06-20-1989
Laserfiche
>
Public
>
County Commission
>
1989
>
06-20-1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2004 2:15:29 PM
Creation date
4/28/2003 7:23:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
Comm. Minutes--June 20, 1989 281 <br /> <br />The salary proposal does not provide increases for all County <br />employees. It attempts to bring people to the midpoint of their pay <br />range within five years of their employment, The proposal makes no <br />recommendation to cut any employee's salaries, <br /> <br />The Committee recognized and would like to emphasize to the <br />Commission that the reason this committee, or first Bob Black, was <br />engaged was that something was wrong with the pay system. This <br />proposal attempts to bring into focus some of the inequities and to <br />correct them. <br /> <br />He emphasized that the original committee recommended retaining a <br />Personnel Director, at least before 1990. It was their opinion that <br />a merit program could be implemented for a reasonable amount. <br /> <br />Mr. Hoy repeated that the Grievance Committee made no effort to grade <br />individuals. He felt the Commission should send the proposal back to <br />department heads for their input to determine if there are raises <br />proposed in their department which they feel are too high. He also <br />felt that the County Commission should evaluate department heads to <br />some degree to determine if the salary proposal is warranted. <br /> <br />At the conclusion of Mr. Hoy's presentation, Commissioners were <br />invited to ask questions and a number of employees, department heads, <br />and members of the public who were present were allowed time to speak <br />on the salary proposal. <br /> <br />On behalf of the Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Don Rudnick wanted to know <br />what the appeal process is, as he feels there are some problems with <br />the proposal. He suggested a meeting with the County Commission or <br />another committee to work out those differences if possible. Mr. <br />Eckert stated that the Commission will take this into consideration. <br /> <br />Chairman Eckert stated that the committee worked diligently, and he <br />thanked them for the difficult job they did in preparing a salary <br />proposal. <br /> MOTION, passed <br /> Mr. Shannon moved and Mrs. Toussaint seconded to receive <br /> and file the report as received, not to be construed as an <br /> adoption. Motion carried. <br /> <br />34. BUDGET IMPACT & EVALUATIONS, Department heads and employees <br /> MOTION, passed <br /> Mrs. Toussaint moved and Mr. Shannon seconded that 1) all <br /> department heads be evaluated by the full Commission by <br /> June 30, evaluations to begin on Tuesday, June 27, 8:30 AM <br /> at the Courthouse. Evaluations would last approximately 20 <br /> minutes each and each Commissioner would submit five <br /> questions for the evaluation. 2) All department heads <br /> should evaluate their employees taking into consideration <br /> that proposed salary adjustments were made on fair market <br /> evaluation and not employee performance. Each department <br /> would then submit a written proposal to the Commission by <br /> June 30 of their intent as to what lesser percent or dollar <br /> amount, if not 100%, would be used by their department. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.