Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, March 29, 2011,
Item 14
Now, over lunch we did lose ms. Blanken ship.
she thinks she will be able to rejoin us this afternoon after 2:30.
and she beliefs we may be still in session.
so I told her that after we finish executive session, if in fact she is here, we would call the item up.
and that is the one involving county executives and evaluations.
number 14.
we would call it up if she is here.
otherwise, we would postpone for one week.
so let's plan to call it up.
we did announce before executive session that one item that we missed this morning we would call up this afternoon.
and that is number 14, consider and take appropriate action on the following, a, the adoption of a formal evaluation tool for county managers.
b, scheduling of executive performance reviews for fiscal year 2011 and c, scheduling a work session for the county executives to establish performance goals for fiscal year 2012.
afternoon.
>> good afternoon, judge, court.
diane blank enship here from hrmd.
to my right is todd osbourne, compensation manager.
and we have three items before you right now.
the first is the adoption of the consideration and adoption of the performance evaluation tool that was attached as a backup to the agenda this week.
the former interim hr director, tracy calaway, had developed a tool that was considered by the executive team.
there's also another tool submitted that is being currently used at the county, which is a management performance evaluation tool being utilized for the county auditor's office.
the executive team came to consensus that they preferred the tool currently being used by the management of the county auditor's office and in hrmd we can look at acceptance of the tool to evaluate the county executives.
I will say this that this tool will probably only be used for about two years because as we discussed them performing they have a management module in it and we will be going to an electronic evaluation.
so hrmd does recommend acceptance of this tool and so that there will be a tool to be utilized for the county executives performance evaluation and also you did indicate that you wanted to also evaluate the directors that have been reporting directly to the court.
>> I move adoption of the performance evaluation tool recommended by the executive management team.
>> second.
>> any discussion?
I do have one question that I would like to see added.
let me know what you think about this question.
the question is what, if anything, can the court do to help you perform your duties at maximum efficiency and effectiveness?
and the goal there is to give the managers an opportunity to let us know what they think the court can do.
the answer may well put the Commissioners' court on the spot.
it may not.
what, if anything, can the court do to help you perform your duties at maximum efficiency and effectiveness?
any problem with that?
>> I consider it friendly.
>> yeah, I think we would add that and see what it generates for us.
otherwise performance evaluation tool looks fine to me.
>> so if there's no objection we would add that one?
>> that's fine.
>> there's a motion and a second to approve the performance tool presented in a.
any more discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez and yours truly voting in favor.
commission Davis abstaining.
b?
or is that what was next on yours?
>> b is what's next on my schedule.
and it's to establish a schedule for fiscal year 2011 for the county executives to be evaluated.
again we have tried to establish an ongoing schedule and the court seems not to want to put an ongoing schedule, so we would recommend that we do establish a schedule for this year.
my recommendation is that we look at may for the county executives to provide a self-evaluation to the court and then look at June of 2011 for the court to have formal evaluation of the county executives during executive session.
>> let me ask you, though, when -- when I look at that in conjunction with the second -- I suppose the third recommendation, c -- the second recommendation on page 2 regarding hrmd recommendation to schedule retreat in the second quarter of calendar year 2011.
that puts us at both executive session at the performance review and the treat in June.
>> I said the second quarter, so you could do the retreat I said April, may or June, the second quarter of the calendar year 2011.
the idea is you want to establish performance goals at the beginning of the performance period and so as we're evaluating we would expect to be evaluating again in about a year.
and the team should have some goals that they're trying to work for in a sufficient period to achieve those goals.
>> from an hr perspective, should the performance review come out before or after the retreat?
>> usually you're going to want to go ahead and do the performance evaluation and then do the retreat.
again with budget coming up and so forth we probably want to get on that.
>> that's why I'm wondering on this recommendation should we push the calendar up a little bit -- be a little bit more aggressive and make it April/may, April for self evaluation and may for executive session so that we could do the retreat in June, having had enough time to digest that process?
>> I think that would be sufficient.
>> then I would move a calendar of the self evaluation in April, executive session in may and retreat in June.
>> so we think the managers will be able to self-evaluate in April?
have they indicated they could that soon?
>> I absolutely think they can.
they have not indicate that had to me, but I assume that they could do an evaluation then.
>> rodney and sherri, what do y'all think?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> not to put you on the spot, but the other managers are looking to you for leadership.
you just gave t.
>> I would be intrigued to know from y'all's perspective whether -- I'm fine with going may, June and June, but I'm thinking that it might be a more productive process if there was more air space between self evaluation, work session and retreat.
>> I guess before I would get definitive on that, I'm assuming we would be doing our self evaluation with the same tool that the court would be using to valuate us.
>> yes, the tool that was just approved.
>> okay.
we have a tool, so we know what you all will be using, so I don't see any reason why we couldn't get it done in April.
>> all right.
thank you.
>> any more discussion?
was that a second?
I second it.
that's for the self evaluation to be done by the managers in April.
>> uh-huh.
>> okay.
any more discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez and yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Davis abstaining.
c?
>> I'm not sure if we just voted c, if the motion had for the retreat to be scheduled in June?
>> yeah.
the motion was self evaluation April, executive session in may, retreat in June.
>> do you want to schedule a specific date already or should I bring this back?
>> neither.
our problem will be getting the court to agree on a particular date.
>> okay.
>> so we will try to do that.
what we need to do is send around the calendar and basically choose the first one that has nobody being absent.
and jump on that one.
but our goal is to have that in may, right?
for the court to do the evaluation in may and the retreat or work session in June.
>> correct.
>> okay.
so if we've approved it, that's fine.
now, so we're at c?
>> I think c was just incorporated into b, sir.
>> to establish performance goals for -- that's what the work session --
>> that's what the work session and retreat would be for.
>> well, let me ask you this then: now, when we do the performance goals, we normally make them manager specific.
so if we've got five or six managers, we will end up with five or six sets with the name at the top.
>> right.
we wouldn't want to have -- during the evaluation you get a chance to give them individual goals for the next coming year.
what we would want is team goals for the team.
they should have -- we had talked about establishing some team goals that they would be evaluating on.
so that's what we would want to establish is some team goals.
>> so I should read into this establish team performance goals.
>> correct.
>> that makes a difference.
then it makes sense for us to sit down with the managers, right?
>> correct, sir.
>> and we all, 11 or 12 of us, try to achieve team goals.
>> correct.
I would probably recommend that the county executives come with some goals in mind to run by the court and maybe get some pre-- advanced notice to y'all of some of the things that they're looking at.
>> you don't want to miss that day, miss porter.
it will be a lively discussion.
I'm looking forward to it myself.
move approval.
have we approve that already?
job well done.
>> thank you, sir.
>> move adjournment.
ms. Fleming?
I thought you just came up to show teamwork.
>> I just wanted to affirm what you were discussing, that the management team has been busily identifying issues that we believe are important for us to discuss with you in terms of our responsibilities over the coming year.
so we will be prepared to discuss that with you.
>> now, team issues or team goals?
>> goals and issues.
>> ms. Blank enship and todd didn't have in mind disgruntled managers.
>> no, sir.
>> we would never be disgruntled here in Travis County, judge.
>> [ laughter ] just one big happy family.
>> and if they are we'll get a facilitator.
>> this is what I had before.
>> I still look forward to that great day.
with that I move adjournment.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
