Browse
Search
Minutes 02-12-2013
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Minutes - Approved
>
2010's
>
2013
>
Minutes 02-12-2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/20/2013 9:54:48 AM
Creation date
3/20/2013 9:50:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/12/2013
Meeting Type
Work Session
Document Type
Minutes
Document Relationships
Agenda - 02-12-2013 - Agenda
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2013\Agenda - 02-12-2013 - Work Session
Agenda - 02-12-2013 - 1
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2013\Agenda - 02-12-2013 - Work Session
Agenda - 02-12-2013 - 2
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2013\Agenda - 02-12-2013 - Work Session
Agenda - 02-12-2013 - 3
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2013\Agenda - 02-12-2013 - Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Chair Jacobs said this item is related to the Board's business itself. He said they have <br /> talked for years about developing a process and an instrument for reviewing the staff they <br /> appoint (clerk, attorney and manager). He said in the past an instrument was developed with a <br /> former city manager who worked at the School of Government and two Commissioners; but the <br /> manager's predecessor did not want to use it and it went by the wayside. He also noted that <br /> Commissioner Gordon had developed a process but no instrument. He referred to the draft <br /> evaluation process on page 3. <br /> Chair Jacobs said the Commissioners discussed at a closed session in 2011 the <br /> possibility of clustering the reviews of the three staff members and two ( Clerk and Attorney) <br /> were put on the same night in March. He said that the manager would fit in the spring category. <br /> He said that if there will be a review of two of the employees on March 26, and a work plan is <br /> required for review then the time frame is too short to review of the work plan and for adoption <br /> of a review instrument. <br /> Commissioner Gordon referred to page 3 and said that this outlines a potential process <br /> for the Board to evaluate the three positions. She said the Board would need to approve this <br /> process and develop an instrument as well as the requirement of a work plan. She said that if <br /> they approve of this process, three instruments would need to be developed and a decision <br /> made about how to set the process in motion. She said that, even with the short time frame she <br /> feels that a work plan could still be requested and some kind of formal evaluation done. She <br /> said that this plan could be adopted, instruments developed and the process used. <br /> John Roberts said he prepared an evaluation document similar to other local government <br /> evaluation documents and he has provided this every year and gotten decent feedback. <br /> Donna Baker said that she has used the SOG instrument for many years, and also used <br /> one similar to the County Attorney's for the past two years. <br /> Commissioner Price asked if each commissioner gets one of these forms individually and <br /> sends it back in and Chair Jacobs, said that each one has been different the last couple of <br /> years. Commissioner Price asked, for example, in the case of John (Roberts), they would get a <br /> form and each do it individually at home and send it in. <br /> Donna Baker said that it has not been done this way in the past but that this appears to <br /> be the way the proposed process leans toward. <br /> Commissioner Gordon said that this process is a process where someone compiles the <br /> information, the Clerk in two cases and the Chair in the case of the Clerk. In this way the <br /> information is not attributed to any one commissioner and the instruments are under lock and <br /> key. She said she is uncomfortable with having each employee developing his or her own <br /> instrument and then returning it back to the employee with all the signatures. She feels it is <br /> better if someone compiles it then the output is done after the board has discussed it. <br /> Commissioner Rich said that while on the Chapel Hill Town Council, their evaluation <br /> process for the manager was goal driven, what you have accomplished, what hasn't been <br /> accomplished, why and where to go from here. She gave examples of recent reviews of the <br /> manager and attorney. In the case of the manager, a meeting was held with the manager, led <br /> by an outside person who compiled the information; this was followed by individual meetings <br /> and a final group meeting with the manager. <br /> Donna Baker asked about the selection of the outside person compiling the information <br /> and Commissioner Rich said this person was chosen by the Mayor and was the keeper of the <br /> information, which is important since she outside of the situation and is not judging, only <br /> gathering. <br /> Donna Baker spoke about a course developed by someone from the School of <br /> Government that teaches elected officials how to evaluate appointed employees. Donna Baker <br /> has spoken to the SOG about presenting to the Board regarding development of an evaluation <br /> process but has not been given direction yet by the Board. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.