Submittal to the Board of Supervisors County of Riverside, State of California Submittal Date: August 13, 2002*

R1

Executive Officer, with the powers and duties set forth under Title 2.2.16, including, but not limited to: Exercise decision-making authority on matters requiring Board of Supervisors' approval. Administer and enforce policies established by the Board of Supervisors. Appoint or dismiss appointive department heads upon Board of Supervisors approval. Respondent agrees with the finding.

R2

Riverside County utilizes its Human Resources Department to investigate and report on any and all personnel complaints including those filed against department heads, directors, and the County Executive Officer. Respondent agrees with the finding.

R3

The Human Resources Department investigated a recent personnel complaint, levied against the county executive office. Respondent agrees with the finding.

R4

The Human Resources Department Director reports directly to the Chief Executive Officer and is a county Assistant Chief Executive Officer. Respondent agrees with the finding.

R5

In response to a 1991-92 Grand Jury Report, the Board of Supervisors directed the (then titled) Chief Administrative Officer and Personnel Director to develop a plan and timetable for compliance with Board Policy C-1 by October 1, 1992. Respondent agrees with the finding.

R6

The revised policy C-1 states that all performance evaluation reports, along with any written documentation, are to be filed in a secure file in the county administrative office (November 1994). Response to Grand Jury Report Respondent agrees with the finding. An outside consultant was hired by the executive office in 1996

R7

to study the methods of evaluating employee performance. Respondent agrees with the finding. The Board of Supervisors responded to the study, stating

R8

"...agree that there is a need to incorporate a performance evaluation policy to bring consistency and oversight to the process." Respondent agrees with the finding.

R9

The 1996 study also revealed, "Most board appointed department heads reported that they had not been evaluated annually, some had not been evaluated in writing since their appointment." Respondent agrees with the finding.

R10

The 2001-02 Grand Jury found instances of failure to conduct written performance evaluations for high level appointed department personnel. The response from the executive office, based on guidance from county counsel, was that, "Oral performance evaluations to department heads had been given," and that, "in retrospect...should have been given written evaluations..." Respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Written evaluations are given to non-department heads by their appointing authority. Department heads are evaluated annually, but such evaluation, on the advice of County Counsel are oral, not written. Recommendations: