Government & Administration Committee Employee Evaluations Reason for the Report During the course of several other*

Section 501 of the County Charter provides, in part: "The county shall appoint, evaluate, transfer, promote, compensate, discipline, and dismiss employees on the basis of job related qualifications, performance, merit, and equal employment opportunity." (Emphasis added.)

Section 210(a)(2) of the County Charter provides that the Board of Supervisors ("Board") shall: "Appoint or remove the Chief Administrative Officer. At least once each year, the Board shall review and evaluate the Chief Administrative Officer's performance. The Board shall (1) review, and (2) accept, reject or modify all performance evaluations performed by the Chief Administrative Officer pursuant to section 304(h) of this charter." (Emphasis added.)

Section 304(h) of the County Charter provides, in part, that the Chief Administrative Officer of the County "shall have the duty and power to: "...On at least an annual basis, review and appraise the performance of all appointed department heads, except County Counsel, and submit the appraisal to the Board of Supervisors." (Emphasis added.)

The County's Personnel Policy No. 3, entitled "Management Evaluation Program," applies to unrepresented county employees. It includes the following provisions: Preamble - "The Board of Supervisors, in establishing this policy, intends to provide a fair and equitable incentive-oriented system of evaluating the performance of appointed department heads as well as line and staff management positions." • "This policy...is subject to revision by the Board of Supervisors in its discretion without prior notice in any manner provided by law." • Goals and Objectives - "The Board of Supervisors' intention in adopting this policy is to accomplish the following: ... (b) establish a system for department heads to evaluate the performance of staff and line management who are covered by the County Civil Service system; ... (d) to improve evaluation of County management's performance by the use of relevant criteria; ... ." • Policy - "Each appointed department head shall be evaluated yearly during the first quarter of the calendar year." "Each staff or line manager's performance shall be evaluated yearly when the • incumbent is eligible for step advancement. Thereafter each incumbent manager shall be evaluated every 12 months." • "The department head of each department shall be responsible for evaluating each of the management employees in his/her department." Administration of the Performance Evaluation Program - "The Chief • Administrative Officer shall administer the Performance Evaluation Program by directing the following functions: (a) Instructing new department heads in the requirements of the Performance Evaluation System; (b) Monitoring the submission by department heads of their evaluations of staff and line managers on a timely basis; ...(e) Insuring that management performance evaluations are filed in department heads and management staff's personnel files." "After development of a draft performance evaluation, the department head or his/her designee shall meet with the incumbent [staff & line manager] to discuss the evaluation of the manager's performance during the evaluation period. Based on this meeting, a final performance evaluation will be prepared and provided to the manager. A copy of the evaluation will also be sent to the Chief Administrative Officer for his/her signature acknowledging receipt and a copy filed in the employee's personnel file." Performance Ratings - "Each person evaluated on the Management Performance Form shall receive one of the following ratings based on their overall performance: ...." "Movement between steps in the salary range is based on performance. No management employee shall be eligible for a step advancement unless the overall rating of their performance is 'Meets Performance Standards (Satisfactory)' or higher." (Emphasis added.)

Labor contracts between public entities and public employee organizations are commonly referred to as Memorandums of Understanding (MOU).

The County's MOU with Local #1, at Chapter 11, Section 2, entitled "Documentation of Performance Evaluation," contains the following language: "Effective September 1, 1999 and for the trial period of two years, employee performance evaluations are eliminated except as provided in this section and in Section 1 above [pertaining to probationary employees]. Section 907 of the Personnel Administration Resolution and Section 205.2 of the Compensation Administration Resolution insofar as they are related to employee performance evaluations, are suspended for this period. Supervisors are encouraged to provide regular and comprehensive feedback to employees on their performance and to maintain a record of feedback given to employees." (Emphasis added.)

The County's MOU with Local #3, Trades & Crafts, at Chapter 11, Section 2, entitled "Documentation of Performance Evaluation," contains the following language: "Effective September 1, 1999 and for the trial period of two years, employee performance evaluations are eliminated except as provided in this section and in Section 1 above [pertaining to probationary employees]. Section 907 of the Personnel Administration Resolution and Section 205.2 of the Compensation Administration Resolution insofar as they are related to employee performance evaluations, are suspended for this period. Supervisors are encouraged to provide regular and comprehensive feedback to employees on their performance and to maintain a record of feedback given to employees." (Emphasis added.) The only difference between this MOU and the County's MOU with Local #1 on this subject is that the last sentence of the quoted paragraph in the Local #1 MOU has been set forth in a separate paragraph in this MOU.

The County's MOU with Local #3, Probation, at Chapter 11, Section 2, entitled "Documentation of Performance Evaluation," contains language which is identical to that which is contained in its MOU with Local #3, Trades & Crafts, quoted immediately above.

It was the intention of the Director of HRD in negotiating the foregoing MOUs to substitute a "real-time" evaluation process in place of the previously existing annual employee performance evaluations.

In an effort to implement the intention of the Director of HRD, the County's MOU with Local #1 also contains the following Language: "Good performance is to be acknowledged by use of letters of commendation and/or recognition which are submitted to Human Resources for inclusion in employees personnel files. Letters of commendation and/or recognition from outside the department are to be forwarded to Human Resources with a copy to the department for inclusion in the employee's personnel file. Failure to provide letters of commendation and/or recognition is not grievable or appealable. Performance or issues which need improvement are to be documented by memorandum, e.g., letters of warning or counseling, reprimands and notices of disciplinary action."

In an effort to implement the intention of the Director of HRD, the County's MOU with Local #3, Trades & Crafts, also contains the following language: "Good performance is to be acknowledged by use of letters of commendation and/or recognition which are submitted to Human Resources for inclusion in employees personnel files. Letters of commendation and/or recognition from outside the department are to be forwarded to Human Resources with a copy to the department for inclusion in the employee's personnel file. Failure to provide letters of commendation and/or recognition is not grievable or appealable. Performance or issues which need improvement are to be documented by memorandum, e.g., letters of warning or counseling, reprimands, etc." The only difference between this MOU and the County's MOU with Local #1 on this subject is the non-inclusion in this MOU of the words "and notices of disciplinary action," and their replacement with "etc."

The County's MOU with Local #3, Probation, contains language on this subject which is identical to that which is contained in its MOU with Local #3, Trades & Crafts, quoted immediately above.

During the course of meetings with County Department Heads, the Director of HRD informed them that they should no longer administer yearly written performance evaluation reports for the employees under their supervision.

The practical effect of the foregoing is that, as a matter of practice, employee performance evaluations (of any kind) generally have not been and are not being conducted. The mere encouragement of "regular and comprehensive feedback" does not constitute compliance with a system that requires annual written performance evaluations.

At least one senior department employee within DSS has not received a performance evaluation for a period of five (5) years.

The practice described above is inconsistent with the County Charter.

The practice described above is also inconsistent with sound personnel management procedures, in that it results in a lack of objective foundations for: Imposition of discipline, ranging from reprimands to termination; Making compensation and salary determinations; · Consideration of employee promotions; · Consideration of inter-department transfers; and Feedback to county employees regarding the quality of their performance.