~'l1
t5 ~c~ ~cS /~
COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST
PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND NINE COPIES OF THIS
REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT.
MADE BY: Jonathan Letz
MEETING DATE: August 8, 2005
OFFICE: Commissioner, Pct. 3
TIME PREFERRED:
SUBJECT: Consider and discuss evaluations of employees that report
directly to the Commissioners' Court.
EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON)
NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: Commissioner, Pct. 3
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION:
IF PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in
accordance with Title 5, Chapter 551 and 552, Government Code, is as follows:
Meeting scheduled for Mondays:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED ON:
5:00 P.M. previous Tuesday.

All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate
information has been prepared for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court
Meetings. Your cooperation will be appreciated and contribute towards you request being
addressed at the earliest opportunity. See Agenda Request Rules Adopted by Commissioners'
Court.
I think it would be useful to have each employee that directly reports to Commissioners'
Court come in to meet with the entire Court in executive session as opposed to each
member of the Court sepazately meeting with each employee.
61
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
bids be accepted and referred to Road and Bridge for
evaluation and recommendation. Any further question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carrietl by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. The
next item on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on requiring an annual written peas onnel
evaluation on all who work for oz report to the
Commissioners Court. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I put that on, Judge,
because in the past we have required annual evaluations of
employees who report directly Co Commissioners Court, and we
haven't done that in a while. I think we probably should do
it. I don't have any process fox when we should do it, but
I think it's important that it's done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the past, we have done
them -- each Commissioner and County Judge have done them
and turned them in, and met with the employees, talked with
the employees. Is that the same format, I mean, in the
aggregate, or we're trying to --
COPII9ISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have no change >n
the format. I don't have plans for that. I just want to
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
i-za-as
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
bring it up for discussion to see where the Court would like
to go with it.
JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me that pxob ably
the most important thing is a proper evaluation form, one
which is comprehensive and objective and specific. I don't
know what format we may be looking at.
COMMISSIONER WILL IAMS: I think we have one
in the file, do we not, Ms. Mitchell?
MS. MITCHELL: The Treasurer's office has
one, yes.
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
26
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've used one in the
past. It was pretty comprehensive. We just haven't tlone it
in a couple years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's good to do
it, but you always get into the problems that the --
fortunate or unfortunate -- people that report directly to
us, however they want to look at it, have five bosses. And
that's been where the -- the difficult part has always came
in. You know, I may say one thing, Buster may say the
opposite, and the employee doesn't know what to do, or
tloesn't know if they're doing a good job or bad job. So,
you know, I think they're useful; you can find out where
there's a problem between any one of us and an employee.
But if there -- if -- that's all it does. it doesn't tlo
much beyond that. And that's probably useful in and of
i-za-os
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
itself.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, and we -- I
think -- again, and I've said this several times, I think
that we should follow -- use the format that we have in the
Treasurer's office and individually evaluate the employee,
but I think that then we need to come together collectively
to have the inter -- have an interview with the employee and
express the numbers that we have evaluated to that employee
from -- from the five of us. Otherwise, it's a waste of
time. And that needs to be done before the budget process,
or possibly during the budget process, 'cause if there's any
salary increases, then that would be a past of the criteria
to use to increase salaries, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine with me.
CO[A4I SSIONER WILLIAMS: Commi9aioner 9?
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- let me throw
something out as a possible option. That the initial review
-- the initial rating, as it were, be done by whoever has
the liaison relationship with that particular department or
function, because presumably that particular member of the
Court's going to have better knowledge about what that
individual is doing. Then bringing that to the Court, and
the Court acting as a reviewing body, so to speak.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's an interesting
point, Judge, and I bring one -- bring one illustration to
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
1-24-OS
69
1
2
3
4
the forefront. Facil itiea Use and Maintenance, for example.
I believe you're the liaison for the Court for basically
courthouse and grounds; is that co;rect?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that`s correct, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner Letz and
I axe liaisons to the Court for the H111 Country Youth
Exhibit enter, both of which are antler the umbrella of
Facilities Use and Maintenance, so help sort that one out
for me, just to get your thoughts on it.
COMMISSIONER LET Z: I think maintenance is a
unique -- it's different than everybody else. It's -- I
mean, it's one that almost has to be done by everybody on
the Court, whereas I think Animal Control is the other
spectrum; that I think Commissioner Nicholson probably hag a
better feel for how that facility is operating than I do
anyway. So, I think you have to look at -- you have to kind
of maybe look at it department by department. You know, on
the maintenance side, I think you also need Co bring input
in from, you know, the Sheriff, Road and Bridge, Ms, Harris,
I mean, everyone that uses that. So I Chink you have to
kind of look at each position a little bit differently.
COMMISSIONER WILLZAMS: Well, I like -- kind
of like commissioner Baldwin's idea that we set a timetable
for having the reviews completed, and then we review them
among ourselves, and with -- your thought was to -- with the
5
6
7
R
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
26
1-29-OS
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
65
employee in question; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And have that done
before the budgetary process begins. And I kind of like
those thoughts as well. So, I would move that we begin the
process using the form that's available to us through the
Treasurer's personnel office, and that the process be
completed by the end of June of 2005, with any -- any
review -- subsequent reviews that are xequi retl also to have
been conducted by that time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
NDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question oz discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Do you
envision, as -- and Animal Control is an example.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that thought,
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
yes.
COIRfIS5I0NER LET2: And we can -- I guess in
the initial rating, when we hand out the questionnaires, we
can kind of outline -- or put a proposal maybe back on the
agenda as to how we handle each department, 'cause I think
you have to look at each one individually as to how we
handle it, 'cause they're very different.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sy "initial rating," you're
talking about evaluation?
i-za-os
66
1
2
COP44ISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's good,
Commissioner. One other thought occurs to me. We get the
form, perhaps, and get the Judge to spec out some basic
guidelines and bring it back to the Court one more time, but
get the process going today,
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
3
9
5
6
7
B
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
9
10
11
12
13
14
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. The
next item on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on a resolution in support of a
Knipling-Bushland effort to cause the United States
Department of Agriculture to do a feasibility study for
funds to construct a replacement laboratory facility here in
Kerr County. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Members of the Court,
I put this on after Judge Tinley and I both attended a KEDF
meeting at the Knipling-Bushland facility located on -- just
north of town on Highway 16. I suggest that probably a lot
of folks in Kerr County have never been out there to see
just exactly what that site does do, and it's really
tremendously interesting. This was the same -- that was the
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
i-za-os