1984-06-18 adjJune 16 1984 (Morning Meeting--Adjourned from June 13,_1984~
June 18~ ~984 ~Afternoon Me'et'~ng--AdJ°urned' from June 16, 19U4)
243
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on June 16, 1984, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room 11, Fourth Floor, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting adjourned from June
13, 1984.
Present: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr. and C. Timothy Lindstrom.
Absent: Mr. Peter T. Way.
Officer Present:
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.
The meeting was called to order at 9:01 A.M. by the Chairman,
At 9:02 A.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by
Roll was called
Agenda Item No. 2.
Mr. Henley, to adjourn into executive session for personnel matters.
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. ~owie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
The Board reconvened into open session at 12:45 P.M. Mr. Fisher noted that Mayor
Frank Buck had suggested a joint meeting between the Board and City Council on August 23,
1984 at 3:00 P.M. The Board members present concurred in the suggestion.
Agenda Item No. 3. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to
adjourn to June 18, 1984 at 4:00 P.M. in Meeting Room 12 for a Joint meeting with the
School Board. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None ..
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
CH~RMAN
June '1~,-~9~4 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from June 16, 1984)
A joint meeting between the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County and the Albemarle
County School Board was held on June 18, 1984, at 4:00 P.M., Meeting Room 12, County
Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia; the Board's meeting was
adjourned from June 16, 1984.
Present: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (Arrived at 4:37 P.M.),
Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher and Peter T. Way.
Absent: Messrs. J. T. Henley, Jr. and C. Timothy Lindstrom.
School Board Members Present: Mr. Charles Armstrong, Mrs. Jessie Haden, Mr. Robert
Taylor and Mrs. Sally Thomas.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; and School Superintendent, Carlos Gutierrez.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:10 P.M. by the Board's
Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who announced that the Board of Supervisors did not have a quorum
at this time. Since the School Board is in executive session and an executive session
for a legal matter regarding the suit of Otis L. Lee vs. Albemarle County School Board
has been requested by the County Attorney, the Board members present will join the
School Board. The two Boards went into executive session at 4:12 P.M. and returned at
4:25 P.M.
Mr. Lindstrom had requested several of the items scheduled for discussion and since
he was absent and there was not a full representation of the Board, the agenda was not
followed as prepared.
Agenda Item No. 5. Curriculum - High School Level.
Mrs. Jessie Haden, Chairman of the School Board, noted the booklet entitled "Program
of Studies, Secondary Grades, 9-12" which was distributed to the Board in May in response
to the request of Mr. Lindstrom at the April 18, 1984 meeting (copy of this booklet is
on file in the Clerk's Office). She asked if there were any questions regarding same.
Mr. Way asked h°w often the curriculum at the Vocational Technical Center is evaluated.
Dr. Carlos Gutierrez said the lay advisory board consisting of administrators at the
Tech Center frequently meet to determine if the courses being offered prepare students
for work in the immediate area. There have been a few changes in the last three years
and the courses offered are reviewed annually.
.244
June 18, 1984 (Afternoon Me~ting--Adjourned from June 16, 1984)
Mr. Way asked if the regular school curriculum is handled in a similar fashion.
Dr. Gutferrez said thoroughly written curriculum guides exist in almost all subjects.
Mr. William Raines, Director of Secondary Education, was present. He said the regular
curriculum is reviewed annually. Changes are made every three years with elective courses
being changed more often. Further, Mr. Raines noted that changes in the curriculum
normally coincide with textbook adoption which is every five years. Mr. Richard Glowinski
said the vocational teachers review the curriculum annually and major revisions are ~made
every three to five years.
Mr. Way asked if any changes are foreseen as a result of the new State graduation
requirements. Dr. Gutierrez said the high school curriculum will be the focus of study
during the next year to determine if the State requirement for twenty-two credits can be
handled during the existing day of six-periods. Dr. Gutierrez said the State requirement
has resulted in many Virginia schools changing to a seven-period day. The seven-period
day may be a problem in Albemarle County due to transportation but he feels strongly
that same will have to be done and a recommendation will be made in the spring of 1985
regarding same. If a seven-period day cannot be offered, elective courses will have to
be reduced.
Agenda Item No. 2. School Board's Merit Pay System for Administrators.
Dr. Carole Hastings, Director of Personnel, was present and reviewed the rating
system used to determine salary ranges for each position in local government, as well as
rating School Administrators this year. The nine factors involved are education, experience,
complexity of work, interpersonal contacts, independence of action, supervision exercised,
responsibility and accountability, working environment, and physical effort. Each factor
contains a point system which is calculated for the total of the position, minus the base
level salary range for the particular position. A range is then placed into the County's
salary plan.
Dr. Hastings then summarized the local government's merit evaluation plan which
contains five levels of performance from outstanding to unsatisfactory. There are twelve
different areas of performance on which the employee is evaluated. In each of the areas,
there are five values assigned to each from "1", which is unsatisfactory, to a "9", which
is outstanding. The employee's total rating value is determined by dividing the total
score received in the performance elements by the total number of factors rated. Dr.
Hastings said the general government has a two step merit, two and one-half percent for
above satisfactory and five percent for outstanding. The above computation on the performanc
level determines if and which merit is awarded to the employee on his/her anniversary
date. Dr. Hastings noted that the merit increases are in addition to the cost of living
increase on July 1 of each year.
Mr. Taylor asked the number of steps for each position in the salary range. Dr.
Hastings said there are sixteen. Mr. Taylor asked if the last step of the range changes
with the cost of living increase. Dr. Hastings said yes, the entire sixteen steps change
as a result of the yearly cost of living increase.
Mr. Armstrong asked if fifty percent of the employees received an "above satisfactory"
evaluations, if that meant those persons received a two and one-half percent merit increase.
Dr. Hastings said this is the first year the two step merit system has been used by the
general government. There are statistics available from July 1, 1983 through March 1984
indicating that forty-eight employees qualified for the five percent (31 percent of the
employees that had been evaluated) and forty-eight qualified for the two and one-half
percent (31 percent of the employees evaluated). Therefore, sixty-two percent of the
employees evaluated during this period of time have received one of the merits and thirty-
eight employees did not receive any increase. Mr. Fisher said the statistics indicate
that the people making the evaluations are more generous due to the two step system. Dr.
Hastings said there has been a significant increase in the number of merits given this
year because of the two and one-half percent merit. Further, she noted that there are
several concerns about the current evaluation system and a committee consisting of local
government employees is studying the system. The basic concern is that the criteria used
to evaluate employees pertains more to supervisory personnel than to classified employees.
Therefore, the employees have noted that a more individualized system is preferred.
Mr. Bowie asked if the merit increases are a permanent salary change. Dr. Hastings
said yes, this is not a bonus type system.
Mr. Taylor asked the source for funding the sixty-two percent merit increases. Dr.
Hastings explained that often a department head can fund the merit increase from funds
left from turnovers in personnel in his/her department. However, the Personnel Department
has money for one-third of the merit increases included in its budget. Mr. Agnor said
during his nine years with the County and with only the five percent merit in place, only
one-third of the employees received a merit. However, the staff did recognize that with
the two step merit, that calculation could be increased to t~t~ Mr. Agnor also
noted that the one-third of the employees estimated to receive a merit is neither a goal
or limitation but rather an overall average to calculate financial needs to fund the
program. Mr. Taylor said the School division does not have the flexibility of retaining
funds as a result of a job vacancy. Mr. Agnor said that may be true, but there is f!
within the total budget of salaries and a replacement person can be hired at a lower
salary.
Dr. Hastings said the School Board has asked that she work with a study committee of
administrators and teachers to develop an administrative evaluation procedure. This is
being pursued and a system may be preferred that separates classified and supervisory
personnel.
June 18, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from June 16, 1984)
245
Dr. Hastings said at the April 18, 1984 meeting, the definition of merit was discussed.
She finds it very difficult to define merit, carte blanche. She also feels that labeling
an employee as outstanding or satisfactory becomes artificial and employees then begin
vying for a particular quota that has been set. Dr. Hastings said with the public employment
system, she did not feel having a large number of employees eligible for merit is unreasonable.
Dr. Hastings supported a system whereby the employee sets the objectives and standards of
performance with same being examined in terms of whether those levels have been achieved.
Mr. Fisher commented that he is familiar with two systems; one awarded merits to
ninety-five percent, and the other, one hundred percent. Such a system looses the real
meaning of merit in that an employee is not motivated. Dr. Hastings said one of the
major things is an increased emphasis on training the evaluators because the interpretation
of "above satisfactory" and "outstanding" needs to be consistent. (Mr. Bowie left the
meeting at 5:05 P.M.) Mrs. Sally Thomas said this would be expensive, but agreed that
same should be considered.
Dr. Hastings explained the new teacher evaluation system and noted that a section is
included in the system which deals with major performance problems, identification of
those problems, and a means to rectify any problems. Mr. Fisher wished there was a way
to reward and encourage excellence.
Mr. Fisher ~acknowledged appreciation for the report. Dr. Hastings said she would
apprise the Board on the progress being made on drafting a merit system for both the
general government and school division.
Mr. Fisher extended appreciation on behalf of the Board to Mrs. Sally Thomas for her
four years of dedication while serving on the School Board. (Mrs. Thomas did not seek
reappointment to the School Board and her term expires on June 30, 1984.) Mrs. Thomas
said in the interest of maintaining communication between the School Board and the Board
of Supervisors, is there any commitment that the Board feels the School Board has not
carried out. Mr. Fisher said the Board unanimously adopted a resolution strongly requesting
that the School Board adopt a merit system for administrators before the end of 1985.
Mrs. Thomas asked if "administrators" includes principals. Mr. Fisher said his understanding
is that the system would include principals, administrators and probably the central
office personnel. Mrs. Thomas said there are committees currently working on such an
evaluation system. She asked if the School Board discovers that a different approach is
to be taken, does the Board prefer a report on same. Mr. Fisher said he personally would
appreciate that.
The next joint meeting was tentatively set for September 19, 1984 at 3:30 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 8. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 5'23 P.M.
L~