over the lunch hour. If we're looking at an illness and we didn't have the temp in, what do we do, close the door because we can't... Well luckily the phones weren't working so we couldn't answer the phones.
Jordahl: And I staffed the office during the interim.
Bolkcom: We did... It was covered.
Lacina: My point is we didn't have support staff.
Bolkcom: The question is for me is we've decided to hire Kim's position again, so we're going to be back up to full strength. I thought we decided to do that, are we clear on that?
Jordahl: Yes, I'm really, I'm not so much disputing that as I am talking about the secretarial position. I think that's where we were unresolved.
Bolkcom: Deputy Administrative Assistant. Have we advertised for that yet?
Peters: No, and I'll tell you why. After...
Bolkcom: There were a couple of minor changes to that job description.
Peters: There were a couple of minor changes but not that much. They're not that much but in visiting with, going back and re-checking with a couple of Supervisors, I thought they were saying to me, well yes, I'm in favor of replacing that position, but only with the stipulation that there is additional clerical help. Now you have another problem here in the fact of where are we going to locate this person.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Bolkcom: Well before we get to that, let's get clear on we are re-advertising for the Deputy Administrative Assistant position virtually the same job description. We're going to advertise for that as soon as we can. Is that what...
Duffy: What we're really doing here, let's not fool with the public.
Bolkcom: That's what I thought we decided.
Stutsman: That's why we need to get it clarified, what we're...
Duffy: Yes, let's not fool the public. A Human Resource person is the personnel director and I thought that we've been doing a good job and department heads should be involved, I didn't think we needed this position, so now you can call Kim's position anything you want to, but it's still personnel.
Bolkcom: You're confused. We're talking about 2 separate positions. The Human Resource position was a decision that we made months ago, put it in the budget, we're finally hiring it. That's a new position, you're correct.
Duffy: Well I never (inaudible).
Bolkcom: Kim's position is just filling Kim's position who left 2 or 3 months ago, same job description, that's a Deputy Administrative Assistant job title. I thought we kind of had agreed to go on ahead.
Duffy: But the Human Resource person then would do other things than...
Bolkcom: It's a new job.
Stutsman: No, they would strictly deal with personnel issues, that's it.
Duffy: That's (inaudible)...
Stutsman: No clerical.
Duffy: How about their... Will they have to have a secretary?
Bolkcom: Well that's what we're kicking around with this part time secretary versus full time secretary.
Jordahl: Right.
Stutsman: When we advertise, I said they would just deal with personnel issues. When we advertised, we said that they would probably have to provide their own support staff, initially.
Peters: May I make a suggestion?
Stutsman: Yes.
Peters: When we visited the other day, Jo had nicely enumerated out the items that she was responsible for. I still have not completed my list and maybe it would be helpful on Friday if I had the list for the 3 different positions laid out. That would give you and opportunity to review them. You can discuss this further on Friday.
Lacina: I do realize that if we go out and hire Kim's position, no matter what we have down in the job description, she's going to automatically roll into clerical and you're paying a $30,000 secretary. Because we need somebody to be here over the noon hour, to answer the phones, to type the letters, to give the HR some support initially. So whatever budget functions we had built in, for a while they're simply going to be clerical.
Bolkcom: We're talking about adding a full or a part time clerical person, that's the question, does it need to be full time.
Jordahl: In order to address that.
Bolkcom: My additional point on that is we've got other departments that have equal or greater needs than this department does for more clerical and more other kinds of help. I think that we ought to try and get by on a part time person initially and build the case for a full time position over time. I think it just looks wrong that we are adding full time people to our staff when other people have as significant or more significant needs than we do. I think our request ought to have to compete against the other departments as opposed to us just saying, we need full time, therefore we're going to get it. We've got other departments that have the same need we do. We're not giving it the same priority.
Stutsman: I guess I agree with what Joe...
Duffy: Yes, but we hired some new people Joe, now you can (inaudible) the story, but I wish you would have said this before we started hiring these people.
Jordahl: Well I'd like to reach for a picture of this whole thing here. Carol mentioned 3 positions, we're actually talking about 4, the whole idea of adding a position here. We've got the HR person that is being hired. That position is not entirely a new position in terms of its function for the County. We have had HR functions operating through both your own personal services, Carol, and through the County Attorney's Office. We have had the HR function. It's just that we're hiring a person to simply, that will be their full time job. The money for that, however is new...
Stutsman: No.
Jordahl: Isn't it? Pat's replacing...
Stutsman: It's budgeted I guess is what I'm saying.
Lacina: Right, we've levied for it.
Bolkcom: We've budgeted for it in the current budget for...
Stutsman: I guess...
Jordahl: As if we would have hired them earlier this year.
Stutsman: Yes, it's not...
Jordahl: But for this budget. In terms of in this budget, is this are we talking about adding, the statement has been made we're adding staff. Joe was talking about how do we stack up against other departments if we're adding staff in our department. In some sense, the HR person looks like they're in our department.
Peters: But that HR person actually, it's going to take some time for it to evolve and for it to assume its full capacity.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Peters: But that HR person is going to be helping each and every department.
Jordahl: Exactly. It's a central function. It's a very good point, Carol that...
Peters: It's not just going to be the County Attorney's Office or the Board of Supervisors Office. That person is going to help every department in this County.
Jordahl: So I would say that it's not adding a person to the Board of Supervisors office, this is taking an existing function and isolating that and saying, OK, we're going to have a full time person doing that, it's a very important function, but it will serve all County Departments. So in terms of what are we adding in the Board of Supervisors Office, to go to this question, how do we stack up fairly against anybody else. I think the question of establishing, it's a valid point, how do we stack up against other departments, should we just serve ourselves first and ignore the people, that's a valid point, we should ask that. But I think part of the answer to that is people who have been here, certainly when I've been here over the last year, it's clear, and the problem, part of the reason we're discussing changes to Kim's job descriptions, the Deputy Administrative Assistant is because that position was, as Steve said, pulled into being a support staff or a secretarial type of position, because of the demand for that type of position in this office. If we want to have that position in this office be a professional position, someone who does professional work for the professional salary they would be receiving, then we need to take care of those secretarial needs in our office so that person has the space, the time to perform as a professional.
Lacina: There will be a time for that budget function. I don't think it's right now. I think when that position is established, it will be important and it needs to be supported, but if you talk to the departments, they don't see that need right now. I think all of us agree and the departments have given us feedback, we did not begin to utilize Kim for the intended purpose or to touch the potential that she had because she was answering the phones, typing the letters, staffing meetings, doing minutes, and many of those functions. I still think the initial need is to assist Jo and Carol with the function of the office, obviously it's going to be much cheaper to hire that position than a $30,000 secretary. Otherwise, that's what we're doing. We're hiring a $30,000 secretary.
Stutsman: I'd like to make a point. I just would like to say that I supported the half time clerical position with the idea that we just don't know how this is all going to shake out. I guess I'd rather have a part time person, see how it goes then, before we put in a full time position. We don't know what kind of responsibilities the HR person will have as far as clerical needs or what else that we'll have the budget, so because we're in such a state of flux, to me it just seems to make more sense to do a part time position right now, re-evaluate it maybe a year from now and see where we're at. I don't know if we can afford a full time position, quite frankly. I guess I would like to go more of a conservative route to begin with and see where we're at.
Lacina: Then continue and hire the $30,000 position?
Stutsman: Right.
Bolkcom: We have already made... I thought we made a decision that we needed the Deputy Administrative Assistant position hired. We have a budget in 4 weeks to start on, we have nobody in this office that's going to be assisting us, Carol has got lots to do. I think it's already been indicated that she's not going to staff the budget unless we tell her differently. We have a variety of committees, we've got another one we're going to form today on space needs, we've got the REAP committee, we've got Historic Preservation, those are not clerical functions to staff those committees, all right? With the Recorder's Study Committee just finishing up, we need somebody in a professional level to help us with the budget like Kim did and do some of these other staffing things. Yes, there was some clerical stuff she did, some of it she didn't need to do, we had her doing minutes for some of these meetings, she didn't need to do those, she had to staff the meeting, but she didn't need to sit around and spend a day typing minutes, we could have done something different about that probably. So I think we still need that professional support and as has been indicated by others, we need some clerical help too. I don't think the case has been made for a 40 hour position. As Sally says let's start conservatively, if we develop the need, we'll deal with it.
Lacina: Well I think we're agreeing, let's start conservatively because Karen was able to staff those committees quite well and didn't receive $30,000.
Bolkcom: She... Karen...
Peters: Karen was an unusual temp.
Stutsman: This part time person, we're advertising this, if we go ahead with this, as a beginning clerical one? Is that right?
Peters: That's something they'll have to consider.
Bolkcom: Right.
Stutsman: OK, that's what I had in my mind, was that this would just be a first level of the (inaudible).
Bolkcom: It will be in the bargaining unit as well. When Pat was here a week or 2 ago and talked to us about it, he said it would be inappropriate to have those professional functions in a Clerk I or a Secretary I position, it's inappropriate.
Lacina: So Charlie, you're the swing vote. What do you want to do?
Stutsman: Or do you want to wait until Carol gets this together and make a decision on Friday. I guess I agree with Joe, I think we need to move ahead on advertising for Kim's position.
Peters: What I was thinking is maybe Tim could shed some light and draw some additional information.
Stutsman: OK.
Bolkcom: I don't know what else there is really to talk about.
Duffy: Yes, I think, I'm glad to hear somebody saying that we're going to save all this money, but that's water over the dam when we hired the HR person that we did not need. The County Attorney did a very good job. Even this, I haven't changed my mind that that person shouldn't be up there, because people call the County Attorney on...
Stutsman: So what's your feeling about the clerical person then Charlie?
Duffy: But I think that in order to function properly up here that they're going to have to have some help up there. Jo and Carol and I would say to go on ahead. I don't know how you can get a part time person, when we try to hire people to take minutes like the REAP meetings for $9 an hour and one person applied and then dropped back out of that.
Stutsman: Straw poll Charlie. Do you want part time or a full time.
Duffy: I will go with full time.
Peters: OK.
Stutsman: OK, then the next issue is space.
Peters: Right, so do you want me to advertise, just so I get my directions clear, for the Deputy Administrative Assistant, and a full time Clerical Position.
Stutsman: Right, clerical Clerk I, Secretary I.
Duffy: I think that person will probably be reasonable.
Lacina: Jo's Secretary I, is that right?
Peters: She's a Secretary II.
Lacina: Secretary II.
Duffy: Well I'd better get going. I'm late, now I've got a lot of things to do in Des Moines so...
Jordahl: Oh, going to Des Moines?
Stutsman: Charlie's going to the...
Duffy: Yes.
Bolkcom: Be careful.
Jordahl: Could we rush forward with reports and find out what Charlie's going to Des Moines for?
Stutsman: Farm Bureau, State (inaudible).
Duffy: Well Farm Bureau's one of them and then Economic Development, there's been some changes there's another, and there's a whole, kind of Dale Cochran and I'll see him up there.
Bolkcom: Say hi to him.
Duffy: OK.
Stutsman: Drive carefully.
Lacina: So...
Jordahl: Thanks Charlie.
Duffy: Yes.
Duffy left at 9:55 a.m.
Lacina: Secretary I, was it your recommendation to, for staffing that position would be what? Someone under Jo?
Peters: Yes, definitely.
Lacina: OK.
Peters: I'd like to review the Clerk I job description. I need to look at that.
Jordahl: Kind of perform a receptionist function?
Peters: Answering the phones.
Lacina: Now, space needs, so that we don't have to go and invade the Recorder's Office again, do we ask Dwight to take a look at the office and see if there's a more efficient way of configuring things as far as a...
Stutsman: Can we move a desk in here?
Lacina: Well the computer will move...
Jordahl: It would be ready for staffing those meetings. Yes.
Stutsman: Wouldn't have to move far.
Lacina: That would be one way of looking at the HR function and trying to set up. Since we have decided to go with the budget position, we probably need to just take a whole new look at the office.
Jordahl: You know, the other thing that points in that direction is the computer projector. I've been looking at that notion that we have this projector and we have some nice maps that Rick was showing me yesterday, that you could project up here, when we're making zoning decisions, but then we all have to turn around and look at this thing. There might be a way of moving things around so as to take advantage of having that as a more regular part of our meetings, is to have things projected so that everybody can see clearly.
Stutsman: How about...
Bolkcom: I thought we were going to say we could project a desk and a chair over...
Lacina: Virtual office.
Stutsman: I would suggest maybe we have a sub-committee of Carol and a couple of Supervisors to begin thinking about this and then bringing some suggestions.
Peters: Actually, I think it would be nice to have Jo involved in that rather than me, because she is the one that actually...
Lacina: (Inaudible).
Peters: Yes, and she can probably...
Stutsman: Are there volunteers to...
Peters: Come up with very good ideas.
Stutsman: Work on that?
Lacina: Sure.
Jordahl: Yes, I like tinkering with space.
Stutsman: Steve and Jonathan.
Jordahl: Drawing pictures.
Stutsman: OK, and then you be creative and see what you come up with.
Jordahl: Well hey, right over there, see there's a door.
Stutsman: So are we clear then on advertising for Kim's position and then...
Peters: Yes, I'll get them out...
Stutsman: Then begin...
Peters: It's ready to go.
Stutsman: OK, all right. Anything else on the Board of Supervisors office staffing?
Lacina: Just one quick question. In your absence, Jo did an outstanding job, and I just wonder if we shouldn't, and I have a copy of her duties and responsibilities, but I'm wondering if it doesn't deserve a review for an upgrade, given the work that's coming, and she has certainly stepped into the task quite well, given the phone problems and all the things that were thrown at her. She was always there with a smile, responded quite well, met our needs.
Jordahl: Yes, she was great yesterday, getting agendas and minutes together and stuff. I was amazed that she got stuff out and...
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Lacina: It may be we decide that what is written is correct in terms of the union for the facility, but I do think we should take a quick review of that.
Peters: I think that's a great idea.
Lacina: OK.
Peters: And you know with the new person that this might also give you the opportunity to increase her responsibility too.
Lacina: Because the HR is going to need some help. To think that it's going to be totally independent to begin with, there's going to be a lot of time that the individual will have to be out of the office studying, or going out to different sites.
Stutsman: Oh, sure.
Lacina: So there will be support things that will need...
Peters: I think that's great.
Lacina: OK.
Peters: I'd certainly support it.
Stutsman: OK, if you could get that for us and maybe put it on the agenda and then we can look at it. Is that the best way to handle it then?
Peters: Yes. I do want you to think about one thing. Do you want this as a confidential decision, or like it is now?
Lacina: Given the executive sessions and the amount of information that the HR meeting involved, then I think it should be confidential in case something happens that she has to step into that or you, or whatever. I think we need that capacity built in.
Jordahl: Yes, I don't know...
Bolkcom: Which position are we talking about?
Jordahl: The secretary.
Lacina: The secretary.
Jordahl: I don't know how many thousands of dollars...
Bolkcom: Jo's job, Jo's position?
Peters: Yes.
Lacina: So for example if personnel files come in, there may be some sensitive information, insurance, disability, whatever, that may be...
Stutsman: Would Jo be handling that, or would you...
Bolkcom: So are we replacing Jo with this new position? Is that what we're doing, and Jo's getting a promotion?
Lacina: All we're doing is taking a look to see if her position needs to be upgraded in terms of...
Bolkcom: Because with the new position, it would, Jo obviously knows... We should talk to her about it, maybe she wants a different kind of job, but if we're talking about support to the HR person with this new position, we should be thinking about what those functions are going to be and how they... If we want Jo to assume those or whether this new person is going to assume those. I assume is one of the questions.
Jordahl: Well I think the, yes, and the big, when you were talking about confidentiality I thought we were talking about the new position but we had also been talking about Joe's position so it's not clear to me exactly which position we're talking about being the confidential position.
Peters: Well I think you have to look at 2 things when you're talking about confidentiality. One of them is providing information, another one is just a matter of finding things in the file. Things that are confidential. It would be things like working at Human Services.
Bolkcom: I think we need to decide in the short run here if Jo is going to be the support person to the HR person exclusively or if this new person is so that we develop some relationship and expertise in whoever is going to be supporting the HR person is maybe going to be kind of an assistant to over time. The confidentiality of those records if that's a separate issue or not. Dealing with personnel files, does that require this confidential kind of thing or is it... That's how I'm thinking about it anyway. Maybe we want to talk to Jo and see if she wants to... What her interests are and do essentially what she does or if she... Doing the agenda takes some expertise as well. If we're talking about Jo doing other things or whether we want to continue to have her do what she knows best and if we've got a new person focus that person on some other things.
Peters: That's why I had suggested you talk about reviewing what the job responsibilities are so that you know what the person would do as far...
Stutsman: I think that's what we need to do is just clarify and then see if her position needs to be upgraded.
Bolkcom: So you'll do that Carol, how will that happen exactly?
Peters: I would like to have a couple of Supervisors... I think also when you're changing a job description again the policy in the past (inaudible).
Lacina: All right.
Peters: Make sure that the job descriptions (inaudible).
Lacina: So you and I might have to take a look at that.
Stutsman: OK, all right.
Lacina: We'll run it past Pat.
Stutsman: All right. Anybody else want to work on that?
Bolkcom: Is this on for Friday with Tim again, Board how the office is organized?
Stutsman: Reviewing strategic plans, I guess that...
Peters: If you wanted to. It doesn't have to be.
Bolkcom: I mean I guess it's unclear... If we're having a new full time secretary is it going to be 20% supporting the Board of Supervisors function, or 50% and 50% supporting the new HR person. I suppose we don't really know yet but...
Stutsman: Why don't Steve and I and maybe Carol work on that and then we'll bring it back to the Board.
Bolkcom: That would be great.
Stutsman: Then we can discuss all of these issues.
Lacina: Because one question we may want to ask Pat White is when John Bulkley did that function how much support staff he needed and just get some feedback from him of what it involved and we can do some research on that. But I just wanted to bring it up.
Peters: John was pretty much self supportive.
Stutsman: Right and I was going to say it would be hard to go back now and see how much of the support staff did the HR part of his job versus the other things that he did.
Lacina: Because Pat and John did a lot of things together and it was just (inaudible). We can work on it.
DISCUSSION: COMPUTERS FOR EMPLOYEES
Stutsman: OK. Moving back up to item D discussion regarding computers for employees. We sent out a survey for the employees to see if they would be interested in participating in a program if we sponsored such a program to purchase computers. Did Karen distribute this to all of the Board members?
Jordahl: Yes.
Stutsman: OK so everybody has got a copy of that? Really surprisingly good response. The number of people that were interested in pursuing a program like that or having the Supervisors pursue a program.
Peters: I couldn't believe it.
Stutsman: So I need direction from the Board as to where we go from here. To refresh everybody's memory the discussion started when Gateway and the City of Iowa City had developed a program where they offered computers to employees... Well the computers themselves weren't at a reduced rate but there was some financing and education involved as far as buying the computers. So we wanted to maybe pursue offering a similar program to County employees. In the meantime Coralville has gone ahead with Gateway and done much of the same type of program that the City of Iowa City has done. North Liberty is looking into it too. So there seems to be interest from County employees. The next step then is how we pursue this. If we want to just deal with Gateway, if we want to offer it to other vendors in the community, where we go from here.
Jordahl: I'd like to ask the local question. You talk about the community. Is there somebody locally who would be willing to provide a comparable service and lets look not just at the price of computers or the longevity of the company or something but also of support services that they would provide. Is there an 800 number to dial up Gateway for support on weekends, is there a local number? I think we need to really compare apples with apples in terms of what it will be like to have the computer, in terms of it's impact on our community.
Lacina: I don't know why we would choose one brand. I think we can use Coralville and Iowa City as a template to see how they went about it but on the other hand I do think that if we could come up with options. If there is not going to be a discount on the equipment then give the employees a chance. Perhaps they want a more enhanced machine or I don't know but give them 2 options instead of one.
Jordahl: Maybe we just have a loan program where we finance them.
Lacina: I'm not real excited about using county tax dollars to establish a loan company. I guess... I realize the City is doing this but the employees can go to the bank just as well as anybody else and to tax the public to establish a loan program I've got some real concerns about. I like the idea of the computers to the employees which will hopefully enhance their performance in the work place as far as training. If we can do something like that or try to negotiate a discount I think we could go to a local lender to see if we could get a favorable rate for the employees and going as a block perhaps has some power. But I do oppose using tax dollars for loans.
Jordahl: That's a very good point, I like that.
Lacina: Because it's not based on need. Anybody could just come in and say well give me a cheap rate. Then also we're competing against the banks and anybody who...
Jordahl: Right won't do that either. This is where your business perspective is real useful.
Lacina: But maybe we could go out to the lenders and say could you put together some loan packages on PC's and see if we could get some favorable rates. So we could offer them several options of computers and several good payment plans and then let Hills and Hawkeye and First National, Iowa State be involved because they're local lenders.
Jordahl: There you go. If they give a good break maybe it leads to repeat business and I think there's some room for competition to drive down the rate a little bit.
Stutsman: OK. What I hear the Board saying is to go ahead and start looking at some local vendors and some options and then maybe looking at some loan options too. Is that...
Bolkcom: I don't think there's going to be much interest in it at that point probably.
Stutsman: What interest?
Bolkcom: In... People can go out and finance their own machines. I don't know why we'd want to go that route. The benefit to the employee through the Iowa City and Coralville programs is that their employer is supporting them in the purchase of these machines. The point has been made that we shouldn't use taxpayer money to do that. That's a fine point but I don't think there's any great incentive there for employees to have computers in their homes without the incentive that that financing cost would provide. If we‘re going to go out and set up some elaborate financing program through banks for our employees I think they can navigate that on their own.
Lacina: So let me ask, if we did it in the County how would you set that up?:
Bolkcom: I guess I would set it up as the way that has been pointed out by how Iowa City and Coralville did.
Lacina: So how are you going to decide that you're going to make loans for several thousand dollars of computer equipment but yet a law enforcement person may want a weapon to practice with at home which is an integral part of their job and you're gong to refuse that?
Bolkcom: Well somebody could propose that I suppose. I assume our law enforcement people all get weapons. They get issued a firearm...
Lacina: ...computer users here at work.
Bolkcom: Firearm per their employment and they take it home with them. I think it's a different, I think it's a different kind of thing at that point. If we wanted to choose to have a program that we subsidized or provided some incentive for people to buy firearms so they could practice at home we could choose to do that.
Lacina: Perhaps that was a bad example, but my point is if you're going to become a lender of property tax dollars I guess I have some concerns unless it's specifically structured for housing or something of that area, which again isn't for our employees, it would be open to all members of the public.
Bolkcom: Well I think the case that somebody would make in establishing these programs is that we improve the skills of our employees by them on their own time, not at a cost to the County, their own time at home, working on computers. Learning word processing, learning spread sheets, learning to navigate the Internet, those various things. There's some benefit to us as an employer to have employees doing that at home. That's the argument I think that's made and that's why the subsidy or the incentive is there.
Jordahl: The incentive is exactly the question that needs to be addressed here and I think you raised a good point. What's the incentive of employees to respond to this and get a computer because we want the benefit of them getting themselves trained at home on their own time. That's good for the county, but do we have to use county tax dollars to do it? Probably not. I mean I think the question that really would need an answer here is what's the spread between the interest rate that Gateway is offering and what we might be able to negotiate locally. What's the spread between the price of a Gateway computer and a computer that we might be able to get locally with comparable features given that we might have a volume purchase happening locally that a person might be willing to compete for. I think the question, if the incentive is viewed not as what is the intention of County Government, in other words, is County Government spending money on the employees for this benefit. Or is the incentive what's the difference in the price between what they could get this computer for through the program that we negotiate versus what they could negotiate on their own. They might be paying a higher interest rate to the bank and a higher price for the computer. That's the incentive. The incentive is to save money.
Bolkcom: What's the difference between sending an employee to a 2 day computer training session where we spend $300 to send them there and subsidizing their interest rate on a computer. Are they both employee benefits?
Jordahl: The training that we would send a person to for $300 is ostensibly a direct transfer of skills to the County job. That is, we would send them to something that would be for the purpose of using the computer here, whether they had a computer at home or not. I think that's the difference. The employee benefit where they would have something where they could then go and resell, I mean not that you'd make money reselling a computer, but they'd have a tangible at home benefit that they could use for any number of, you know, for business purposes for crying out loud. There's a...
Bolkcom: Maybe that's a good... I guess as I look at this I'd look at it as in the area of employee benefits. You know we provide health insurance, we provide for some employees we subsidize things like work boots and work clothing. Maybe this falls into that area. Maybe it doesn't.
Lacina: Well, those have been negotiated with by the union. The union has... And OSHA has dictated safety glasses and many other things for those jobs that require that. The other I think invalid assumption is that automatically anybody that buys a computer for home is right away going to become proficient in spread sheets. In fact, they will probably do a lot of surfing or in fact maybe even give the thing away. Because when you're home you're not there just to continue to beat your brains out. You're there to relax.
Bolkcom: You're learning how to use a computer.
Lacina: So Jonathan's idea of looking at the difference, maybe the best use of that difference in dollars is for an infusion into our training program. So that we coordinate better with the University. They've got some excellent classes over here. Ann does a great job, and to push that a little stronger. But, I'm hearing us argue the same direction that we want to pursue the idea of doing it.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Lacina: The difference is, I guess, in terms of the financing.
Stutsman: Right. Maybe what I and hopefully Jean will help me with too, is a need to work on some incentives for employees so it is appealing them to do and maybe the only incentive will be to provide some financing and the Board has to decide if that's the route they want to go. Or if we can find some incentive by buying a large quantity of computers that we can offer them for less money to the employee.
Lacina: Or to me even more meaningful is the software.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Lacina: If Microsoft Office or Excel, or if there's a specific task we want them to learn, we could say look we can transfer to you this software at cost. Then, suddenly they're not doing Dungeons and Dragons, they're doing Excel. Or at least have that ability, but just to buy the machine I don't know that that's going to be real effective.
Bolkcom: You can't go anywhere without the machine.
Jordahl: Asking to look locally though, does not preclude going with Gateway.
Stutsman: No. No.
Jordahl: We might ultimately, we might wind up going with Gateway.
Lacina: I think it was an option.
Jordahl: We should look locally.
Lacina: I agree.
Jordahl: Part of looking locally is talking to the banks. I think Steve's made a couple of real good points here. We look at local suppliers. We look at banks. If we can negotiate a rate that's better than Gateway why not do that? One answer to that might be support. Maybe Gateway has got better support. I don't know the answers to these questions.
Bolkcom: Well there's one particular store in town, the best deal is 12 months with no interest. We're not going to be able to beat that, right? Unless you need more than 12 months. I mean maybe if we're not going to provide incentives, maybe it's already being taking care of.
Jordahl: Is that store really local?
Bolkcom: What store is local? None of these machines are made local.
Jordahl: There we go. Now let's have a discussion.
Bolkcom: They're international commodities sold and bought on every exchange in the world you know. None of these are local.
Jordahl: So how does that apply to your 12 month financing?
Bolkcom: I'm just saying financing is an issue that's been identified in our survey, there's a mechanism already out there that has pretty good financing.
Jordahl: Right, so how would our Gateway Program be preferable to just leaving the free market the way it is?
Bolkcom: If we were going to, it might provide more selection. It might provide a better cost.
Stutsman: Then I think too the training. They have a program where they come in and they acquaint everybody to the Gateway computer in one large setting, you know, so everybody has an opportunity to be exposed to the computer at the same time.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Lacina: Well, again, my suggestion is talk to the 2 cities because they probably went through this.
Jordahl: Yes.
Stutsman: Uh-huh.
Lacina: There may be a real reason while they zeroed in on Gateway, but if it's not feasible to do 2 options we'll go with one and just I'm hearing a sense that we want to offer something.
Stutsman: Yes. I guess I feel I'd like to pursue it just so that it's a perk that we can offer to the employees. You know we don't get to do that very often and I think it would be a good morale booster.
Lacina: Good idea.
Stutsman: If the Board showed some interest in pursuing this for employees.
Bolkcom: The other piece of information that would be helpful is how much money are we talking about? I mean what has Iowa City spent over a 2 year period on financing computers for their people?
Stutsman: OK.
Bolkcom: Good work on this.
DISCUSSION: APPOINTEE TO THE COMPENSATION BOARD
Stutsman: OK, continue working on that then. Item F, discussion regarding Compensation Board appointee. Kate Corcoran who was the appointee from the Board of Supervisors cannot serve because according to the Iowa Code, we cannot have somebody serve that is an employee of the State of Iowa and Kate is an adjunct professor at the University of Iowa.
Jordahl: That really thins down the pool in this city. I'll tell you what.
Stutsman: Yes. It does. It really does and I'm really disappointed that... I understand why Kate can't serve, I'm disappointed because she would've been an excellent member on the Board. So we need a new person to appoint and the next meeting is December 8th so we are going to have to have somebody in place by the 4th. I've made a few phone calls with not any success, so I didn't know if anybody else had any ideas. I was hoping I would have a name this morning, but I don't.
Jordahl: They're meeting on Monday?
Stutsman: Monday the 8th.
Jordahl: OK.
Stutsman: Isn't that correct?
Jordahl: Yes. 6 o'clock. That's right. OK.
Lacina: I thought we had somebody so I guess I didn't pursue it.
Jordahl: Yes. So we still need to make those contacts.
Stutsman: We need to make some. So I think between now and Thursday we need to get somebody.
Bolkcom: Find somebody.
Stutsman: So if we don't have any names right now, just alert everybody.
Lacina: I don't know if he can do it because they're in the middle of negotiations, but the HR person that used to be with Proctor and Gamble, now with Gillette Oral B, Rich Coleman would be outstanding because he really knows the work force in the county.
Stutsman: One really good selling point with this position is that there's just one more meeting.
Jordahl: Yes. Yes.
Stutsman: So that's...
Jordahl: We get to go to a meeting this year.
Stutsman: Yes. A meeting because everyone would kind of groan when you say would you serve and then you quickly say, well this is just one meeting.
Bolkcom: What's the term? Is it 2 year, 3 year?
Stutsman: Is a one year term?
Peters: I think it's 4 years.
Bolkcom: 4 year term.
Stutsman: Oh, 4 year term. Oh. OK.
Peters: I'll double check on that. I'm going to have to go back to see if this is a replacement of somebody. I just don't remember. You have too many boards and commissions to remember them all.
Stutsman: I know. It's just very difficult to keep track of them.
Jordahl: Steve mentioned some qualifications of the person that he is thinking about. What would we be looking for in an ideal Compensation Board member? I mean I can sort of think of it myself having read the code and attended the meeting, but if there are thoughts on that I'd like to hear them spoken about briefly.
Stutsman: I guess it would be helpful if they have had some personnel or backgrounds with dealing with salaries because that's what they're doing is setting the salaries for elected officials. Ideally, if they had some experience with County Government and how that works.
Jordahl: Uh-huh.
Lacina: I agree.
Bolkcom: I agree with that.
Stutsman: If we're looking for gender balance...
Jordahl: Yes, where are we at on that because 3 of the members were missing last time.
Stutsman: Right. I think you know it's pretty good.
Bolkcom: We need some males.
Stutsman: According to who was here the last time...
Bolkcom: As per the attendance.
Stutsman: I think we probably do need males. Do you want to call Rich?
Lacina: I can call him.
Stutsman: OK, and see, because I had some other ideas too but they were women. I was thinking of Helen Dailey who used to be with First National Bank, but I couldn't get a hold of her last night. OK, well if we can be working on that then hopefully we'll have somebody by Thursday. Reports? Steve do you have a report this morning?