Agenda - 05-15-2007-7a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. Kaiser looked across all five of the drafts, and identified some cross-cutting areas of interest or concern: modeling, surface/ground water interface, droughts and floods, data collection and analysis, experience with relevant scientific techniques, knowledge of groundwater recharge rates, cross-department data sharing, public education, water sampling protocols, and overseeing the existing network of water monitoring stations. • Mr. Kaiser added that the draft job descriptions were not as useful in identifying qualifications. Some of the duties people included were too specific, he said. Looking across all. of the draft job descriptions, there is clearly too much for one person to do. However at this point in the group's deliberations, it is not clear how the job might be divided among different people and/or phased-in over time. One position may very well be a lead scientist with an advance degree and at least ten years of experience, while the other will be an adjunct to the lead scientist (a lower degree and fewer years of experience). Perhaps we need to get the first position in place, and then after s/he is grounded the duties of the adjunct would be clearer. The salary that has been reserved by the County is probably not sufficient to attract a person with ten years of experience. As a result, we might have to settle for someone with a Master's degree and less experience. The County Personnel Department will "classify" the position. In some cases, the Department director has the lead role in hiring and negotiating salary. For higher-level positions, the Department and Personnel organize assessment panels. In what Department will the Position Go? After clarifying the drafts, the group turned its attention to where within County government this position should be housed. These points were made by different individuals during the discussion, and do not represent a work group or delegation consensus unless such a consensus is specifically noted: • Dr. Pelissier said that the position should be located in the department that has the primary mission to assess water resources. "You cannot have two departments with the same mission, as currently appears to be the case," she said. "ERCD has been delegated the primary responsibility for assessing water resources by the county commissioners," she said, "while the Health Department also has this mission listed in its strategic plan." • Dr. Pelissier added that if the position will not have a direct regulatory function, then the position would fit better in anon-regulatory agency "such as the Environment and Resource Conservation Department" where the individual can remain focused on technical/scientific studies. Her concern is that a department with a regulatory function would "pull the employee inward," distract him or her from non-regulatory work, and eventually change the nature of the position. Dr. Rimer said that he does not think it is valid to distinguish the Health Department from ERCD based on one being "regulatory" and the other "non- regulatory." • There appeared to be a consensus among all work group members that the position's scientific/technical focus should be protected against "mission creep," wherever the position is eventually housed. 2