📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Trinity County Grand Jury
• 1998-1999
Evaluation of Trinity County Personnel
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 2 findings
F1
Page 18
130 of the 148 respondents indicated they had been evaluated for their last rating period which means 18 were not evaluated. 105 felt the evaluation was constructive and useful. Con- versely, 31, including 6 who said they had not been evaluated, did not think so. Twelve chose not to answer this question. Only 42 indicated there was any follow-up to the evalu- ation during the rating period. 96 say there was no fol- low-up during that period. 75 responded that they felt the evaluation system was adequate and 23 said they did not think it was. In the comment section of the questionnaire, there were some concerns raised about the evaluation process that indi- cated a wide range of problems, although no particular problem appeared to be universal. This year’s questionnaire results appear to confirm those of last year where some departments are doing quite well in terms of evaluations and a couple are not. If one extrapolates the numbers from our sample of 148 re- turned questionnaires, over 12% or at least 50 county workers have not been evaluated as they should have been and this might leave the county vulnerable in terms of employee disciplinary or termination actions.
F2
Page 18
Almost 70% of respondents said there was no follow- up to the formal evaluation they received. This raises a concern that employees rated as not meeting minimum requirements are not being provided a remediation plan, and those meeting or exceeding those requirements may not be receiving appropriate kudos when deserved.
Recommendations 2
-
R1Page 18We concur with the recommendations made last year by the 97-98 Grand Jury and would ask all readers of this report to re-read that report and take action to com- ply with it.
-
R2Page 18• Where remediation is required, the Personnel Officer should ensure that a plan is developed and followed until an employee meets the requirements or is termi- nated. • Where employees are performing above the minimum standards, some form of recognition program should be established to reward such performance. The county should also consider establishing a formal system whereby citizens, as “customers” having contact with county employees, can report positive or negative con- tacts based on their perception of the service provided or not provided. This would allow superiors to identify those who might need additional training in dealing with their public, or those who are doing a superior job when dealing with the public. DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Board of Supervisors, the Chief Administrative Officer and County Personnel Officer. Response of the Board of Supervisors August 17, 1999 Jerry Boosinger Trinity County Grand Jury P.O. Box 1258 Weaverville, CA 96093 RE: Finance and Administration Committee Final Report Evaluation of Trinity County Personnel Dear Foreperson: The Trinity County Board of Supervisors acknowledges receipt of the above referenced report and thanks the Grand Jury for its work. The Board’s response is as follows: Recommendations # 1 and #2: The Board concurs with the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations. Sincerely, TRINITY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S/S Robert Reiss, Chairman Response of Trinity County County Administrative Officer To: Pat Hamilton, Foreperson Trinity County Grand Jury Date: September 20, 1999 RE: Evaluation of Trinity County Personnel I was just notified that I failed to provide a response to this grand jury report. l apologize. I guess that what I remembered was my response from the previous year on this subject. Recommendation # 1: • As suggested, I have reread the 97/98 report on this subject. I feel that in the past year the issue of performance evaluations has risen to a much higher level due to the recommendation of the 97/98 grand jury. Each department head either elected or appointed is now required to report to the Board of Supervisors every other month on the progress in their department. One of the questions each must answer is how many evalua- tions are due, overdue or completed within the report- ing period. This information is useful when it comes time for evaluations, and budget approvals. I cannot say that we have achieved perfection but we are moving in that direction.