BOH minutes 092696 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

BOARD OF HEALTH 4 SEPTEMBER 26, 1996 a problem if busy staff felt pulled in two directions. One felt that the suggestion box was more appropriate to use with clients than it was with staff. Mr. Reimer has spoken with a representative on the Employee Committee Representative and informed her of the Board’s interest in meeting with them. This meeting will take place as soon as the Employee Committee is more organized. Dr. Ives questioned whether Board members were staying active in their assigned liaison committee groups. This is an area where Board members could participate more with either individuals or the heads of their assigned areas. The Board will seek comments from the Division Directors and discuss the option further at the next meeting. 10.2 Board Organization - Dr. Beverly Foster, Committee Chairperson Dr. Klein reported that the document created by this committee was distributed at the last Board meeting for Board members to review and to the Division Directors for their input at this meeting. Mr. Reimer summarized the discussion of the Division Directors with the following points: 1. The Division Directors support the goals and can commit to them because they are basic public health goals. 2. The Board could use these goals to assure that the staff are operating programs that address these goals. 3. The structure of goals could be used as a format for our reports. 4. The goals could be used as a basis for setting priorities, much as the Board of Commissioners does. 5. The goals could be used to screen new proposals to assure that they are goal directed. 6. When combined with the mission statement, the goals could form an effective foundation for a strategic planning process. 7. The Division Directors observed that there is a certain amount of overlap in that certain community diagnosis statements are repeated in more than one goal. 8. If these goals are to be used to organize our plans and reports, the next stage in development would be to add outcome indicators that are measurable or observable. Mr. Reimer then summarized the feedback of the Division Directors regarding the committee structure. 1. It would be difficult for staff members to work with Board committees organized along the proposed structure because most of the programming is by division. 2. The committees would be more useful if they were developed along the lines of the divisions. 3. One new, interdisciplinary committee that would be useful because it would span several divisions would be a communicable disease committee. This could include animal control and environmental health representatives as well as personal health. 4. Another useful, new committee would be one to focus on long range or strategic planning, using a process similar to the retreat which involved Division Directors and supervisors. Questions were raised about the focus of the goal. Should the goal direct the work of the Board, the staff, or the direction of the whole department? What are the relative responsibilities of the Board and staff to accomplish the goals? It was suggested, as a practical matter, that there not be more than four committees because of the number of Board members to serve, and that the division of labor by divisions within the department could create discreet entities. It was recommended that the Board committee meet with the Division Directors to come up with a joint proposal for how the Board goals could be used and how the Board could be effectively organized to help meet those goals. It was also suggested that the Division Directors insert into the goal statement other activities currently undertaken that address the goals. 10.3 Evaluation of Health Director- Dr. Timothy Ives Dr. Ives asked the Director to review the changes in the draft evaluation process for the Health Director dated September 20, 1996. Mr. Reimer highlighted changes in items 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10. Concerns were expressed about number 2,