WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 22, 2011
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Sawatzke, Mattson, Russek, Thelen, and Eichelberg present.
Eichelberg moved to approve the 3-15-11 County Board Minutes. The motion was seconded by Thelen and carried unanimously.
Eichelberg moved to approve the Agenda as presented. The motion was seconded by Mattson and carried 5-0.
On a motion by Thelen, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda:
1. Performance Appraisals: K. Triplett, Assr.; B. Aanerud, Aud./Treas.; L. Davis, Aud./Treas.; M. Pramann, Ct. Svcs.; B. Hendricks, Hwy.; S. Marquardt, P&Z.
1. Approve Seasonal 3.2 Malt Liquor License Renewal For Church Of St. Mary Of Czestochowa (Franklin Twp.). 2. Approve Tobacco License Renewal For Delano Quik Shop (Delano City).
1. Set Letting Date For Safe Routes To School Trail Project In Otsego For 4-26-11 @ 9:30 A.M. 2. Add To 4-05-11 Transportation Committee Of The Whole Meeting: Discuss Selling Cutting Edges To Townships & Cities.
1. Authorize Signatures On Contract With Pictometry International Corporation For The 2011 Pictometry Aerial Photography Project.
Richard Norman, County Coordinator, presented a retirement plaque to Tom Salkowski, Planning & Zoning Administrator for his dedicated service from 1979-2011. Norman described Salkowski as a true professional with principles and values, such as honesty, integrity, sincerity, and ethics. Salkowski referenced his father, a carpenter who became a construction superintendent. In that profession, there is a deep satisfaction in being able to see and touch what is built. Salkowski said it has been hard to find that same sense of instant satisfaction in his efforts as the Planning & Zoning Administrator. However, he felt that over the 31 years he was able to make a difference. In 1979, Wright County was starting to take hold of future development. When he was hired in 1979, it was made clear that his direction was to assure that most of the future County growth happened in cities instead of the countryside. In 1980, the population was 59,000 and 62% of residents lived in townships. Salkowski said he took pride and a sense of accomplishment in that the 2010 census reflected a population of almost 125,000 with 25% of the population living in the townships. Although he can’t take all of the credit, he hoped his efforts had something to do with it. Salkowski referenced the excellent service provided to Wright County residents. Some examples include having all County highways paved, and having the largest, and what he considered the best, Sheriff Department in the State. Salkowski spoke highly of the staff in the Planning & Zoning Department. He said they offer professional building inspection services and education, and extraordinary environmental health and waste services. He felt the Department has the best group of professional, young planners in the State (public or private). He said Wright County offers all of these great services while maintaining a tax rate that is in the lowest 10% in the State. Salkowski addressed each of the Commissioners individually, referencing some of the struggles and good times they have been through together. Salkowski cited the efforts of the township officers who have worked together over the years. He said there are not adequate words to thank the members of the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment. He felt serving on those committees can sometimes be a thankless task and it is emotionally draining. He extended thanks to the various members who have served as Chairperson of the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment. Salkowski referenced the excellent legal counsel provided through the Attorney’s Office. He stated that Tom Zins, former Assistant County Attorney, was his support and friend during some of the really tough issues they faced. Salkowski said his Administrative Assistant, Terrie Piram, was the epitome of the perfect Assistant. He described Piram as trustworthy, hardworking, and having a calming influence. Salkowski thanked his wife and family for their support. He said it has been a fulfilling and rewarding career. The County Board members each extended appreciation to Salkowski for his hard work and years of service. He was thanked for his efforts in maintaining and preserving the County’s landscape and lake areas.
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, presented the claims listing for approval. On a motion by Thelen, second by Mattson, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.
Luke Bauman, Executive Director of the Wright County Economic Development Partnership, presented a request from Shark Industries for an extension of their loan through the Enterprise Loan Fund. Shark Industries owes the Wright County Economic Development Loan Fund a balance of $8,368.88 and the loan is set to mature with a balloon payment in April, 2011. Shark Industries would like to modify the terms of the loan. This would include amortizing the loan to be paid in full in three years (2-01-11 through 4-01-14) at an interest rate of 3%. The Economic Development Partnership Finance Committee has reviewed and approved the request, and the Economic Development Partnership Management Committee has approved this recommendation. The final step of the approval process includes confirmation and approval by the Wright County Board. Russek asked whether the payments by Shark Industries have always been current. As Bauman was recently appointed at the Executive Director of the Partnership, he provided information supplied by the former Executive Director, Noel LaBine outlining Shark Industries positive financial health and payment history. Sawatzke said he assumed that the County Attorney’s Office has reviewed the paperwork. Sawatzke moved to authorize the extension of the loan for Shark Industries, seconded by Eichelberg, carried unanimously.
A Personnel Committee Of The Whole Meeting was held on 3-15-11. At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke said the Committee Minutes reflect the discussion that took place but do not reflect a recommendation. He felt the Committee’s recommendation was to move forward in assisting the Sheriff Department in filling the Lieutenant position and the other positions they have available. At the last meeting with Frank Madden, Labor Law Attorney, a plan of action was decided, and Sawatzke felt that it was the position of the Personnel Committee Of The Whole to move forward on that action. Sawatzke said the recommendation would be to have the Administration Department work in conjunction with the Sheriff’s Department to implement the Sheriff Department reorganizational plan. He asked Norman whether he would agree that was the recommendation. Norman said he agreed and the recommendation would also include some position openings created as a result of people leaving the organization. Sawatzke said the Board is asking Personnel to act diligently to assist the Sheriff Department. Todd Hoffman, Sheriff Department, asked whether this includes the Lieutenant position, the backfill created with the Sergeant position, and the three Deputies. Sawatzke said those were the positions that were agreed upon to move forward in an expedited fashion. Norman referenced the discussion at the Committee Meeting relating to having draft Committee and Board minutes sent to Department Heads. Department Heads could review the draft minutes and present any suggested changes at the next County Board Meeting. Norman said the recommendation from Administration is to advise Department Heads that minutes (Board and Committee) will be available on the F drive. This is the location where draft Board Minutes are currently transferred. If a Department Head is requesting a change to a set of minutes, they should present it at the next County Board Meeting. It was the consensus of the Board that they do not want Departments contacting Administration with changes so there are multiple drafts of minutes. Norman questioned if this direction from the Board included minutes not taken by the Administration Office, i.e., Transportation Committee Of The Whole, Human Services Board, and Ditch Committee. Sawatzke stated the minutes taken by other offices are reviewed by the Department Head involved so it is unlikely that a change would be requested. The minutes taken by the Administration Office cross many department boundaries so there may be more likelihood for change. The consensus was that the only minutes that will follow this procedure are those taken by the Administration Office. In the future if it is felt other draft minutes should be included, they should follow the process of having them posted on the F drive. Sawatzke moved to approve the Committee Minutes and the verbal recommendation as it pertains to the Administration Office assisting and expediting the process to fill the mentioned positions. The motion was seconded by Eichelberg. Thelen inquired as to whether the filling of the positions is already in progress and if they are being worked on as recommended. Norman responded that they will proceed with this after today’s meeting, as they needed to gain approval of the recommendation from the County Board. The motion carried 5-0:
I. DISCUSS ROLES & COMMUNICATION.
Hagerty stated that the theme of today’s meeting is “moving forward”. The purpose of this meeting is to clearly define roles and establish communication in order to be effective in his role, duties, and responsibilities as County Sheriff. Today, he is seeking advice or direction from the County Board regarding his Office and the Coordinator’s Office in moving forward. He stated that he presented his reorganization plan in November, 2010, and his budget was approved in December, 2010. His request was to initiate his restructuring plan on 1-03-11. It is now March, and he has not been able to progress with the plan. He’d like the authority to move forward with filling open positions that were already approved in his budget. He stated that this process has been frustrating. He stated that he was elected as County Sheriff by eligible voters; he feels he should have the autonomy and authority, and the County Board’s trust and confidence, to operate his Office within the confines of his approved budget. He feels that this is a fundamental difference between an elected and appointed Department Head. He stated that he and Norman did meet a few weeks ago in an attempt to move forward.
Norman stated that he recognizes the statutory authority of the elected department heads. However, in the 1970s, the County Board adopted a resolution authorizing that the County come under the Personnel Act. All Departments and their personnel must abide by the Wright County Personnel Policy and Procedure Manual. He stated that he is not pleased with how the Sheriff’s Office proceeded to post and interview for a lieutenant position without the involvement of the Personnel Department. He stated that it would be his recommendation that the Sheriff’s Office redo the process, acknowledging proper proposed personnel procedures. It is his opinion that the Sheriff’s Office and the Coordinator’s Office have the same common goal; to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible.
Hagerty stated that he is aware that there is personnel policy and feels the Sheriff’s legislative authority or statute supersedes the County policy. He stated that the Sheriff’s Office certainly made the attempt to go through the process with the Personnel Department. He stated that as Chief Deputy, he initiated frequent contact with the Coordinator’s office regarding hiring and eligibility list processes. After the December County Board Meeting that approved his restructuring plan, his Office received correspondence from the Coordinator’s Office about a hiring freeze. Hoffman then distributed copies of email and written correspondence (see attached) to the County Commissioners and Norman. Hagerty stated that his work continues and Wright County citizens require services. He stated that he cannot put his Office on hold due to a conflict concerning union issues. Because the Coordinator’s Office would not assist in the lieutenant process, the Sheriff’s Office mirrored the process in order to fill a lieutenant role in the investigative unit. He stated that his Office was asked to provide the process they utilized regarding the lieutenant position. That process was sent to the Coordinator’s Office on 3-12-11 and his Office has yet to receive a response. Miller clarified that the Sheriff’s Office did not promote anybody.
Norman stated that everyone is aware why the reorganization process was put on hold. He clarified that at the 11-16-10 Personnel Committee Of The Whole Meeting, the recommendation of the Personnel Committee was to approve Hagerty’s reorganization plan. The recommendation stated that filling these positions were to follow normal County procedures. That was not done.
Sawatzke referred to Hagerty’s comment regarding being an elected Department Head. Sawatzke stated that the Commissioners are also elected by the people of the County. He clarified that the Commissioners are expected to operate under statutory rights as well. He stated that if Hagerty were to look at the union contracts, the County Board is designated as the employer. Hagerty responded that he appreciates the Commissioners and recognizes they have a tough job. He is aware the Commissioners answer to some of the same constituents. He stated that he would ask that the County Board trust him to determine who his supervisors are, and the County Board determines the pay. He stated that he will always be a proponent of public employees and their collective bargaining rights. He would hope that issues regarding collective bargaining rights are kept separate from other business pertaining to his Office. He stated that he is new in his position as County Sheriff and he would like assistance from the County Board and Coordinator’s Office. He stated that working with the Personnel Department has been inefficient and he would just like to do his job. Hagerty clarified that the Sheriff’s Office interviewed candidates to create an eligibility list for the Lieutenant position. The Sheriff’s Office has always been good at turning back budget dollars. The Sheriff’s Office has cost saving mechanisms. It takes two to three months to replace a vacated position. It is his opinion that it seems redundant to renegotiate budgeted positions.
Hagerty told the Committee that he was not aware that today’s Personnel Committee of the Whole Meeting was scheduled until his Lieutenant made him aware of it on Friday, 3-11-11. There have been impediments thrown his way, preventing him from carrying on his day-to-day activities. He stated that the County Coordinator is a perfect conduit for communication and typically the County Board responds to his requests and correspondence within a week. Sawatzke stated that process takes time. It often takes 10-14 days just to schedule a meeting. He stated that if the Commissioners receive an email, they have to inform the Coordinator and determine how to formulate a response. He stated that the County Board cannot take immediate action on things. The alternative is to violate the Open Meeting Law.
Thelen stated that she questions the delay of action since the November approval of Hagerty’s reorganization plan. She asked whether there was a written explanation for the delay. Norman stated that the hiring freeze was not a decision he made solely. The decision was made by the Negotiation Committee with Frank Madden, County Labor Law Attorney. Sawatzke stated that there was a dispute on whether employees within the Sheriff’s Office accepted their promotions. The County Board took action based on facts presented to them by Madden, and unfortunately this took time. Hagerty stated that it is his opinion that his Office was being punished due to grievances that were filed and it bled into his being able to take action on his reorganization plan.
Russek stated that the reorganization process was put on hold as stated in the correspondence (see attached) that was distributed by Hoffman. He stated that he cannot blame Personnel as they have a job to do. They are trying their best to facilitate the process as outlined. Hagerty stated that there was a closed meeting on 2-23-11, yet there was still no movement regarding his reorganization plan. Norman stated that the entire process was put on hold, yet, the Sheriff’s Office recruited for a lieutenant position without Personnel involvement. Sawatzke asked whether the Sheriff’s Office followed through on the recruitment process. Hagerty clarified that the Sheriff’s Office did not promote anybody. Sawatzke asked whether the Sheriff’s Office offered a temporary lieutenant position at sergeant pay. Hagerty stated it is at sergeant pay. The person is helping supervise the Criminal Investigative Division. Hagerty stated that the Sheriff’s Office went through an identical process that Personnel would use. The difference this time is that the Coordinator’s Office would not work with the Sheriff’s Office. It is his opinion that redoing the process would be redundant. He stated that he felt as if he is trying to run the Sheriff’s Office with one arm tied behind his back. Hagerty stated that he tried to seek counsel from the Coordinator’s Office and felt he was “locked out”. He stated that his requests to get on an agenda have been ignored.
Thelen asked again why the reorganization process was put on hold. The action seems punitive. Sawatzke stated that the Negotiation Committee determined that there were issues between the union and the County. Employees grieved the actions of the County Board. It wasn’t clear what the best action was and it took time to come up with the decision. Sawatzke stated that the County Board did not want to recognize the employees without jeopardizing the case.
Hagerty questioned why his Office isn’t able to interview deputies for a sergeant’s eligibility list. He stated that his predecessor was able to. He stated it is a good business practice to create an eligibility list. Norman stated that at the direction of the County Board, Departments are directed to forward their position openings for discussion and review by the Personnel Committee. Norman stated that no other Department Head has a problem with this process. It is difficult for the morale of his Personnel Department when the Sheriff’s Office does their own posting, testing, and interviewing. Hagerty asked whether it is the intent of the County Board to have the Sheriff’s Office come before the Board to ask permission to replace a position that has already been approved within their budget. Sawatzke stated that all Departments have been asked to follow this process. Thelen stated that there seems to be questions and a need for clarification from the Sheriff’s Office and Coordinator’s Office about processes and direction. She questioned whether there should be another meeting to discuss the differences and develop better processes. Thelen asked Sawatzke if he would agree that the Sheriff’s Office has had an unusually long period of time to wait for the restructuring plan to be initiated. Sawatzke stated that even if he were to agree with Thelen, it would not change the situation. The County Board did not want this to turn out the way it did. She stated that she would see value in having a meeting to explore some of the issues with the processes that have been discussed today. Some of the problems presented today could be worked through so that nobody feels penalized or left in limbo. Hagerty stated that he can see how the Personnel Department would like a cookie cutter approach for appointed and elected Department Heads. He stated that it is his opinion that he thinks he should have autonomy to run his budget. His Office is prudent with the budget. It is inefficient and redundant to come before the Personnel Committee to seek permission for positions that have already been approved.
Russek stated that all other Department Heads turn money back and follow the personnel process. He asked Hagerty whether because as an essential position in the County, he doesn’t feel he has to follow the same process. He stated that the County Auditor/Treasurer and Attorney follow the process without any questions. He stated that the County Board has a policy and expects all Department Heads to live under that policy. The Department Heads may not like the process, however, the process works. Very few replacement positions have been denied, however, savings is being realized due to the process. Sawatzke asked whether there has been a question regarding the process outside of the recent three months.
Thelen stated that there also seems to be a disagreement regarding whether a policy was adopted on bringing vacated positions to the Personnel Committee for discussion. Hagerty stated that he would bring any new position before the Personnel Committee for discussion. However, he questions the purpose of bringing replacement positions to the Committee if it has already been approved within his budget. Russek stated that approximately a year and a half ago, the County Board decided that every backfill position should come before the Personnel Committee. It is a policy that was adopted by the County Board. Thelen disagreed with Russek stating that it was not a written policy. Russek disagreed with Thelen and said it was a policy. It is a process that Department Heads are expected to follow. He cautioned that filling a vacated position is not an immediate process. It takes time. Hagerty stated that his Office has waited three months to follow through on his approved reorganization plan. Thelen stated that during the budget process for 2010, a list of cost-saving ideas was presented to the County Board. However, none of the ideas were adopted as policy. Sawatzke stated that none of the ideas were adopted as a permanent policy because the County Board did not want it in the Policy and Procedure Manual. Sawatzke stated that this was done in recognition of budget concerns. He stated that the majority of the County’s expenses are on personnel related expenses. The County Board is being proactive in taking cost saving measures. The measure was adopted to prevent drastic measures from being taken. Thelen stated that she questions whether the process should be a “one size fits all” policy. If the set process is impeding the Sheriff in some way, perhaps it would be justifiable to discuss the process. She stated that there should be some effort to adjust the process as needs arise. The discussion could include whether this is the most efficient process. She stated that meeting to discuss these types of issues may expedite communication and response. She stated that she thinks it is worth evaluating how the County can meet the needs of its Department Heads. Eichelberg stated that these type of issues should be discussed at a Committee of the Whole Meeting. Thelen stated that this discussion would be helpful for the Administration Department as well. Norman stated that the Committee could recess today’s meeting to a date and time specific. Norman stated that from the Administration Department’s standpoint, he would like to know the rules of the game.
Sawatzke proposed that the Coordinator’s Office, Sheriff’s Office, and County Board progress with moving forward on the reorganization plan. He stated that he assumes that perhaps today’s issues will go away once the reorganization plan is in place. He stated that he did not think there was an issue between the three parties regarding the personnel process four months ago. He stated that he thought everyone was a happy team. No other Department Heads have raised issues regarding the process. He stated that the Sheriff’s Office has been accommodating in its budget and turning back dollars at the end of the budget year. The County Board has also been good to the Sheriff’s Office in terms of building the new Jail/LEC, 800 MHz system, and furniture and equipment needs. Miller stated that the Sheriff’s Office would like to determine the purpose of the Personnel Department. He stated that there were problems when the Administration Department questioned the Sheriff’s processes and required permission to interview deputies for an eligibility list. He stated that this type of interference gets into how his Office runs.
Sawatzke asked what positions the Sheriff’s Office needs. Hagerty stated that the Sheriff’s Office has 3 deputy openings, (authorized for 140, and has 135). It also needs an ISS position, a lieutenant position, and developing a sergeant eligibility list. Norman stated that the ISS position is a new position that requires a job description. It takes time to write job descriptions. Norman explained that TrueSight would be meeting with Hoffman and Howell on 3-16-11 to discuss the job duties of that position. It will take time to draft and approve the job description. Hagerty stated that he is aware that the County is undergoing a process to have new job descriptions written. Eichelberg asked Norman whether there were problems with any of the job descriptions for the positions considered for the restructure. Norman stated that the only position that requires a new job description is the ISS position.
Hagerty asked what the repercussions would be if he didn’t come before the Personnel Committee to discuss openings within his Office. Norman explained that the Personnel Representative keeps track of position openings, and these positions go before the first Personnel Committee Meeting of each month. It is an automatic process.
Norman stated that the County Board needs to tell the Administration Office how to proceed. He stated that he thinks his office has been consistent in its hiring processes.
Brown stated that the lieutenant process the Sheriff’s Office recently facilitated was identical to the process that the Personnel Department would have completed. The Sheriff used an identical posting. The interview questions and process gave the appearance that they were facilitating a normal promotion process.
Sawatzke stated that Personnel should review the process to determine whether the actions performed met the standards of the County. Thelen stated that redoing the process could be redundant. Hoffman stated that the position was internally posted to temporarily assist Lieutenant Anselment. Norman stated that he would appreciate the opportunity to confer with Personnel regarding the process. Sawatzke stated that the reorganization process should formally start tomorrow. Hagerty stated that his Office cannot delay any further to conduct its business. He stated that he does not what his Office to be punished for actions that took place in March, 2010. He stated that his reorganization plan was recommended for approval at the 11-16-10 Personnel Committee Of The Whole Meeting and the Sheriff’s Budget was subsequently approved. He stated that he would understand if the County was in dire straights. He stated that he hopes that the County Board can give him some advice on this. Otherwise, he is going to act on what he thinks is right.
Thelen asked Sawatzke whether he is willing to meet again to further discuss the personnel process as it pertains to Department Heads. Sawatzke stated that he hasn’t heard complaints from other Departments. Russek stated that Hagerty has permission to move forward on the sergeant, lieutenant, and three Deputy positions. He stated that he and Sawatzke think that today’s issues are temporary and will work itself out. Eichelberg stated that since Mattson has left for another scheduled meeting, the Committee is at a standstill with two commissioners for and two commissioners against holding a Committee of the Whole Meeting for further discussion. Hoffman stated that it was his observation that Norman is asking for clarification regarding the hiring process as there is confusion between the elected officials and Norman. The process is broken, stated Hoffman. Norman stated that his Department has been accused of things, yet is following the direction of the County Board. Sawatzke stated that the County Board is asking that all Departments go before the Personnel Committee. Hoffman stated that Norman still seems to have questions. Norman stated that it is his understanding that vacated positions are to go to the first Personnel Committee Meeting of the month. Hagerty asked if this is the position of the County Board. Hagerty asked again whether an approved position within his budget is subject to review by the Personnel Committee for permission to fill the position again.
Brown asked whether it is acceptable for the Sheriff’s Department to create an eligibility list prior to going to the Personnel Committee. Sawatzke asked whether the Personnel Committee has ever approved an eligibility listing before. Pawelk stated that she questions the purpose of creating a list if the Department is not sure if they are going to hire for the position. Brown stated that this issue recently came up within another Department that wanted to create an eligibility list for a position that had not been vacated. She stated that when the County Board authorizes filling a position, they are granting permission to post, interview, and hire for a position that is available. Russek stated that it is not productive to wait until the eligibility list is depleted before building it back up again.
Petersen asked whether the County Board approves of filling a sequence of positions that are vacated due to a promotion. The option would be to bring each vacated position to the Personnel Committee, which could draw out the filling of the sequenced positions over months. Russek stated that he is in favor of filling the sequence of vacated positions all at one time.
Miller asked whether the Sheriff has to come before the Personnel Committee each time it has a temporary position. Sawatzke stated that it depends on the type of temporary employee. A summer temporary employee requires pre-authorization. However, it would not be practical to conduct that process for a temporary employee that is needed for one day and immediately. Norman did caution the Committee that every temporary employee is held to Minnesota Statute regarding how many days they can work in a calendar year.
Hagerty stated that another problem that he is having is with agenda packets. He questioned why the Sheriff’s Office cannot obtain a County Board Agenda packet prior to the weekly County Board Meetings. This issue came up during the backfilling of Pat O’Malley’s position in the Jail. A set of minutes came out that gave the appearance that the Sheriff’s Office was only looking to external candidates. The minutes affected the morale of the Office. The minutes were approved and O’Malley had to seek correction of the minutes after the fact. He stated that it would be nice if the Sheriff’s Office could receive committee minutes or the County Board Agenda packets. He noted that the media, County Auditor/Treasurer, and Attorney receive County Board Agenda packets. He stated that he would like to seek direction from the County Board regarding this issue. He stated that he would like to stay in tune with what is going on in County government. He has instructed his command staff to attend County Board Meetings.
Norman stated that the reason the County Attorney and Auditor/Treasurer receive board packets is because the County Attorney’s Office provides legal council to the County Board at the County Board meetings. There is research that needs to be done on agenda items prior to the weekly meeting. The Auditor/Treasurer is concerned about budget items and contracts and also needs to do research before the County Board Meeting. Norman clarified that the County Board Agendas are on the internet for anyone to access.
Thelen asked why the County Sheriff could not receive a County Board Agenda packet. Norman stated that making one more packet would be more work for his office. Sawatzke noted that probably 97% of the packet wouldn’t apply to the Sheriff’s Office and would be an additional effort and waste of paper. He stated that he doesn’t agree with sending out a packet to every Department Head because most of the packet wouldn’t apply to individual Departments. Hagerty asked whether the media receives the packets. Norman stated that the media gets their packets on Tuesday morning, prior to the weekly County Board Meeting.
Sawatzke stated that he could see the value in distributing the minutes prior to the County Board Meetings. He stated that it would be beneficial to the County Board if the Department Heads received the minutes ahead of time to review for accuracy as they relate to their department. Hagerty stated that Sheriff Miller asked for copies of minutes and was given the response that the minutes cannot be distributed until they are approved. He stated that he has an interest in meeting minutes and the agenda packets because he is interested in County Government and likes to know what other Department Heads are doing. The packets would be nice to have although he recognizes a majority of the weekly packets would not apply directly to his Office. Norman stated that his office could put out the minutes; however, he would not let that influence the timeline of getting out the County Board Agenda Packets.
Sawatzke stated that the drafted minutes are already on the computer. He stated that he did not think it would be much of an effort to put them on the intranet allowing Department Heads and their supervisors’ access to the minutes. He stated that by having access to the minutes, the Department Heads can aid the County Board in making sure the minutes are accurate. He stated that everybody understands they are draft minutes. He would recommend that if a Department Head notices that a change is necessary, they appear at the following County Board Meeting to discuss the change. If unable to attend the Meeting, he would recommend they contact the County Board Chair prior to the Meeting. Sawatzke clarified that he would not want Departments contacting the Administration Office regarding changes to pre-approved minutes. Russek agreed with Sawatzke noting that all requested changes would be made to the minutes after the County Board Meeting within the Administration Office. Norman stated that he is supportive of that protocol. Sawatzke clarified that he would not want the general public to have access to the minutes until after they were approved by the County Board.
Hagerty stated that this would accommodate his request for facilitation and coordination with the Coordinator’s Office.
II. POSITION OPENINGS: DEPUTY SHERIFF, CIVILIAN CORRECTIONS OFFICER, AND SERGEANT’S ELIGIBILITY LIST.
Hagerty stated that he did not request these position openings to be placed on today’s agenda. After discussion, it was agreed the Sheriff’s Department should proceed in the hiring process following Administration Department procedures.
Hagerty asked whether the County Board wants to be involved in the process of developing an eligibility list for the sergeant position. It involves interviewing deputies. Sawatzke stated that the County Board does not necessarily want to get involved, but wants the appropriate personnel people involved since they are the experts. Hagerty stated that he agrees.
(End of 3-15-11 Personnel Committee Of The Whole Minutes)
Discussion followed on the recommendation for replacement of the Planning & Zoning Administrator’s position. Norman said the recommendation is for Sean Riley, Assistant Environmental Health Officer, to be promoted into the position of Planning & Zoning Administrator. Mattson stated he had concern. During the interview process, he ranked the candidates for the position in the following order: 1. Bill Stephens; 2. Barry Rhineberger; 3) Candidate from Wisconsin; and 4) Sean Riley. Mattson said during the interview process, Rhineberger answered all questions, and his education and technology skills are tops. Mattson felt Rhineberger was in line for what they were looking for in a Planning & Zoning Administrator. His concern with Riley is that when he was asked questions on certain things at the interview, Riley’s response was that it was not his expertise and that he would check with Rhineberger. Mattson said this was the response from Riley two or three times. He said they have the person with all of the knowledge in Rhineberger, so he questioned why they would put Riley above him. When he left the meeting (interview process), he thought that the Board would discuss this today if Stephens did not take the position. Russek said it was his understanding that in the overall points, Riley came in second. Stephens has turned the position down and it is natural to offer it to Riley as he ranked second. He felt this was the consensus of the Committee that completed the interviews. Sawatzke said there were eight applicants interviewed and they were all competent. This included three County applicants. He referenced the comments made by Salkowski earlier in today’s meeting about how strong the staff is in Planning & Zoning, and the Board found this out during the interview process. He said Norman has indicated a recommendation based on what he understood from the Committee Of The Whole. Sawatzke moved to appoint Sean Riley as the Planning & Zoning Administrator. The motion was seconded by Thelen. Mattson extended thanks to Rhineberger for the terrific interview and for his knowledge of the Planning & Zoning Office. Russek thanked all of the excellent candidates that applied. As requested by Norman, Sawatzke amended the motion to include an effective date of 4-01-11 at Step 1 of the Salary Schedule. Thelen accepted this amendment to the motion. Sawatzke asked whether Step 1 is higher than the current salary for Riley. Norman confirmed this to be correct. The motion carried 4-1 with Mattson casting the nay vote.
Albion Township. $18,907.36
American Institutional Supp 120.70
American Solutions for Bus 3,508.45
Anoka Co. Juvenile Cent 12,064.00
Aramark Services Inc. 6,269.92
Assn. of Metropolitan Cty O 205.00
B & B Products-Rigs and Sq 11,613.90
Berg/Stephen L 545.42
Boyer Truck Parts 164.77
Brock White Co. LLC 185.86
Buffalo Township 18,398.11
Burdas Towing 209.00
Center for Education & Emp 159.00
Center Point Energy 12,436.21
Centra Sota Lake Region LLC 10,742.07
Chatham Township 13,212.20
Chemung Supply Corp 13,120.00
Clearwater Township 16,708.05
Climate Air 533.80
Cokato Township 19,615.93
Cokato/City of 400.00
Corinna Township 28,269.12
CPS Technology Solutions 262.50
D & R Ag Repair Inc 1,011.98
Dustcoating, Inc. 3,547.33
Emergency Physicians Prof 768.00
Ernst General Construction 2,400.00
Farm-Rite Equipment Inc. 223.65
Fastenal Company 134.98
Franklin Township 31,959.99
French Lake Township 18,574.53
H&R Const. Co. 887.27
Harper Cleaning Products 185.26
Hillyard Inc. - Minneapolis 2,395.54
Indentix Incorporated 464.38
Kris Engineering Inc. 1,118.23
LaPlant Demo Inc. 457.27
Lawson Products Inc. 393.58
Lostetter/Carol H. 200.00
Maple Lake Township 25, 129.85
Marco Inc. 257.57
Marysville Township 22,419.27
Mathiowetz Construction 39,092.50
Matt Legal Services 100.00
Menards - Buffalo 275.65
Middleville Township 17,451.86
MN Sheriff’s Association 548.01
Monticello Township 33,969.47
Morries Parts & Service Gro 508.57
North American Salt Co. 9,806.54
Office Depot 1,054.95
Phasor Electric Company 235.13
PMI Computer Supplies 268.90
Precision Prints of Wright Co 141.08
Richards/Thomas W. 100.00
Rivers of Hope 105.00
Rockford Township 32,829.86
Russell Security Resource 230.85
Shell Fleet Plus 216.93
Silver Creek Township 29,640.14
Southside Township 18,170.69
State Supply Co. 183.90
Stockholm Township 17,165.33
Stumpf Acoustics 962.88
TDS Telecom 260.92
Times Media 395.00
Total Printing 937.82
Transcend United Technolo 115.00
Truthought LLC 1,198.00
United Parcel Service 117.71
Verizon Wireless 651.84
Victor Township 19,094.06
Village Ranch Inc. 4,809.84
Voss Lighting 165.66
Watchguard Electronic Ho 328.25
Waverly/City of 261.17
Woodland Township 16,411.18
Wright Co. Ag Society 240.00
Wright Co. Highway Dept 40,873.24
Wright Hennepin Coop Elec 4,801.49
Wright Hennepin Electric 938.75
28 Payments less than $100 $1,389.57
Final total $602,210.61
The meeting adjourned at 951 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal April 18, 2011.