HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05241994 - 1.63 r
1 . 63
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on May 24, 1994 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Grand Jury Report No. 9406 of the 1993-1994 Contra
Costa County Grand Jury on the County' s Merit System
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Grand Jury Report No.
9406 of the 1994-1994 Contra Costa County Grand Jury on the
County' s Merit System is REFERRED to the County Administrator and
the Internal Operations Committee.
I iiereby certify that this is a true and correct COPY of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: I q 4L3
PHIL BATCH OR,dierk of the Board
Supe ors andC.Ounty Administrator
V
By .Deputy
CC : County Administrator
Internal Operations Committee
County Counsel
Grand Jury
A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345 RECEIVED
. MAY 1 0 1994
Report No. 9406
OLM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERVISORS'
MISMANAGEMENT OF_THE MERIT SYSTEM
HIGH-PRICED MEDIOCRITY
"When mediocrity is rewarded at the
same rate as outstanding performance,
it can, over time, become the norm. "
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date:
Ju 'th M. Mullin
ran Jury Foreman
Accepted f r iling:
4
i
i
Date `
j Richard . Arnason
( Judge of the Superior Court
SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
. Commj133 ents and Reports on Grand Jury
P_; f
Recommendations.
t
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits
. ., final report on the operations of any public agency
—'subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of
the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge
of the superior court on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing
body, and every elective county officer or agency head
for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to
Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the
presiding judge of the superior court, with an information
copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of that county officer or agency head and any agency or
agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or
controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also
comment on the findines and recommendations. All such
comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the
presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the-
grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports
shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency
and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when
applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One
copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury
final report by, and in the control of the currently impan-
eled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963 ch.
674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980 ch.
543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221 §1,
effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch. 1297.
Cross-References
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6.
"Grand jury" defined. Penal Code §888:
Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal
Code §939.9_
• � 9
SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION
The Grand Jury initiated an investigation to determine if the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, in keeping with the
intent of voter-mandated Merit System, has adopted and implemented
policy and procedures requiring that each county employee receive:
• Written annual performance objectives for their position,
• Feedback on their performance throughout the year,
• Written annual performance evaluation that is related to
performance objectives,
Compensation directly tied to documented performance.
FINDINGS
Merit System Employees
1. In 1980, the voters of Contra Costa County approved a Merit
System Reform Ordinance to modernize the existing thirty-six
year old Civil Service System. The ballot argument in favor
of Merit System Reform was to:
• " . . . fix public accountability for personnel matters
clearly on the Board . . . " ,
• ". provide county department heads with more
management flexibility while increasing their
accountability to the Board . "
• " . . . insure that merit principles form the foundation
for every action and regulation . . " .
2. In order for a Merit System employee to advance to the next
higher step in the salary range, Contra Costa County Salary
Regulations §3.2 and Personnel Management Regulations
(hereinafter "PMR") §1501 and applicable Memoranda of
Understanding (hereinafter "MOU") only require the appointing
authority, e.g. , the department head, to certify that an
employee's performance is satisfactory. The certification is
accomplished by checking a box on the Salary Review Report
that is sent to the Personnel Department for payroll
processing. Since the Personnel Director may reject a
proposed salary increase without the above referenced box
checked, there appears to be general compliance with this
requirement.
3 . Once an employee has reached the top step of his/her
position' s salary range, which is historically obtained within
three and a half years, there is no longer any requirement for
the department to certify the employee' s performance as
satisfactory. Subsequent salary increases, such as Cost of
Living Adjustments, (hereinafter "COLA") are given on an
"across-the-board" basis to- all eligible employees.
1
4. County-wide regulations and applicable MOU's do not require
supervisors of Merit System employees to:
• Establish, with the employee, measurable and written
objectives.
• Evaluate an employee's performance vs. objectives.
• Document an evaluation of the employee's performance.
• Obtain approval/concurrence of the proposed evaluation
from their managers.
• Review the performance evaluation with the employee.
• Use the written performance evaluation as the basis for
salary increases.
5. Since there is no county-wide requirement for the above, there
is a wide variance among the departments in priority and
accountability for these personnel management
responsibilities.
• Some departments do an outstanding job, requiring that
all employees receive written performance evaluations
every year, regardless of where an individual may be in
the salary range. They do not consider salary "step"
increases or COLA'S as "automatic" and attempt to link
compensation with performance.
• Employees in other departments receive salary "step"
increases without receiving a written evaluation from
their supervisors.
• Personnel in many organizations, once they reach the top
of their position rate, may not receive a written
performance evaluation for several years. Salary "step"
increases, as well as COLA's, are often viewed by both
management and non-management employees as routine and
expected.
6. Personnel management flexibility may be constrained as a
result of Board approved MOU's with employee bargaining units
which require that performance evaluations and related matters
be negotiated under the "meet and confer" process. For
example, a typical clause in the MOU states:
"The performance of each employee, except employees
already at the maximum step in the salary range, shall be
reviewed to determine whether the salary of the employee
shall be advanced to the next higher step in the salary
range" (emphasis added) .
2
7. Grand Jury Report No. 9312, dated May 20, 1993, made
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors to reaffirm the
voter-mandated Merit Reform System and the Board's commitment
to insure that merit principles formed the foundation for all
personnel actions and regulations, specifically by identifying
and resolving conflicting provisions of the MOU's with the
Merit System's PMR's. On August 17, 1993, the Board of
Supervisors accepted all of the recommendations made in Grand
Jury Report No. 9312 and further stated, "the Board' s general
position is that the PMR's should be followed and that the
MOU's should be amended to conform to the PMR's" . The Board
has failed to hold the Chief Administrative Officer
(hereinafter "CAO") and the Personnel Department accountable
for not implementing any of the necessary actions to implement
its directives.
8. The CAO recognized that some department heads did not have
plans to ensure that their employees were evaluated. On a
yearly basis, the CAO sends a memorandum to all department
heads outlining critical issues and the areas that should be
addressed in the departmental goals and objectives for that
year. In the CAO's January 15, 1992, memorandum to all
department heads, "Performance Evaluation" was identified as
.one of the priority areas:
118. Performance Evaluation
If you have not already done so, please develop plans to
make sure that all of your employees are evaluated.
Please check with the Personnel Office to make sure that
any plans you develop are in accord with current
agreements with employee organizations. "
Most departments, including the CAO's office, remain in non-
compliance with the CAO' s directive.
Department Heads
9. Contra Costa County department heads are exempt from the Merit
System. The Board of Supervisors establishes the salary
compensation program and related personnel management for
these officials by Board resolution. It has been the Board
practice that department heads receive annual salary increases
at the same time and rate as those granted to all other County
employees.
10. The policy for annual performance evaluations for department
heads is embodied in Board Resolution No. 81/1007, 81/1007a,
Board Orders of January 12, 1989, March 30, 1989 and August
17, 1993 .
3
11. The March 30, 1989, Board Order directed the County
Administrator ". . . to complete an evaluation of each
appointed department head and those elected department heads
interested in participating in the evaluation program . . . " .
The new Department Head Evaluation Program was designed to
" . . . provide the CAO. and the Board with an objective basis
for determining the extent to which a department head has
achieved goals for which he or she has agreed to during a
given period of time. " The Board approved an evaluation form
for use in evaluating department heads.
.12 . The new Department Head Evaluation Program also provided
" . a basis to reward those Department Heads who not only
achieve their goals but exceed them to a marked extent. " The
Board authorized the CAO to allocate to each department head
an amount not to exceed 5% of the department head's annual
salary in recognition of outstanding performance based upon
the yearly performance evaluation.
13 . Some thought had been given to extending the evaluation
program to various levels of middle management staff in county
departments. The evaluation program being proposed was viewed
as a pilot program and limited to department heads during
1989. "Depending on the success of the program during 1989
. " , the Board would determine, " . . . the appropriateness
of extending the program to other managers at various levels
in County government. "
14 . In 1990, it was determined that the department head evaluation
forms did not provide sufficient linkage between the
department head's performance and the goals and objectives of
the department and the evaluation form was discontinued.
15. The Board policy establishing the Department Head Evaluation
Program, sans the "evaluation form" , continued for department
heads only and was not extended to other managers in the
County.
16. Procedurally, the CAO views the department heads' annual
evaluation process as a year-long activity comprised of:
• CAO directives on goals, objectives and performance
standards;
• CAO review/approval of department head's plan to achieve
goals and objectives;
• CAO monitoring of performance during the year;
• CAO letter to department head evaluating performance.
4
17. The Grand Jury audited the CAO's compliance with the Board's
Department Head Evaluation Program for performance rendered in
the years 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993 and related salary
increases for said performance periods. These records
revealed:
• Of the 75 oDDortunities to Oive annual evaluations, 57%
of the opportunities resulted in written evaluations and
43% resulted in no written evaluation.
• Of the 75 salary increases granted to department heads,
57% had written evaluations and 43% of the increases were
approved without a written evaluation.
(Note: Compensation increases may have been effective in the
same calendar year or in the next calendar year. )
TABLE A summarizes the audit.
18. Only 1 of the 42 department head evaluations contained any
comments related to the CAO's directive to all department
heads "to make sure that all your employees are evaluated. "
19. There is no requirement for the CAO's evaluation of department
heads to be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors to ensure
that the department head receives a fair and objective
performance evaluation related to the goals for which he or
she has agreed to during a given period.
20. On August 17, 1993, the Board approved an order superseding
the March 30, 1989 Board Order and thereby replaced the
Department Head Evaluation Program with a new Performance
Based Incentive Program. The new plan included:
• Identification of measurable performance indicators for
each department. These objectives were to " . . . be
measurable so that anyone could see whether or not they
were achieved. "
• Both unrepresented and represented employees (subject to
meet and confer as appropriate) would be eligible to
received one-time performance incentive pay if they
receive outstanding performance evaluations.
• The performance objectives and evaluation would need to
be specific to a given employee, and departments would
not be permitted to provide "across the board" financial
incentives to all employees.
21. The Board directed the CAO to develop performance indicators
for each department. On December 14 , 1993 , the CAO responded
to the Board with department performance indicators focused on
outcomes rather than just workloads or activities.
5
• Some of the performance indicators have been classified
as "preliminary" . The CAO believes the "first round" of
indicators will be refined as departments gain more
experience with outcome-oriented evaluation systems.
CAO Executive Staff
22 . The Grand Jury audited the extent to which senior executives
on the CAO's received written performance evaluations for
performances rendered in the years 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993
and salary increases for said performance periods. These
records revealed:
• Of the 28 opportunities to give annual evaluations, 36%
of the opportunities resulted in written evaluations and
64% resulted in no written evaluations.
• Of the 28 salary increases granted to executives on the
CAO's staff, 36% had written evaluations, and 64% of the
salary increases were approved without written
evaluations.
(Note: Compensation increases may have been effective in
the same calendar year or in the next calendar year. )
• 5 of the 7 executives did not receive performance
evaluations for three consecutive years.
TABLE B summarizes the audit.
County Administrator
23 . The CAO is exempt from the Merit System and reports directly
to the Board of Supervisors. The Board has sole
responsibility for the personnel management of the CAO,
including the establishment of a compensation program.
24 . On March 3, 1992, the Board approved Resolution No. 92/128
which established a five-year, no-cut employment agreement
with the CAO. The employment agreement specifies that the CAO
shall receive annual salary increases at the same time and
rate as are granted by the Board to all other management and
unrepresented classifications.
25. Neither the CAO's employment agreement or Board policy
requires the Board to:
• Establish or approve annual written performance
objectives for the CAO.
• Give the CAO a written' anhual performance evaluation.
• Link compensation increases with performance.
6
26. The Grand Jury subpoenaed all documents from the Board related
to the CAO's performance objectives, performance evaluations,
and salary increases for performance rendered for the years
1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993 . The response to the subpoena
revealed that the Board of Supervisors:
• Did not establish or approve any written performance
objectives for the CAO for any of the years 1990, 1991,
1992, or 1993 .
• Did not provide the CAO a written performance evaluation
for any of the years 1990, 1991, 1992 , or 1993 . Although
there was no supporting documentation provided, the Board
indicated they "periodically" gave the CAO informal
verbal feedback in "closed sessions" .
• Awarded the CAO salary increases for services rendered in
1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993.
TABLE C summarizes the audit.
CONCLUSIONS
1. An effective performance evaluation system requires the
commitment of the Board of Supervisors, the CAO, and the
department heads to invest the necessary time to make it
mutually beneficial for the employee and for the County, and
ultimately for the service recipient and the taxpayer.
The leadership of an organization must first understand the
"outcomes" it wants to achieve, and then, with each employee,
determine their specific and measurable contribution to said
outcomes. Line supervisors need to monitor progress, provide
and take employees' feedback and take corrective action, as
appropriate, throughout the year. The written performance
evaluation should become the culmination of a year-long
communications process between an employee and the supervisor.
It should link compensation with performance and set the stage
for what needs to be accomplished in an annual evaluation
period.
With fewer resources, Contra Costa County, now more than ever,
must clearly direct its attention to meeting the demands of
its citizens and taxpayers. A performance evaluation process
and system is absolutely essential as a tool for establishing
priorities and directing attention among the work force, from
entry level personnel to the senior management team. The
leadership of Contra Costa County must commit to make this
strategic investment.
2 . The voter-mandated merit principles and fundamental personnel
management practices have been compromised by the Board of
Supervisors, the CAO, and many department heads and management
employees. Employees, at all levels, can go several years
without ever receiving:
7
• Written performance objectives for which they are
responsible and accountable.
• Written performance evaluations based on previously
established objectives
. . . while still continuing to receive increases in salary
which may not be linked to their performance results.
3. The county's personnel management policies and practices are
deficient for both new employees, as well as those who
typically reach the top of their salary range in 3 1/2 years.
Prior to an employee reaching the top step of their salary
range, the regulations at least require the department to
certify that an employee's performance is satisfactory before
their salary is increased. This certification can be met,
however, by merely checking a box on the Salary Review Report,
since there is no explicit requirement for establishing
written objectives, evaluating performance against those
objectives, communicating the evaluation in writing to the
employee, or linking the salary increase to the employee's
performance.
This personnel management deficiency is further compounded,
however, once the employee reaches the top step in his/her
salary .range, since at this point, there is no longer any
county-wide policy or procedure compelling any review of the
employee's performance.
4. Since many MOU's state that the performance of each employee
shall be reviewed, "except employees already at the maximum
step in the salary range", management has put itself in a
position to negotiate with the employee bargaining units to
expand performance evaluations. The need to "meet and confer"
on what would seem to be a clear management prerogative can
constrain a department's initiative to evaluate performance
beyond the first 3 1/2 years of an employee' s career.
5. Since there is questionable linkage between performance and
increases in salary as an employee advances to the top step in
the salary range, and no linkage required or implied from that
point forward, step increases in salary, and particularly
COLA's tend to be viewed as "automatic" . This can result in
serious consequences. The whole notion of "merit"-based
compensation providing an incentive for an individual to
increase his/her productivity and professionalism was one of
the expected benefits of replacing the old civil service with
a merit system. Such benefits become jeopardized, however,
when there is little or no substantive differentiation in
financial rewards among the work force. When mediocrity is
rewarded at the same rate as outstanding performance, it can,
over time, become the norm.
8
6. The voters mandated that the civil service system be replaced
and have trusted that their elected representatives and the
County's senior management team have effectively implemented
a merit system over the past 14 years. Regretfully, the
public's trust has not been justified. Corrective policies by
the Board can, however, restore the intent and expectations of
the voters.
For example, the Board's new Performance Based Incentive
Program recognizes that past practices of providing "across
the board" financial incentives to all employees will not be
permitted in the new program. This is a positive step, since
recognizing a problem is a prerequisite to finding a solution.
The new Performance Based Incentive Program only applies to
one-time performance incentive pay. It does not address the
problem of granting across-the-board COLA's to all employees.
The very term, "cost-of-living adjustment, " tends to
perpetuate the stereotypical mindset of "automatic pay
increases" prevalent under the previous civil service system
and should be eliminated.
7. Accordingly, any increase in compensation, whether it be the
result of progression within the steps of the salary range, or
the periodic expansion of the salary range, or one-time bonus
pay, should all be based on merit alone and directly linked to
an individual's performance. As a good employer, Contra Costa
County offers salary ranges that are highly competitive with
the marketplace, and which can provide the desired financial
incentive for outstanding performance. What is required
however, is a paradigm shift on the part of the Board and the
management team to fully accept and implement a merit-based
system. In a true merit system, the upper end of a position's
salary range should be reserved for the top performers and
increasing the top of the range should not result in all
employees "automatically" having their salary increased to the
higher top.
8. The Board's current practice, of granting the CAO and
department heads annual increases at the same time and rate as
are granted to all other county employees, creates a conflict
of interest for the CAO and the senior management team. With
labor costs representing 85% of the budget, it is critical for
management to exercise prudent control as they negotiate
salary increases with employee bargaining units to ensure the
delivery of quality services at the lowest possible cost.
Such control, however, will have a direct and immediate impact
on their own salary, since whatever salary increase is
granted, or not granted, to county employees, is also granted,
or not granted, to them. The taxpayer is not well served with
the management team having such an inherent conflict of
interest in the outcome of salary negotiations.
9
9. In addition to the absence of explicit county-wide policies
requiring a performance evaluation system for all employees,
the limitations of current MOU's, the county's practice of
automatic "across the board" salary increases, and an inherent
conflict of interest in negotiating salary increases, there
also appears to be a major deficiency in leadership and
accountability in the county.
There is one employee classification, department heads, for
which there currently exists an explicit policy requiring that
they be evaluated annually, and that increases in compensation
be directly linked to their individual performance. Yet,
although salary increases were granted, 43% of the time
written evaluations were not given to the department heads.
Additionally, 64% of the time, the CAO's Executive Staff did
not receive written performance evaluations.
The CAO directed the department heads to make sure that all of
their employees were evaluated. It is not surprising that
there is wide variance among the department heads in their
compliance with the CAO's directive, when the CAO, himself, is
out of compliance with the Board's policy.
The CAO and department heads, as an executive team, are well
compensated, with most costing the taxpayers over $100, 000 a
year. They are paid to perform and are expected to perform.
There is no acceptable excuse for department heads not being
100% in compliance with the CAO's directive or the CAO not
being in 100% compliance with the Board's policy on the
Department Head Evaluation Program.
The lack of leadership is also demonstrated by our elected
representatives, the Board of Supervisors. The Board has
stated they want all employees to have written performance
evaluations based on written performance objectives and that
compensation increases should be directly linked to
performance. Yet, they have consistently failed to perform
these fundamental management and merit principles in
fulfilling their personnel management responsibilities with
the CAO.
Mixed messages are coming from the Board of Supervisors and
the CAO and department heads. Until their actions are "in
sync" with their words, the current deficiencies identified in
this investigation will continue and the public trust will
continue to be violated.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the
Board of Supervisors, within 60 days:
1. Develop and approve a county-wide performance evaluation and
compensation policy that explicitly contains the following
provisions:
10
a. Applies to all employees (represented and unrepresented) .
b. Recognizes that all compensation is to be merit-based and
accordingly:
• Performance objectives, evaluation and earned
compensation must be specific to a given employee.
• "Across the board" salary increases or other
financial incentives will not be permitted. Cost
of living adjustments will be eliminated for all
management employees effective, January 1, 1995 and
"Phased out" for represented employees when current
MOU's terminate with the respective employee
bargaining units.
• Salary ranges for all positions will be sufficient
to attract and retain qualified employees and will
continue to be monitored to ensure their
competitiveness within the marketplace.
• To be eligible for compensation at the top of a
position's salary range, or to receive performance
incentive pay, will require that an employee
receive an "Outstanding" rating on his/her
performance evaluation. A rating of "Completely
Satisfactory" will enable an employee to be
compensated up to 800 of the position's top salary.
This will be effective for all management employees
effective January 1, 1995 and "phased in" for
represented employees when current MOU's terminate
with the respective employee bargaining units.
C. Require each supervisor to:
• Establish, with each employee, measurable and
written objectives for a given period.
• Provide feedback to employees throughout the year
on their performance compared to the objectives.
• Prepare an annual written performance evaluation
for each employee.
• Obtain approval of the proposed evaluation from the
respective department head.
• Review the approved performance evaluation with
each employee.
• Use the performance evaluation as the basis for
granting any salary increase.
11
2 . Eliminate the current practice, and the resulting conflict of
interest, of having the CAO and department head salary
increases tied to the same rate that is granted for all county
employees. Instead, provide the senior management team the
financial incentive to provide quality service at the lowest
possible cost.
3 . Create a Personnel Committee of the Board whose
responsibilities would include, but are not limited to:
• Overseeing the development of policies and procedures
required to implement these Grand Jury recommendations
and monitoring the implementation and compliance of same.
• Developing performance objectives with the CAO, and
presenting same to the. total Board for approval in open
session.
• Monitoring performance objectives and providing quarterly
reports to the Board in open session.
• Drafting a proposed performance evaluation for the CAO to
be approved by the total Board and reviewed with the CAO
in closed session.
• Recommending proposed compensation changes for the CAO to
the Board for approval in open session.
Proposing to the Board modifications in the CAO' s
employment agreement to incorporate the applicable Grand
Jury recommendations contained in this Report.
• Reviewing and approving the CAO's proposed performance
evaluations of department heads and CAO Executive Staff
in closed session. Reviewing and approving the CAO' s
proposed compensation increases for department heads and
the CAO Executive Staff for the total Board to approve in
open session.
4 . Issue a resolution to never again allow itself to negotiate
employment agreements which will obligate the county to pay
for long-term no-cut contracts.
5. Direct the CAO and the Personnel Department to immediately
comply with the August 17, 1993 Board directive in order for
the County to comply with the voter mandate on the Merit
System.
12
TABLE A
DEPARTMENT HEAD EVALUATIONS &COMPENSATION
ANNUAL
DEPARTMENT COMPENSATION* BENEFITS TOTAL '90 191 192 '93
HEALTH SERVICES $142,456 $38,880 $181,336 NIS Y/$ N/$ Y/$
COUNSEL $128,369 $34,935 $163,304 Y/$ N/$ N/$ Y/$
PUBLIC DEFENDER $124,692 $33,906 $158,.598 Y/$ Y/$ N/$ Y/S
GMEDA $118,784 $32,252 $157,036 NA N/$ N/$ Y/S
PUBLIC WORKS $109,715 $29,712 $139,427 Y/$ Y/$ N/$ Y/S
SOCIAL SERVICE $109,406 $29,626 $139,032 Y/$ Y/$ N/$ Y/S
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $102,749 $27,762 $130,511 Y/$ Y/$ N/$ Y/S
GENERAL SERVICES $96,983 $26,147 $123,130 Y/$ Y/$ N/$ Y/S
PERSONNEL 595,861 $25,833 $121,694 Y/$ N/$ N/$ Y/S
LIBRARIAN $93,771 $2.1,248 $119,019 N/$ N/$ N/$ Y/S
BUILDING INSPECTION 591,810 $24,699 $116,509 Y/$ Y/$ NIS Y/S
PROBATION 591,449 $24,598 $116,047 Y/$ N/$ NIS Y/S
COMMUNITY SERVICES 577,943 $20,816 $98,757 N/$ N/$ N/$ Y/S
WEIGHTS&MEASURE 576,911 $20,527 $97,438 Y/$ Y/$ N/$ Y/S
EMERGENCY SERVICES 576,046 $20,285 $96,331 N/$ N/$ Y/$ Y/S
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 575,982 $20,267 $96,249 N/$ N/$ Y/$ Y/S
ANIMAL SERVICES S75,892 $20,242 $96,134 Y/$ N/$ Y/$ Y/S
AGING 569,222 $18,374 $87,596 Y/$ N/$ Y/$ N/S
VETERAN SERVICES $57,109 $14,983 $72,092 Y/$ Y/$ N/$ Y/S
* The annual compensation package plus the estimated cost of employee benefits equals the taxpayers'expense for these
positions. Annual Compensation includes Base Salary(Board-approved Top Step effective 1/1/95),Management Longevity
Pay,and Executive Automobile Allowance. It does not include Performance Incentive Pay,which can be up to 5% of the
department head's base salary.
LEGEND
Y= A written evaluation based on performance rendered during the previous 12 months was completed. Evaluation may have been given in
the same calendar year or the following calendar year,i.e.,performance evaluation could have been given in January, 1994 for
performance rendered in 1993.
N= A written evaluation was not.given for performance rendered during the previous 12 months.
S= Increased compensation(salary step increase,COLA,or Department Head Bonus Pay) was given for performance rendered during the
previous 12 months. Compensation increase may have been effective in same calendar year or in the next calendar year. For eaaluple,
salary was increased increased in October, 1990 for performance rendered in 1990;salary was increased in February, 1992 for
performance rendered in 1991;salary was increased in April, 1994 for services rendered in 1993.
13
TABLE B
CAO EXECUTIVE STAFF EVALUATIONS &COMPENSATION
ANNUAL
TITLE COMPENSATION* BENEFITS TOTAL 190 191 192 '93
CHIEF ASSISTANT $98,956 $27,708 $126,664 N/S N/$ N/$ Y/$
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR $95,073 $26,620 $121,693 N/$ N/$ N/$ Y/$
SENIOR DEPUTY $82,521 $23,106 $105,627 Y/$ N/$ N/$ Y/$
SENIOR DEPUTY $76,071 $21,300 $97,371 N/$ N/$ N/$ Y/$
SENIOR DEPUTY 576,071 $21,300 $97,371 N/$ N/$ Y/$ Y/$
DEPUTY $72,372 $20,264 $92,636 N/$ N/$ Y/$ Y/$
DEPUTY $72,372 $20,264 $92,636 N/$ N/$ N/$ Y/$
* The annual compensation package plus the estimated cost of employee benefits equals the taxpayers'expense for these
positions. Annual Compensation includes Base Salary(Board-approved Top Step effective 1/1/95)and Management Longevity
Pay.
TABLE C
CAO EVALUATIONS &COMPENSATION
ANNUAL COMPENSATION* BENEFITS TOTAL 190 191 '92 '93
$152,447 $40,575 $193,022 N/$ N/$ N/$ N/$
* The annual compensation package plus the estimated cost of CAO benefits equals the:taxpayers'expense for this position.
Annual Compensation includes Base Salary(Employment Agreement plus %increases approved by the Board through 1/1/95),
Management Longevity Pay,Lunip-Suns Deferred Compensation,and Executive Automobile Allowance.
LEGEND
Y= A written evaluation based on performance rendered during the previous 12 months was completed. Evaluation may have been given in
the same calendar year or the following calendar year,i.e,performance evaluation could have been given in January, 1994 for
performance rendered in 1993.
N= A written evaluation was not given for performance rendered during the previous 12 months.
S= Increased compensation(salary step increase,COLA,or Department Head Bonus Pay)was given for performance rendered during the
previous 12 months, Compensation increase may have been effective in same calendar year or in the next calendar year. For
example, Salary was increased increased in October, 1990 for performance rendered in 1990;salary was increased in February, 1992
for performance rendered in 1991;salary was increased in April, 1994 for services rendered in 1993.
14