• Introductions and Process for Agenda
• Compensatory Time
• Attendance Reporting
• Evaluation Process for Department Heads
• Future Agenda Items and Purpose of Meeting

Chairperson Bolkcom called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building as a Department Head Meeting at 9:08 a.m. Members present were: Joseph Bolkcom, Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Stephen Lacina, and Sally Stutsman.

Department heads present were: Ambulance Director Mike Sullivan, County Engineer Mike Gardner, General Assistance Director Kay Hull, Human Resource Administrator Lora Shramek, Information Services Director Jean Schultz, Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities Director Craig Mosher, Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak, Assistant SEATS Director Burnell Chadek, SEATS Director Lisa Dewey. Staff present were: Board of Supervisors Administrative Assistant Carol Peters, and Auditor's Office Recording Secretary John Deeth.

Bolkcom introduced the new SEATS Director, Lisa Dewey. All of the appointed department heads introduced themselves. Bolkcom said that at 3:00 they would be having a reception for Dewey for the public and staff to meet Dewey. Bolkcom said the agenda was put together by the Board and the Board is interested in having agenda items from the department heads. He said they should establish a process whereby they solicit items a couple weeks before the meeting so items get on the agenda.

Bolkcom said he circulated a draft of what they are calling flex time policy. He said they are interested in getting some feedback. He said the last time they met they talked about the comp time policy and the Board's desire to make possible changes to that. He said the draft was what was being proposed as the change. Bolkcom said they were looking at other counties and this policy was close to what Linn County does. Lacina asked if there were any suggestions or improvements that anyone could see they wanted to make. Mosher asked if it was his understanding that they should not document overtime/comp time and use of comp time. He said that having a process makes it easier sometimes. Shramek said actually having forms and getting approval and keeping track of the exact time could be problematic. She said she would need to look at individual department practices to see if some alterations may need to be made. She said that in regard to attendance reporting she was talking to Auditor's Office Payroll Clerk Diane Kaster about payroll input sheets. She said they may be limited to the current payroll system. She said that Kaster only has the ability to track vacation, sick hours, and holiday hours. Shramek said right now they aren't able to track jury duty, funeral leave, and other paid time off. She said that was one thing they would want to be looking for in their new payroll system. She said it would be best if they had one or 2 meetings with volunteers to design or propose a countywide attendance record for exempt employees. She said that they still need to keep in mind individual departments such as Secondary Roads need to keep track of hours spent on certain projects so that they can cost them out. She said the FLSA [Fair Labor Standards Act] does not prohibit them from keeping track of that information, but court cases after the FLSA have shown that when they start keeping track on an hour for hour basis or have some type of ratio, that can be problematic and jeopardize the exempt status. Lacina said a corporation was requiring that management keep detailed records of their time and so the people sued and said pay us overtime. Lacina said this would help them in the Auditor's Office, but technically they can't have a formal system throughout the County where they track everybody. Bolkcom asked if there were any other thoughts or questions on the flex time or comp time draft proposal. Jordahl said it goes beyond the question of whether the were keeping track of the hours on paper. He said that was one issue but the more important guts of the thing was that there was a statement on the part of the Board that it wasn't anticipated that professional employees would be given an hour of time off for an extra hour of time worked. He said it was part of the expectation of a professional job that they may have to put in more than 40 hours of work to accomplish the task if that's what it takes and they have the discretion to take time off when the pressure is off to restore themselves. Mosher said he understands the logic of that, but in terms of monitoring that, he asked if they had a problem employee who was taking a lot of time off, whether they could do a time study. Lacina said they could do it case by case, but if they had a policy across-the-board was when they ran into the court problem. Shramek said they want to focus on that because that would be a job performance concern. She said if the individual was taking every Friday off, then their office possibly wasn't being covered or their job wasn't getting done; she asked, does that meet the criteria they have specified and they would address it as a job performance concern. Jordahl asked if Mosher could keep track of the comp time hours taken as opposed to accumulated. Stutsman said she didn't know if a department head could do it that accurately. She said it would almost have to be the employee that did that. She said she hated to set up a situation where they would start doing that kind of monitoring of people. Shramek said according to the Act, when they are looking at time cards, they caution you so that you don't use time cards as a reason to dock somebody's pay. She said if somebody was writing down 7 hours a day and they were paying them for a 40 hour work week and that doesn't total 40 hours. She said they couldn't go in and dock that individual because they didn't work that 8th hour. She said they don't spell out everything they can and can't do, but the subsequent court cases are what they have to go by. Shramek said if somebody's job performance is becoming a concern it might be largely due to the fact that they're not there as often as they need to be. Lacina said if the department head was consistently putting in 50 to 60 hours a week and wanted to make a case to the Board that they needed another position, that would be no problem. But if the Board came back down on them and said they were all going to keep track of their hours, that would be where they ran into a problem. Lacina said there may be cases, and he noted that Dvorak is looking at some things in terms of workload for expanding to do inspections. He said all of them are going to have to present a case for other positions and then it would be warranted. Bolkcom asked if there were any other thoughts. Duffy asked what happens if some of their department heads are called at home or if they go somewhere and run into people and have to talk about work. Duffy asked what they do in a case like that, volunteer their time. Lacina said it wouldn't be tracked if they operate under the concept that the job is a responsibility. He said he didn't think they should make this a big problem; it was just basically they want to make sure they're in compliance with federal regulations and those types of things. He said at the same time they need to enhance their tracking of some of the information for Diane Kaster in the Auditor's Office. He said they are kind of blending the 2 to accomplish both. Lacina said it was not a big deal. Jordahl said it was a simplification rather than keeping track. He said they should impart to the employees the notion that they shouldn't be keeping track or expect that keeping track would result in some specific compensation. Dewey asked if comp time was something that was expected to be given or is it something that one can just take some time off when they have worked hard. Bolkcom said historically it was that they could accumulate no more than 40 hours at any time. He said it was basically a one for one. Jordahl said this represents a radical change. Dewey said in California they didn't have a one to one. She said it was great if you got it but it wasn't an expectation. Jordahl said that was where they were going. Stutsman asked when employees should get thoughts back to them on comp time. Bolkcom said in the next week. Stutsman asked if it had to be voted on by the Board. Bolkcom said yes.

Bolkcom asked if Shramek wanted to elaborate any more on the attendance reporting. He said that basically they were trying to develop a form and Shramek was suggesting they have an informal committee of a couple people to give input on that form. Bolkcom asked if anybody was interested in volunteering, and said they were anticipating one meeting with Diane Kaster. Dewey said she would volunteer. Lacina said there were templates in Excel which they could download. Lacina and Mike Sullivan also volunteered. Mosher suggested they might ask Kathy Lynch from the Human Services Department. Bolkcom said they want to get a sense of what they are doing now. Lacina said he wondered if the State had forms that the State workers fill out. Stutsman said that Lynch probably would have something. Dewey said when they may want to break down the expense report for the month, into more line items. Jordahl said they were interested in looking at a lot of different innovations in the budget area. Bolkcom asked if there was anything else on attendance reporting. He asked if they wanted to get a date right now for the committee. They decided to set up a date after the meeting.

Bolkcom said the Board has been talking about trying to get together between now and the first of the year to do evaluations. He said Peters was passing out the forms they used last year with some minor modifications done. He said they are on track to try and conduct evaluations the 2nd week of November. He said the Board had blocked out time for the evaluations. He said in order to accommodate that schedule they need to begin work on it fairly directly. He said he would try and summarize what the Board has decided. As before, they are having each employee fill out a self-evaluation. He said if people need copies of their goals, they are in the employee file in the Board Office. He said there was a part on the form for future goals and priorities. They were asking people to give them a sense of what their goals are for the coming year. Bolkcom said another component was they were asking the department head to tell the Board who they would like to do an evaluation on them as well. Bolkcom said the Board has decided they will chose one person as well. He said those will be sent back to Peters or Shramek. Bolkcom said the final component was the Board's evaluation. He said that would be the 5 members of the Board sitting down and going through the form. He said the way they did it last time was that each members of the Board independently filled out the forms, then they had a meeting with the Board and the employee and they chatted. He said the Board was going to try a new technique which would include each Board member filling them out individually but it would also include another step where with each employees approval they would go into executive session. He said as the 5 of them would all have them in hand. He said they would chat through the various areas and come to some consensus on 90% of what was there, if not more. He said that when they did sit down with the employee in the second week of November they would be more prepared and in unison about the evaluation and it would give them a better opportunity to more thoroughly chat through areas that they are doing well in and the areas that they would like to encourage them to do things different. He said that was the additional step, having the Board being able to in executive session talk through the evaluations so that when they do sit down it was their belief that they have a more productive evaluation. He said if they have the benefit of being able to talk.

Duffy said he wasn't entirely for this, but he was outvoted. He said it was serious business because of the public's right to know. He said he wouldn't be modest evaluating oneself. He said to be fair to themselves. He said that executive sessions have a time limit so if the workers wanted to change jobs it would become a public document. Bolkcom said he didn't believe that it was a public document. He said they were confidential personal records and evaluations weren't pubic. Duffy said he thought they were and it was a question for the County Attorney. Stutsman said she viewed evaluations as a positive communication between department heads and the Board of Supervisors. She said she looked at this as 2 way street. She said she was as interested in hearing from the department heads how the Board was doing at their job as the Board was in evaluating the department heads. She said the Board was looking for ways they could improve their communication and their interaction and how they can make things work better. She said she hoped they would all approach it that way. Jordahl asked if the Board comes up with an evaluation from it's discussion in executive session that the employee has approved or requested, would the employee have a document that is the product of that session to review prior to the evaluation session. Jordahl asked if they would produce a document. Bolkcom said one of the things they would like to do is be able to produce a Board evaluation through them sitting down and going through that process. He said they would come up with a Board document that would be the Board's evaluation that would be on file.

Stutsman said one thing Bolkcom hadn't mentioned was that the Board was under a tremendous time crunch with this. She said they wanted to do a good evaluation but they also want to have them done by the end of the year to take advantage of 2 experienced Board members that are leaving the Board January 1st. She said they will have a much better evaluation process if they are able to be a part of that. She said it was going to be pretty intense and some of the feedback things that they will eventually have in place they won't be able to do because of the time limit they put on themselves. Duffy asked when the last time was they had this done. Bolkcom said it was about a year ago. Lacina said that everyone would have a folder they would establish and they would keep these documents in it and it would help them each year to go back and look at their goals and objectives. He said the idea behind this is to each year set some goals and objectives and then the next year they would take a look at what they've accomplished and what they haven't and see what's happening. He said it was kind of a growing process of learning and developing. Lacina said he hoped that was what it would be seen as, not as a punishment or something of that nature, but as something that would help everybody grow in their positions.

Dvorak asked what the date was that they wanted these back. Bolkcom said they haven't talked about that. He said what the Board discussed was getting them out to everybody this week. He said they could identify the people that they all want them to send a form to and the Board needs to do the same for each employee and they would request the completed forms back by the 30th. He said that would be a week from this Friday. He said they would have about 8 workdays. He said they thought longer but then everybody would just wait longer and they would wait until the day before and then fill it out, just like the Board would do.

Bolkcom said the Board would like by the end of the week a name of a person that they would want the Board to send the form too. Mosher asked who they should give that name to. Bolkcom said they should give the names to Carol Peters. Shramek said the evaluations that they initially handed out, if they wanted to write the word draft on the top, they could use them as pencilling out the first comments. She said she was passing out another form they can use as their final one. She said the first time they printed them out they had the margins up a little bit. Bolkcom said the Board had set up time to have a group discussion. Bolkcom said there were times set up the following week. He said the other piece was in order for the Board to do its group discussion to have that discussion, each of the department heads need to sign off on the request to review in executive session, so the Board is able to do that. Bolkcom said they have done that before in the context of the evaluation. Jordahl verified that the executive session business was not mandatory, that it had to be at the employees request. Bolkcom said that was correct. Peters said that the wording was taken directly from the Code of Iowa so it sounds more intimidating than what it really was. Bolkcom said they were trying a new way of doing the evaluations and if people didn't feel like it went well then they will do something else next year.

Mosher asked if they have some potential conflicts on their scheduled days who could they call to get a new appointment. Bolkcom said they would contact the department heads and schedule their appointments. Bolkcom and Stutsman said they had planned 45 minutes to an hour per evaluation. Bolkcom said he would anticipate it would be a productive process again this year. Duffy said there could be other questions asked other than what was on the form. Bolkcom asked if there was any other business on the agenda. He said he assumed everyone got copies of the employee newsletter. Stutsman asked when the next employee newsletter was coming out. Shramek said January. Bolkcom said if people did have articles Mike Sullivan was the editor. Lacina said sometimes there were really good seminars that Kirkwood College put on and manages and they might check with them and see what their schedule was so they could put that in the newsletter.

Bolkcom asked for agenda items for next time and asked if this meeting was useful. He said obviously they have had a lot of times during the first 2 meetings that were kind of house keeping and personnel issues that would go away. He said they wanted to use this as an opportunity to communicate about any variety of issues. He said they need to make it worth everybody's time to come to the meetings.

Lisa Dewey asked if they submit an agenda item and summarize what it is then they could decide prior to a meeting whether that should be an agenda item or not. Bolkcom said that was a good point. Bolkcom said they could have somebody rotate it around and have a department do 5 minutes on something they were working on. Lacina said a number of years ago the department heads on their own initiative started a department head lunch where they would get together and have a tour of that department. He said he knew from other organizations food always worked well to bring people together. He said in the future they might consider having a department head meeting over the lunch hour. Lacina said the legislature changed some of the laws and regulations in regards to inspecting restaurants and that would be a big impact on the Health Department. He said they may end up dumping contracts with surrounding counties because the State has shed the program on the county. Lacina said that would be a good thing for Dameron to come in and talk about to all of the departments about. He said while they are aware that there are requirements for more inspections, they are aware the money isn't there. Jordahl said he liked what Stutsman said about the evaluation process being an opportunity for 2 way communication. He said there was a real tendency here to have this in a hierarchical thing.

Bolkcom said he would support a lunch meeting. Lacina said maybe the County could just bring in pizza, something light just to try it. Mosher said that 6 weeks until the next meeting seemed about right. Stutsman said they were tentatively planned to meet with the legislators on December 3. She asked if they should meet before then to get their thoughts together. She said they did reschedule the last department head meeting for 3:00 on November 10th. Lacina said they should ask each department to look at an issue that effects their department and give them that point with some background information. Bolkcom said there was a memo going out to that effect right now. Peters said it was basically the same memo that everybody received last year. Jordahl asked if there was date requesting written feedback from departments about legislative issues. Bolkcom said there would be on the draft memo. Dewey said her thought was with the idea of doing a summary for agenda items, she would also send it to department heads because sometimes departments will have things that they are working with each other with and maybe sometimes brainstorming with a group comes up with solutions that departments can't do, but it allows them the time if there is a summary of what a thought is on an issue it gives all of the departments to bring information with them. Lacina said they could try it but in the past it had been difficult. Peters encouraged department heads to use e-mail when they have agenda items to give to the Board of Supervisors office.

Adjourned at 9:53 a.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By John Deeth Recording Secretary

Sent to the Board of Supervisors on December 15, 1998 at 3:15 p.m.