CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

6:30 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mrs. Hammond called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mrs. Hammond and Mr. Barletta were present. Mr. Wisniewski was absent. Others present were Bill Vance, Lynda Yartin, Brian Sauer, Gavin Blair, Lynn Miller, Ed Drobina, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF February 2, 2011, Regular Meeting. Mr. Barletta moved to approve; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Barletta and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yes.” Motion passed, 2-0.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS: There were no scheduled matters.

4. HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT.

A. Human Resource Director’s Report. Mrs. Miller stated she had provided a written report to the Committee and she would answer any questions. Mrs. Miller stated she had provided some sample performance appraisal forms at the request of the Committee last month. Mrs. Miller stated performance appraisals are a process and identifying the tool that you want to use is merely one part of the process. She stated she felt it should be begin by sitting down with the employee, setting goals for the year, reviewing job descriptions, etc. She stated if council would like to do that she could develop some sort of program and then tailor a performance evaluation tool to fit that program. She stated she would like a little more direction from the Committee on how they would like to proceed. Mr. Vance clarified this discussion was with regard to Council employees and not the individuals under the supervision of the City Manager. Mrs. Miller stated Council does get bi-weekly or monthly reports from these individuals and these reports are actually self-appraisals. Mr. Vance stated that the way Management will deal with the appraisals of department heads that the City Manager is responsible for; his feedback is continuous with e-mails and verbal communications. He stated if there is a situation that needs to be corrected he will put something in writing, but he is not an advocate of annual performance appraisals. He stated if someone is doing their job well, you give them positive feedback along the way and if there is a point where they can’t work as a team anymore and can’t move forward in a positive fashion then it may change. Mrs. Hammond stated she is not absolutely certain why this came up, but she has always held to the position that if someone is doing their job correctly, a detailed evaluation is not really necessary. She stated she does agree with the Manager, however, if the majority of Council wants something then that is what they will look for. Mr. Barletta stated he agrees that Council does get the ability to assess the employees with the reports submitted, and they know which goals have been set out for each department and if they are being met or not. He continued he wouldn’t mind seeing something like this so you would have the necessary information to promote someone or to use if termination is necessary. Mr. Barletta stated he was not sure how all of Council felt about an involved process as opposed to a less formal one. Mr. Sauer stated if the evaluations are done correctly they can be of a tremendous benefit to the employee and going through a strategic planning process it is imperative that the departments meet the goals that Council has set. He stated by doing some sort of review process they are kept accountable and it keeps them motivated. Mr. Vance stated the City Manager has no objections to any type of evaluation process coming from the Council to specifically identified goals that are expected to be met on an annual basis. Mrs. Miller stated she felt the important thing was that the employee knows what goals they are being measured against because if you don’t know how you are being measured it is an unsettling feeling. Mrs. Miller stated further open communication should happen whether or not you have an annual performance tool. Mrs. Hammond stated she felt the problem was that there were four council employees, seven council members, and if everyone filled out a form it would be very cumbersome and confusing. Mr. Barletta stated he agreed that would be cumbersome to execute. Mr. Sauer stated he felt coming up with a process should be the first step, and he agreed all seven council members filling out a form would not be the best way to do this. Mrs. Hammond stated she would like to have this continued on the agenda so Mr. Wisniewski can provide his input at the next meeting.

5. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. Mr. Vance stated we are identifying at staff level some priorities and coordinating some costs associated with those priorities for discussion in the near future.

A. Facility Operations Administrator Report. Mrs. Hammond stated the Committee had received a written report from Mr. Vannatta.

B. Review of E-Mail and Technology Policies. Mrs. Hammond stated everyone had received a copy of the E-Mail and Technology policies and the law director has reviewed them and feels no updates are needed at this time.

6. CHAIRMAN:

A. Discussion regarding performance evaluations of Council employees. Mrs. Hammond stated this had been discussed earlier in the meeting.

B. Strategic Plan Goals – Update. Mrs. Hammond stated it looked like all of the goals listed are being worked on in one way or another. Mr. Barletta stated he agreed and it looked as if this Committee is touching on each item.

7. OTHER BUSINESS: Mrs. Yartin stated at the last meeting Mr. Wisniewski had requested a listing of all of our Board and Commission members with their appointment expiration dates and that had been included in the Committee packets. Mrs. Yartin stated we have one Parks and Recreation appointment that will be expiring in June and as he is filling an unexpired term she is checking to see if he would like to be appointed to a full term. Mrs. Yartin further stated one appointment on the Personnel Appeals Board just expired and she is waiting for confirmation from the member on if she would like to be considered for reappointment. Mrs. Yartin stated since this listing was prepared she received the resignation of a member of the Tree Commission. Mrs. Hammond stated it seemed there was a difficulty with the Parks & Recreation Board and the Tree Commission frequently having a quorum. She stated it has been mentioned at times that these two boards should be combined and she did not know how Council felt about this. Mr. Barletta stated as he understood it, one of the boards is created by the Charter and the other is created by Ordinance. Mrs. Yartin stated that was correct, the Parks & Recreation Board was created by the Charter and the Tree Commission was created by ordinance. Mr. Vance stated these boards are becoming more active and he would recommend going another five or six months to see if we have a problem with attendance and Mrs. Hammond stated that would be fine.

Mr. Barletta stated he had no problem recommending re-appointment to the Parks & Recreation Board as that member had not served for very long. He stated if the Personnel Appeals Board member did not want to be considered for re-appointment, with the Tree Commission resignation, that would make two vacancies to be filled and he felt we should advertise for those as necessary. Mrs. Yartin stated she would confirm if the two members wanted to be considered for re-appointment and place the appropriate advertisements.

8. MOTIONS:

A. MOTION FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION UNDER SECTION 121.22(G)(2), DISCUSSION OF PURCHASE OR SALE OF PROPERTY AND SECTION 121.22(G)(6), SECURITY MATTERS. Mrs. Hammond stated an executive session is not necessary this evening.

6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Barletta moved to adjourn; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Mr. Barletta and Mrs. Hammond voted "Aye." Motion carried, 2-0. The City Administration Committee adjourned at 6:50 P.M, March 2, 2011.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, City Clerk