|
Comm Woodson said from review of past meeting minutes it looked like the performance evaluation document for the Secretary had been approved. The Secretary explained that there had not been a formal approval given, or evaluation made. The forms for the Secretary’s and Chief’s evaluation were forms he got from DHR (Gough st.) and can be used or replaced by whatever the Committee preferred. The specific items in the Secretary’s form were put together by himself as suggested areas to be considered. There had never been a delineation of performance areas for the Chief.
The Chief said he had never seen that performance evaluation form before. He can inquire with the Mayor’s office what forms they use. He said he recalled that he prepared a written document to the previous committee covering suggested performance measures. The Secretary didn’t remember such a document and there isn’t one in the office files. Comm. Woodson asked if he could find that document for them.
The Chief said that the Dept has now begun the evaluation of all staff (where this hasn’t been done in several years). He said that participation in the MEA agreement for pay for performance was conditioned on doing this.
The Committee asked the Secretary to get them the DHR job description of his position, and one of the Chief.
The Secretary will further revise the draft document that was used by the previous committee and resubmit it to this committee.
There was a discussion about who to get input from regarding the performance of the chief and/or secretary (primarily the chief). This could include people from different sectors that have significant, ongoing interactions with the chief (both from within and outside of the dept).
Comm Woodson will put together some areas, categorized under major divisions, for consideration. The Committee will do the actual review and evaluation and submit their recommendations to the full Commission for approval. The steps to take in gathering the information to be used in evaluating, will be decided on at the next meeting.
Performance Review: Areas of Evaluation (as compiled by Comm Woodson)
1) FACILITIES (Buildings, Grounds)
(a) Log Cabin Ranch
(b) YGC
2) ADMINISTRATION
(a) Probation Services
(b) Human Resources
(c) Affirmative Action w/in Dept.
3) PROGRAMS
(a) CBOs
(b) JDAI
4) COMMUNITY
(a) Families
(b) Schools
5) FINANCE
(a) Budget
(b) Audit Results
6) JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
(a) Courts
(b) District Attorney
(c) Public Defender
(d) Police Department
(e) Probation Officers
7) MAYOR’S OFFICE
(a) Juvenile Probation Commission
(b) Board of Supervisors
8) PERSONAL
(a) On-going professional education
(b) Attendance
III. Performance Review: General Methodology
1st = Identify specific goals for each review period
Ex: violence prevention
Ex: increased public safety
Ex: truancy reduction
Ex: stronger community ties
2nd = Identify measurable results that have been obtained in pursuing these goals
Ex: items accomplished on Chief’s “To-Do List” from May 25, 2005
3rd = Identify areas of improvement
4th = Determine Overall Evaluation Summary of Chief’s Performance
III. Performance Review: Timeline
1st = By [DATE} Have Chief Prepare Self-Evaluation
2nd = October, November, December 2008: Meetings with Ad Hoc Committee to Review/Revise/Finalize Evaluation
3rd = By January 1, 2008: Submit Evaluation to full Commission
(public comment)
there were none.
|
