2014-03-19 Merit Appeals Board Minutes

Home

Merit Board of Appeals March 19, 2014 Chair Rowe stated that Ms. Toriano wasn't able to set her goals in September because the Board did not meet—an oversight on their part. At the time, they felt that it would be more appropriate to have the new Merit Appeals Board Members on board to assist with the evaluation and to set the goals for the director. At this moment, we're three to four months before the end of June and he doesn't know how we could set any goals and do the evaluation. Chair Rowe asked the Members for their thoughts in this process. It's only going to be a three-month goal—and how do we gauge the three months? He wondered if this matter should be deferred to the next meeting and, collaboratively, with the new Chair on board, set the goals in July for the next year. Ms. Rabago commented that under the Rules for the evaluation, if nothing adverse has occurred, then the director "meets" by default because we didn't do anything. Her preference would be, at the May or June meeting, they could receive Ms. Toriano's goals and we could evaluate her for the following fiscal year 2013-2014. The new members weren't here and she only came on board about six months ago. Again, we haven't heard anything adverse, Ms. Toriano "meets" her goal of June 30, and we have a plan in place for her goals. Chair Rowe stated that it's hard to evaluate Ms. Toriano based on when she was hired in September. His thoughts are to defer this, then come June set her goals in June, then July 1 we become current to evaluate her the following year. It's cleaner and safer, as well as fair for her. Ms. Otake commented that we still would need something in place that says she "meets" expectations by June. Chair Rowe said that it's something that they need to discuss because there's no way she can set her goals. You can agree to accept her as "meets" and then on July 1 st, she moves forward with her goals and objectives. This would be fair. When doing a performance appraisal on his staff, it's hard for him to evaluate them if they've only been there for a half year. You need to be able to evaluate them— the goals that are set, what you witness, and then to apply to their evaluation. Mr. Kuewa commented that the top three goals were developed by the former Human Resources Director and Ms. Toriano said it doesn't necessarily apply to what's going on now. He asked Ms. Toriano in regards to the organizational goals, whether she considered those to be her goals or looked at them as her performance factors. Ms. Toriano replied that she did review Goals #1, #2, and #3. Goal #1 was fine as it aligns with what we report to the County Council. Goal #2 is the one that may not be appropriate for next fiscal year. Goal #3 was fine as she appreciates the Page 6