Strategic Planning Work Session

Chairperson Jordahl called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Radisson Hotel at 8:42 a.m. Members present were: Jonathan Jordahl, Mike Lehman, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson; absent: Charles Duffy. Also present were Institute of Public Affairs Director Tim Shields, Administrative Assistant Carol Peters, and Recording Secretary Todd Schanbacher.

Institute of Public Affairs Director Tim Shields introduced himself and provided background on the strategic planning session for the new Board members. Shields said he was the Director of the Institute of Public Affairs, a part of the University of Iowa, that has a mission to provide services and information to help strengthen government. He spoke of his background in county administration, city government, and elected politics. Shields asserted that Iowa's political culture helped people reach agreement with their respective goals and that cooperation could also be found through discussion. Shields said he had been conducting strategic meetings for 19 years, and that he averages about 50 of these meetings per year.

Duffy entered at 8:52 a.m.

Shields went on to say that strategic planning and formal goal setting was not a new concept in the corporate world, but was relatively new when Shields started working for the Institute of Public Affairs. He said his experience as a circuit-riding city manager for 9 communities had taught him that elected bodies could be helped by having: consensus support for some large goals, and the formal, in depth discussion and brainstorming sessions which is essential for decision making bodies and not allowed by the agenda-driven meeting process, and discussion amongst policy-makers about how they work together.

Shields outlined the topics he hoped to cover in his meeting with the Board. He wanted to review goals set at the previous year's strategic planning meeting, discussion of emerging issues and goal development. The second half of the strategic planning meeting would basically cover teamwork and process issues, how the Board worked together. This portion would include discussion of meetings, communication with department heads and the budget process, including performance based budgeting. Shields also laid out some ground rules which included openness, focused and constructive discussion, no voting since the meeting was informal, and silence meant agreement, meaning the Board members needed to speak up if they objected to something.

Shields asked each of the Board members if there was anything on the agenda for the strategic planning meeting that needed to be changed, and what were the significant accomplishments of County government during the previous year. Stutsman said working towards the Board's goals, and specifically resolving space needs, were accomplishments and the past strategic planning meetings had helped the Board become more focused. Shields mentioned that there was a tendency to be reactive in local government, and the strategic planning process was a chance to be proactive. Duffy cited the FY 2000 budget as an accomplishment, since it was a difficult budget year, as well as the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the Board's increased knowledge of economic development. Duffy added that he would like to see a Small Business Association created in Iowa to help farmers, and felt that communication had improved between department heads and the Board. Duffy said previous strategic planning meetings had made Board members more willing to compromise in policy making. Jordahl felt the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and changes in the budgeting process, such as increasing capital budgeting and separate accounts for capital expenditures and technology, were major accomplishments. Jordahl said guidelines for forming committees and public input, were issues that should be added to the agenda. Jordahl said the major benefit from the strategic planning meetings was finding consensus support for major goals.

Shields talked of government needing conflict to function properly, to represent the different views of constituents, but conflict could occur and government officials could remain civil and ultimately agree. Shields added that consensus leadership was the most effective form of leadership, when it was possible, and this concept meant every member contributed their opinion and each member ultimately supported the decision of the group. Shields advocated building consensus leadership, which could be a lengthy process, saying the utilization of consensus leadership for large, important goals usually lead to effective implementation of these objectives.

Shields asked the new Board members why they became involved in County government and asked for input for the strategic planning agenda. Lehman said he was recruited by friends and business associates initially, and as he investigated local government his interest grew for it. Lehman said there were varied backgrounds among the Board members, and sometimes it wasn't needed for every Board member to become an expert on every issue, that some specialized knowledge or expertise could come from another Board member. Lehman added that it was an advantage to have a 5 member board over a 3 member board, that it provided more opportunity for idea exchange and meeting with constituents. Thompson spoke about her background as a former department head. She said many managers were inundated with too many conflicting goals, that integration of policies sent down from the Board to department heads should be added to the agenda. Thompson talked about the origins of her service as a Board member, saying she was originally from Illinois and that she admired how government actually worked in Iowa.

Shields talked about an inherent dichotomy with the role of elected officials, that it takes a strong ego to get elected yet that ego must be checked and cooperation with other officials was essential in accomplishing their duties. Shields said complexity was one of the largest trends in local government. Shields also added the Board of Supervisors role was mixed between legislation and administration, since policies were created and enacted but a city manager could not be depended upon for administrative duties. He tied his previous statements together, saying the increasing complexity of local government had made it more important for the Board to provide policy leadership.

Duffy added that another significant accomplishment of the Board from the previous year was hiring a Human Resources Administrator. Stutsman agreed.

Shields went over goals the Board had established at the previous strategic planning session. The first one discussed was the technology improvement plan. Stutsman said the Board had improved on this goal by increasing coordination with Information Services and separating budget items devoted to technology improvements. Jordahl said the plan had been modified from a 4 year plan to a 5 year one, and Geographical Information System (GIS) implementation had been delayed a year to allow a paid needs assessment that entailed timetables and expenses for GIS implementation. Shields asked what the future of this goal was for the upcoming year, to which Jordahl replied was the needs assessment and making a final decision about GIS. Stutsman added that one of the largest conflicts with this goal was to make GIS a separate department under the Board or make it a portion of the County Auditor's Office. Thompson asked how other counties implemented GIS. Shields answered by saying he was unaware of any county that had full GIS implementation, only pieces of GIS. Shields gave a synopsis of this goal's current state, saying the Board would continue their commitment to the technology improvement plan. Jordahl said the goal for GIS was to make a decision about adopting a GIS implementation goal based on the needs analysis.

Shields asked the Board members what the status of the economic development strategy was. Duffy said this issue was more broad than Johnson County, saying this county had one of the largest elderly populations in the state and there was a good deal of competition to attract younger residents. Lehman talked about changing road demands, such as those stemming from the Coral Ridge Mall, and the possible funds from the Local Option Sales Tax would affect the Board's economic strategy plan. Stutsman said a real strategy had not yet been developed. Thompson observed that the Board's role in development was rather reactive, which Stutsman and Duffy agreed with. Jordahl mentioned a Senate bill 2031 which would stipulate more cooperation between counties and cities in zoning. Jordahl said this goal was present in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Jordahl encouraged the Board to actively pursue this goal, to create an actual plan to deal with cities' economic development actions that affect the County, infrastructure, rural industrial areas, et cetera. Duffy talked about how ICAD almost provided an economic director and that other counties were hiring economic directors. Lehman and Stutsman weren't supportive of keeping this goal, since it was of little use to have a goal which the Board would not take action on, and there were more important goals.

Jordahl suggested adopting, with the Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG), a road infrastructure plan for the fringe areas of Coralville and Iowa City that would be responsive to the economic growth prospects of those areas. Jordahl said such a plan would not stipulate that the County had to build roads but it would preserve corridors for projected arterial roads. Jordahl also mentioned the link between economic development and workforce training, which he believed was often overlooked. Shields provided a synopsis of this goal's future state, which entailed looking at the options available to respond to development, infrastructure issues, working with ICAD, Chamber of Commerce and Workforce Development, communication with the cities and towns, and determining what the County's appropriate role is in economic development. Shields asked the Board what needed to be done to move from discussion to action on economic development. Stutsman said a Board member would have to take the lead to lay out a strategy. Duffy suggested a committee. Jordahl suggested assigning 2 Supervisors to explore this issue. Shields said there had been fairly organized and healthy economic growth without County supervision.

Recessed at 10:15 a.m.; reconvened at 10:22 a.m.

Shields said the next goal was to find ways to enhance budgeting, planning, and fiscal management. Stutsman said she was satisfied with the progress made with this goal, but more work needed to be done analyzing the available information. Lehman said there was some resistance from department heads during the FY 2000 budget process because the Board instructed departments to put technology, personnel, and capital expenditures into separate accounts but that this was a step in the right direction. Stutsman advocated more discussion about the merits of performance based budgeting, and said a consultant might be needed to make a final decision on this type of budgeting. Jordahl felt progress had been made on this goal, but that they were far from breaking down the budget into being able to objectively compare productivity between different County units. Jordahl also suggested having departments form their own strategic goals, which could be used to make budget decisions by the Board. Thompson advocated Jordahl's idea of departments creating strategic goals, but also to involve department heads during the performance review process and to slowly merge departmental goals with performance based budgeting. Duffy wasn't enthusiastic about this goal, saying the County Auditor's assistance as budget director was extremely helpful, as was the support staff who helped during the FY 2900 budget process.

Shields said the 2 alternatives in financial management that the Board had presented was either a gradual implementation stemming from internal sources or to bring in an outside consultant to accelerate this goal's implementation. Jordahl said he believed a consultant would tailor strategies for Johnson County's various departments, not impose an off-the-shelf set of guidelines, as a comprehensive plan for the overall County was created, and then compare how budgeting reflected goals. Stutsman added that the Board did not have the time to undertake the procedures that a consultant would do as Jordahl outlined. Shields said the overall consensus goal was to continue to strive to improve the County's financial management system. Duffy did not agree with this goal, he advocated Supervisors sitting in on committee meetings more often, which might provide a better understanding of County needs during the budget process. Shields asked for opinion about an outside consultant. Stutsman said the new County Treasurer should be involved in discussion of an outside budget consultant. Stutsman said the best way to control the budget, to track how funds are spent, is with a staff member whose sole focus is the budget. Lehman was supportive of hiring an outside consultant. Duffy and Thompson advocated reforming the budget internally. Jordahl supported hiring an outside consultant, but made the delineation that the actual reforms suggested by the consultant are made by internal staff, and added than a consultant might have strategies to make department heads less resistant to changes in the budget process. Shields stated that most consultants would involve the people who would be affected by whatever changes are made.

Shields asked the Board members who were against hiring an outside consultant if they could support looking at the consultant issue further. Thompson said if there were 3 votes for a consultant, she would support it. Shields said he interpreted some of the Board members as saying they would like to see the budget reform process eventually lead to a financial management team, which Jordahl and Stutsman agreed with. Thompson suggested that the budget process become a year long process involving department goal setting and department review based on how budget dollars are used to reach those goals, as well as maximization of income. Duffy suggested budgeting in 2 year segments. Jordahl said performance based budgeting would show trends that could help with multi-year budgeting. Jordahl said maximizing income meant an in house grant writer. Thompson said maximizing income also involved getting full reimbursements whenever they were available.

Shields said the fourth strategic goal from the previous year's meeting was space needs. Stutsman agreed that this goal would not be abandoned. Shields noted the study of space needs for the jail was underway. Shields said additional actions with that goal would be completing the space needs study and inventing and adopting a long range facility plan. Stutsman added developing short term solutions to that goal also. Stutsman said a funding strategy was needed. Shields said a part of this goal was to get other elected officials and department heads involved in this matter, which Shields believed had happened and that there was now consensus support for resolving space needs.

Shields said the fifth goal was to update the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which the Board had done. Thompson said the Land Use Plan now needed to be implemented. Jordahl added that many more tasks that were outlines in the plan needed to be completed.

Shields said the sixth goal was to find strategies and methods to improve County relations. Shields noted that evening meetings had been developed as a result of this goal. Jordahl and Stutsman added that televising the informal meeting after the formal meeting, devoting a portion of the "County Advertiser" about the Board's happenings and the creation of Countyfest all stemmed from this goal. Stutsman suggested that a present County Employee perform duties that an Information Director would do, such as issuing press releases. Duffy said approximately $34,000 was already spent to inform the public about the Board's meetings, publishing information in 3 newspapers which no one seemed to read. Jordahl talked about action being taken to publish the Board's agenda in advance on the web, which would make it easier for the public to attend meetings. He also suggested distributing fliers that list the meeting times of the various committees in Johnson County. Shields summarized that the Board would continue their commitment to this goal, that a Communication Committee had been established for policy implementation. Lehman added that the Board was issuing a press release about the FY 2000 budget, which was originally Thompson's suggestion. Lehman also suggested sending a representative to radio stations to answer questions about the Local Option Sales Tax.

Jordahl spoke of the number of meetings Board members attended and how it was difficult for members to acquire a solid knowledge based about the various issues affecting the County, and that Supervisors often found themselves playing catch-up to learn about these issues before they could be dealt with. Stutsman agreed, suggesting that certain Supervisors be assigned to closely follow the happenings at various departments, like Linn County does. Jordahl said communication between Supervisors was the most important factor in resolving this problem. Stutsman said assigning Supervisors to track particular departments could cause problems since each Board member had different opinions about how to properly run a department. Duffy said the people expect you, as an elected official, to know everything about occurrences in the County and it was the Supervisor's responsibility to take initiative, attend functions and receive input from the public.

Shields asked the Board if there were any more thoughts on the County relations goal. Jordahl stated that the press should be called informing them of meetings where controversial issues would be discussed. Jordahl said this would be a more proactive approach for County relations. Duffy said there might be some resentment among members of the media towards the Board because of the moneys involved in publishing information about the Board of Supervisors in the "County Advertiser." Stutsman advocated receiving more input from staff members about the state of County government. Jordahl recommended finding strategies for more effective vertical communication.

Shields asked if there were any new, emerging issues which were not covered by the other 7 goals that required planning to resolve.

Jordahl said there was a feeling that other elected officials were better than department heads and non-supervisor elected officials were equal in power to the Board. Jordahl believed that the Board had the most authority because they set policy and controlled the budget. Jordahl also said he believed non-elected department heads and department heads were equal, that the only reason some department heads were appointed was their departments came into being after the Constitution of Iowa was created. Jordahl said these 2 problems resulted in superfluous meetings and duplication of effort. Thompson said the feelings of superiority held among some elected officials may mask a feeling of inferiority, that they are threatened by department heads who are appointed by the Board since they were selected by the Supervisors and might hold favored status. Stutsman felt that elected officials wanted to be part of a management team and wanted as much input in policy making as Supervisors have. Stutsman continued by saying elected officials were fearful of Supervisors controlling their departments. Shields said the Board members were wrestling with an issue of perception. Jordahl suggested clarifying their roles for other management County employees, by defining what areas Supervisors set policies that governed elected officials and how the budget was set by the Board. Jordahl cautioned that he wanted to sustain the spirit of cooperation the Board had worked to create, by keeping elected officials meetings. Shields said this was a very delicate issue, but some accommodation of elected officials perceptions was necessary in order for the Board to work with them.

Stutsman mentioned personnel issues as an emerging problem. Jordahl said he would like to develop the personnel department but was concerned about the cost. Stutsman said she was confused about the Board's role in personnel issues.

Stutsman also suggested planning for the urbanization of Johnson County as an emerging issue. Jordahl said the urbanization of Johnson County was not covered by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Lehman said there was a need to educate people that Johnson County would become more urbanized in the future. Duffy said Johnson County was predominately rural, with 300,000 acres of farmland and only 15,500 acres taken up by Iowa City. Shields said he interpreted the Board members' stance on this issue as expecting Johnson County's continuing urbanization. Stutsman agreed and added that she didn't advocate urbanization, but it was the reality of the issue. Stutsman and Jordahl said urbanization would cause an increased demand for road construction and crime prevention. Jordahl suggested that this become a strategic goal. Shields turned this issue into a strategic goal which read long range planning for key future trends and dialogue about the longer term impact of changes we're beginning to see, such as population density, impact on infrastructure, and increased demand for social services. Stutsman added that devolution, or a shift of decision making power to the local level, would also be an effect of urbanization. Jordahl said another trend was increased participation by some segments of the population in County government, saying this was happening in SEATS and MH/DD. Thompson said another issue was that Johnson County was a magnet for people who needed better social services, and for criminals from Chicago because of Iowa City's interstate accessibility. Lehman advocated subtle public education with press releases and such. Shields encouraged the Board to think of the consequences, ramifications and opportunities stemming from these trends and how those can be integrated into more immediate planning. Jordahl agreed, saying performance based budgeting would help identify and plan for trends.

Recessed at 11:51 a.m.; reconvened at 12:34 p.m.

Shields directed the Board to discuss the structure and issues concerning Board meetings. Stutsman said in the past issues were discussed at the informal meeting on Tuesdays and votes were done at the formal meeting on Thursday. She continued by saying the Board was at the point where there was another full discussion of the issues at the formal meetings. Stutsman suggested that it might be more efficient to no longer have the Tuesday informal meetings and to do all the discussion at the Thursday formal meetings. Duffy agreed that the formal meeting had a good deal of discussion. Jordahl advocated Stutsman's suggestion of getting rid of Tuesday's informal meeting. Thompson asked if having a longer formal meeting would cause a problem with publishing minutes. Shields asked what the advantages were of the informal meeting. Lehman said it provided an opportunity to provide and receive information among the Supervisors. Duffy said the public had time to be educated on important issues before action was taken at Thursday's formal meeting, since the press usually published information on Wednesdays about important occurrences at the Tuesday informal meetings. Duffy asked if having public comment as the first agenda item would be beneficial, so members of the public wouldn't have to wait as long to speak. Jordahl said this would provide the public an opportunity to speak about issues on the agenda before the Board did, but this might also cause some of the public to discuss points that could easily be clarified by the Supervisors' discussion of the issue. Stutsman said this would lead to 2 discussions of the same issue which would be inefficient, and instead advocated discussion on Tuesday and the formal vote on Thursday with minimal discussion. Duffy suggested implementing Stutsman's idea of discussion on Tuesday and voting on Thursday without discussion, but Duffy added that the public be allowed to speak before the formal meeting on Thursday. Administrative Assistant Carol Peter told the Supervisors to keep in mind how the minutes of meetings were prepared with informal minutes reported verbatim and formal meetings summarized. Jordahl said he disliked televising the formal meetings when the Board just voted, saying it implied that the Supervisors didn't give any thought about the issues. Jordahl added that he would favor combining the 2 meetings and taking votes after discussion of each item on the agenda. Duffy was concerned that the meetings would go longer and the cost of televising it would rise. Lehman said this would provide another opportunity to educate the public, by televising discussion of the agenda items. Shields said that many cities resolved this problem by summarizing the history of each issue before the vote is made at the formal meetings. Jordahl said only summarizing the issue before the vote would preclude the public from participating in the discussion. Duffy pointed out that sometimes a department head would come to the informal meetings to discuss an issue but wouldn't attend the formal meeting which might hurt that department head's input on an issue if there was more discussion at the formal meeting. Jordahl said that the advantage of discussion during both meetings allowed the Supervisor to talk to constituents and gather new information during the time after an issues introduction but before voting on it. Duffy reiterated his support for comments from the public as the first agenda item so they did not have to wait up to 3 hours to speak, and that broadcasting the formal meetings on cable television discouraged members of the public from speaking. Lehman was supportive of the way meetings were presently conducted, saying he had seen members of the public sway Supervisors' opinions during discussion, though he expressed some concern about increasing meeting duration. Shields suggested keeping the meeting format as it now was, but adding a summary of each issue at the formal meetings, and suggested to Jordahl that he be aware of redundancies in discussion. Jordahl suggested that the formal minutes published in the newspaper, which presently only included actions taken, have short summaries explaining the issue that explained the meaning of the Board's actions. Thompson added that people who attend an informal meeting to discuss a controversial issue be told to attend the formal meeting in case of further discussion. Stutsman said the County Auditor's Office would need to be contacted before any changes could be made to the format of meeting minutes.

Shields suggested that the Board next discuss the role of public input. Jordahl said the question of public input's role in County government could be tied in with hiring processes, the role of advisory committees, and the role of public input in policy making. Jordahl continued by saying clarification was needed about when to receive input, in what form, and the definition of its authority. Lehman said a precedent may have been set in the Board's creation of a committee to assist in the hiring for a position in SEATS. Stutsman said the disadvantages of public input was the public might not have access to as much information about as issue as the Supervisors have. Jordahl said the advantages of public input is it helped to validate decisions and helped ensure that a variety of views and perspectives were included. Stutsman added that there was often a breakdown in communication, that the Board will receive public input but the public should not expect to dictate policy decisions to the Supervisors. Shields said he interpreted the Supervisors' feelings as that it might be useful to develop guidelines and policies for public input.

Jordahl agreed, saying other policies regarding committee structure and when to empanel a citizens' committee would also be helpful. Thompson suggested giving a job description to citizens who serve on committees. Shields recommended that the guidelines for public input not be too narrow, or it would have to be rewritten quite often. Jordahl said that guidelines for committee composition should include balance of perspectives, gender balance, and expertise. Stutsman added that a mechanism for receiving feedback from committee members once their recommendations had been made should be included in committee guidelines.

Shields brought up communication and management of department heads, not including elected officials. Thompson drew upon her past experience as a department head, saying months sometimes go by without department heads being asked to meet with the Board, but once a crisis occurs they're called before the Board, which might cause some department heads to feel their management abilities were being questioned. Thompson added that department heads didn't need daily supervision but did need a means to be held accountable while the Board needed to know department heads better. She said performance based budgeting and departmental goals integrated with the budget would eventually resolve this problem by bringing the Board and department heads closer together. Stutsman said a department head who went through the processes that Thompson outlined had a problem develop into a crisis in the past, and a mechanism needed to be created so the Board could become aware of and remedy problems before they reached a dangerous level. Shields interpreted the Board as saying accountability from department heads could be institutionalized by having departmental goals tied to the budget.

Stutsman pointed out that another complication was getting 5 different Supervisors to reach consensus on how to manage one department head. Thompson said the Board reached consensus in determining the criteria for hiring new department heads, and that criteria could be used in managing that department. Thompson added that performance goals would be helpful in this process. Duffy said department heads had complained to him that they were required to attend meetings where issues were discussed that didn't concern them. Thompson suggested bimonthly meetings with all department heads and a couple of additional meetings with one department head and all the Supervisors during the time between full department head meetings. Jordahl suggested having special meetings when a department's budget went askew beyond predetermined limitations. Stutsman was concerned that department heads wouldn't be willing to discuss controversial issues during open meetings with members of the press present. Peters said the Code only allowed closed meetings to discuss issues that caused irreparable harm, to which Shields added that the person asking for the meeting had to request a closed meeting. Thompson was confident that difficult personnel issues would be resolved by the Human Resources Administrator, and not by the Board, once the HR Administrator had been in her position a bit longer. Shields said that the Board should not go below a department head's authority to solve personnel issues and if personnel issues were repeatedly brought to the Board's attention within the same department, then that department head should be replaced. Shields said the only solution to the issue Stutsman brought up about preventing crises within a department was regular communication and performance goals.

Thompson suggested that the agenda be restricted to items affecting all department heads at full department head meetings. Stutsman suggested having regular meetings with new department heads for the first 6 months of their service, with which Jordahl and Thompson agreed. Jordahl suggested creating performance goals with the new department head at the end of this 6 month period. Shields summarized what the Board discussed, saying a bimonthly department head meeting with all department heads and a general interest agenda be scheduled, 2 Supervisors assigned to new department heads for periodic meetings, and the development of methods to discuss goals with department heads on a periodic basis. Duffy added that visiting departments helped employee morale and helped communication. Peters pointed out that the Board had been discussing appointed department heads, not elected officials, and explained that she clarified this point because the label department head was usually applicable to elected officials as well.

Shields suggested that the Board discuss the budget process. Jordahl said personnel requests were an emotional issue, an additional staff member was more meaningful than a new truck, and performance based budgeting would ensure that personnel decisions be made on a logical basis rather than an emotional one. Shields added that broader strategic goals in financial management had been made a goal by the supervisors for the next year.

Thompson said basing decisions on emotions stemmed from department heads hearing about tentative allocations during the budget making process who stop by Board meetings and plead for funding, which Stutsman agreed with. Stutsman said the Board did not effectively communicate with elected officials and department heads during the budgeting process, such as putting the working budget on the web and informing elected officials of budget changes. Jordahl said the Board decided not to keep department heads informed because it would slow down the budget process. Shields summarized the Boards financial management goals which included improving the overall budget process, maximizing income, making the budget a year long dialogue, having individual department goals with strategic planning, improving communication, and changing policies and proposals. Jordahl said a problem was the interface between strategic planning and budgeting. Jordahl continued by saying he wanted to discuss how strategic goals for individual departments would be implemented. Thompson suggested debriefing department heads about the budget process where the rationale of budget decisions would be explained, then a couple months later discuss revenue enhancement with department heads, discuss the FY 99 budget in June as that fiscal year is ending, then have them create their strategic goals in August, and provide instructions for budget preparations in October. Shields said time would be needed for strategic goals tied to departmental budgets to work, at least 3 years, since the corporate culture would be changed by process. Shields said the way to deal with resistance was to inform department heads that goals would be required in August. Shields continued by saying 2 criteria could be added that involves strategic goal setting and performance measures that would be used when appointed department heads were reviewed.

Shields said the final agenda item for discussion was decision making and follow through. Thompson said the economic goals were an example of this, that the Board members made it a goal but didn't work on implementing it. Thompson said that when department heads went before the Board to ask for assistance it was necessary for a specific Supervisor to be named or volunteer to work on an issue or nothing would be done to resolve it. Jordahl suggested that an expected action portion be added to the agenda. Shields said that many agendas were more action oriented, as Jordahl's suggestion would make the Board's own agenda format. Jordahl suggested asking individuals who went before the Board with a request what action they expected the Board to take. Lehman agreed with Jordahl's suggestion but Stutsman said this was already done.

Adjourned at 2:07 p.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Todd Schanbacher, Recording Secretary