Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-26 Merit Appeals BoardGut1ty of Auai't 1) Call to Order Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:30 a.m. Conference Room Department of Human Resources 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 2 Hilo, HI 96720 2) Addendum to Agenda (requires four votes and must comply with HRS §92 -7(d)) 3) Statements from the Public 4) Approval of Minutes of September 21, 2011 5) Unfinished Business A) Formulate procedures for annual evaluations of the Director of Human Resources 6) Director's Report A) Nomination of Jubilee "Dube" N. Kuewa to County of Hawaii Merit Appeals Board B) Resignation of staff member Iv 7) Schedule Next Meeting Date 8) Adjournment The meeting place is accessible to persons with disabilities. Anyone who requires an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication or a modification of policies and procedures to participate in this meeting should contact Velma Y. Menezes at 961 -8361 as soon as possible, but no later than October 19, 2011. If you are a lobbyist, you must register with the Hawaii County Clerk within five days of becoming a lobbyist {Article 15, Section 2- 91.3(b), Hawaii County Code }. A lobbyist means "any individual engaged for pay or other consideration who spends more than five hours in any month or $275 in any six -month period for the purpose of attempting to influence legislative or administrative action by communicating or urging others to communicate with public officials." {Article 15, Section 2 -91.3 (a)(6), Hawai`i County Code} Registration forms and expenditure report documents are available at the Office of the County Clerk- Council, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720. Hilo, Hawaii Wednesday, October 26, 2011 The regular meeting of the Merit Appeals Board, County of Hawaii, was held in the conference room of the Department of Human Resources, 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 2, Hilo, Hawaii, on Wednesday, October 26, 2011. Present: Mr. Gary Yoshiyama, Chair Mr. Kenneth Rowe, Vice Chair Mr. Henry "Hank" Silva, Member Mr. Jubilee "Jube" Kuewa, Member Mr. Ronald K. Takahashi, Director of Human Resources Ms. Diane Noda, Deputy Corporation Counsel Ms. Yumi Nakamura, Clerk III Ms. Velma Y. Menezes, Secretary- Reporter Excused: Mr. Brian De Lima, Member Chair Yoshiyama called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. ADDENDUM TO AGENDA Chair Yoshiyama noted that the agenda should read, under "Addendum to Agenda," a requirement of three votes, not four votes, to comply with HRS §92 -7(d). The newest Board member introduced himself as Jubilee Kuewa, noting that most people call him Jube. He currently is the EEO director at UH -Hilo with a background of 30 -plus years in HR and EEO. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 Hawai`i County is an EquaCOpportunity Provider and EmpCoyer. Aoftk MOTION: Vice Chair Rowe moved that the minutes of September 21, 2011 be approved as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Silva and unanimously carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) Formulate procedures for annual evaluations of the Director of Human Resources Mr. Takahashi stated that he and Ms. Toriano worked on a survey that they propose to utilize using the software, Survey Monkey. They also prepared an email to send out to the County department directors explaining what this survey is about and informing them that it will be kept confidential. Individual responses will not be revealed. Questions were also developed as a starting point for discussion and for the Board's review and modification. When the email is sent out, department heads can click on the link to get to the survey, complete it, and submit it. The surveys get tallied, and the results are issued. They also worked on the factors for the evaluation that they believe will meet the goals and objectives that are set forth. Mr. Kuewa suggested including a question on how well HR helps the departments solve problems, as that's one of the factors on the evaluation form and would be a direct connection to the evaluation sheet. Mr. Takahashi believed that could fall under question #1, how effective is Human Resources at assisting you to do your job. Vice Chair Rowe thought that question #5 on the Survey Monkey might be another one that would fit. Mr. Takahashi noted that primarily, when departments contact them, they have a problem specifically related to human resources. He thought that how they respond to the departments and help them solve their problems could be captured under question #1. However, if the Board wants, they can develop something more specific. Mr. Kuewa asked what the measurement tools are to evaluate the goals and suggested tying in the verbiage as closely as possible. 2 Vice Chair Rowe explained that the Board had asked Mr. Takahashi to create a survey so that they'd know what staff thinks of his performance. Then they will use this evidence to help support them in their decision making. It's for their fact finding and an instrument to obtain feedback. The results of the survey will be used to evaluate the achievement of the goals as well. Chair Yoshiyama noted that on the budgetary side they have very little control over that, and that falls with Mr. Takahashi and the administration and with the Council as well. As the budget goes on throughout the year, they may see the need for adjustment, such as a 10% cutback. Vice Chair Rowe stated that the department is also implementing a new software program, so they wanted to look at what kind of cost savings would be derived from that. Mr. Kuewa asked whether it might be useful to have a question on the survey that directly relates to planning, prioritizing, and organizing. Another question in the area of problem solving could be, for example, "how effective is Human Resources at solving problems that you bring; do you consider them to be an expert in their area ?" Mr. Kuewa asked whether the Board thinks it would be useful to have a directly related question on this survey so it's clear that people are answering what the Board will be evaluating on. Mr. Silva commented that they are obtaining information from the people the department serves, which are the heads of the departments. The input from them is to the Board, which will be used to evaluate the director. There are two different stages to the process; one is more direct from the Board to the director, and the other is the outside input that they will consider in reaching their decision. This is the Board's first attempt at having something like this, and they will try it for three years, see how it works, what they can modify. While there are two different venues of input, the focus still remains on the director. Vice Chair Rowe added that there is one more piece, the applicants' part. The applicants may be surveyed as they complete the application process — was the process correct, was it manageable, efficient, etc. So they're looking at the job seeker, the staff development from the inside, and also at the Board evaluating. They're trying to cover as many different resources from the front side to the inside. 3 /0*%. AVON Mr. Kuewa stated that this is a survey that they'll be selling to customers, people outside the office. They will address this based on the results they receive, and he believes the results from customers are very important in evaluating how well the director leads the office and how his leadership team leads the HR office. He just thought that if he, personally, could draw direct correlation that question 1 and number 5 equals the answer to problem solving, he would be fine with that, because right now he's not sure which ones directly relate. Therefore, he thought it might be useful to reword the question so that it's directly related. Vice Chair Rowe thought Mr. Kuewa made a good point, because if they have four areas of concern that they want to look at and they break some of those down by the twelve questions, then they know each question is valid to different areas. Ms. Toriano stated that this feedback is what she needed to move forward. They are not bound by these questions; it's a stab to start the discussion. What she does know from past experience is that when a generic "tell me how things are going" is sent out, they get very little feedback. Hopefully by just clicking (Survey Monkey), the "customers" will be more inclined to participate. However, the longer it is, the less inclined they probably will be. Questions can be replaced easily, and they can also easily tie the question to a specific performance category. Mr. Takahashi stated that they will work on the process further. Mr. Kuewa asked about having the person taking the survey identify the category they're in, whether a manager, non - supervisor, or director, as it might make the input more meaningful. Ms. Toriano stated that when they distribute the link to the survey, the target audience and feedback will be grouped. Currently, the way the cover email is drafted, it will be going to the directors. However, that is another point of discussion. Who is the audience that they would send this to? Is it going to include supervisors, managers, deputies, etc.? Vice Chair Rowe commented that the further down the food chain you go it becomes a gripe session, and they might lose perspective. It becomes more about the departmental things that aren't being done, so the Board has to specifically look at this to see what level they want evaluating the Director of 4 10'y Human Resources. Should it be the first layer of supervisor, should it be the administrator, should it be a director? Mr. Silva used the Police Department as an example, where the Chief of Police might send the survey to the administrative Assistant Chief or Major to complete, as they are the ones who deal with the HR department more. When the Chief gets it back, he will review it, and if he disagrees with something, he might change it. Mr. Silva believes that scenario will happen in every department, with perhaps a few variations. Ms. Toriano concluded that perhaps the directors should be the keepers who will get the survey, and they should let the directors delegate to the appropriate staff. Ms. Toriano noted that they committed to protecting the survey taker's identity. Vice Chair Rowe commented that it would be interesting to see what the responses are from management to the support staff, as it tell them where they are in terms of what happens in the Human Resources department. Ms. Toriano stated that Vice Chair Rowe's earlier point is well taken, that the further one moves away from the leadership group, the perception then becomes to evaluate their own HR representative and the team that's located in their own department. Of course, they do have a responsibility to that group as well, but sorting through that is going to be interesting. Vice Chair Rowe commented that the information can be made available to the individual departments to share the data with their downline staff; that way everyone is covered. The information that they capture via direct feedback from management will be for the director's evaluation. Mr. Kuewa stated that a great survey gets what the total workforce wants or is concerned about. Maybe that one should be a separate survey which deals with all the services provided by management. Ms. Toriano noted that they can put that as a goal for the next fiscal year. Mr. Silva thought that they should keep things simple, short, and concise. What Vice Chair Rowe suggested about getting feedback from the lower echelon is interesting, but the lower echelon is looking at their immediate supervisor, or the one above them. 5 Mr. Kuewa agreed with Mr. Silva stating that the ongoing discussion has helped him realize that the survey was clearly only meant for directors to evaluate. The other part is a totally different survey. Another question he has is whether it's useful to have the five choices that range from "extremely" to "not at all." Ms. Toriano responded that she believes traditionally it comes from the bell- shaped curve. Vice Chair Rowe noted that if they do a percentage calculation, it would be hard to break down using only three choices. If someone was on the middle, they would go with the lower one. They can be more specific with more choices. Chair Yoshiyama asked how the process works if aggregated by a third party with results forwarded to MAB. Who do the survey results go to? Ms. Toriano stated that when the cut -off date is here, the system can actually block out individuals from completing the survey after the deadline. The results can electronically be sent to the chair or whomever he chooses. Vice Chair Rowe thought it would be more valid if the Board got the results. Chair Yoshiyama noted that the Board is temporary, and that's his only concern. Board members come and go. The position of Board's staff, Ms. Menezes, would be a permanent place where the information can reside and where the Board could access it and share it. The Board discussed whether the Mayor should be asked for administrative support in encouraging his department heads to participate in the survey. Mr. Silva noted that they have something developed; they should see what kind of response they get. They could also solicit comments about the survey. If they get a bad response, then they can approach the Mayor. Vice Chair Rowe thought that was a good point and asked that it be added as part of the survey. G Regarding the timeline of the evaluation process, Ms. Noda referred to the Merit Appeals Board Rule 100 -11, performance evaluation. The Board shall evaluate the performance of the director on a fiscal year basis, July of one year to June of the next. The annual evaluation shall be held during the Commission's June meeting of each year. Chair Yoshiyama noted Mr. Silva's point about forewarning directors ahead of time that a survey is coming up so they can make note of certain things along the way. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Takahashi reported the following: A) Nomination of Jubilee "Jube" N. Kuewa to County of Hawaii Merit Appeals Board. Mr. Takahashi had planned to report the nomination of Mr. Kuewa; however, he was confirmed in the meantime. Chair Yoshiyama asked about plans for orientation for Mr. Kuewa. Mr. Kuewa thought that the division heads' reports that are distributed are fine, and if something comes up, he will ask the appropriate question at that time. B) Resignation of staff member. The department's Labor Relations specialist, Ian Takashiba, has resigned effective the end of this week. Effective November 1, he's taking over as the HGEA's Hawaii Division Director, a position formerly held by Chair Yoshiyama. The Labor Relations position is key in the department, and Mr. Takahashi will be taking steps to fill it. Mr. Silva asked if Mr. Takahashi had any feedback on the evaluation process they had been discussing above. Mr. Takahashi responded that he's fine with the process. He thinks it's something good, and at least he knows what to expect. He thinks it's fair and agrees that short and sweet is probably better than long and detailed. He'd like to know how the Board thinks he's doing, and he welcomes the feedback. 7 lowk Ms. Toriano noted that the printed hard copies of the activities report didn't print the second line when it came to the workers' comp graph. The first graph is fiscal year -to -date on where they stand. NEXT MEETING DATE The Board scheduled its next meeting for Wednesday, November 16, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Ronald K. Takahashi Secretary APPROVED: Gary N. (�Shiya Chair vym 0