Kane County committee pushes to create standard performance-evaluation process for department heads

Kane County board members in the Human Services Committee debated Wednesday how to establish a consistent process for evaluating department heads, including whether the county should create a resolution or ordinance to clarify supervisory lines and appraisal timing.

Anita, a committee member who has volunteered to help lead the effort, summarized prior work and recommended annual appraisals on each director's employment anniversary rather than once a year tied to raises. She said the appraisals should be "non arbitrary" and consistent across non-elected department heads so departments are compared on the same criteria.

Committee members raised two practical questions: who supervises department heads where multiple committees have oversight, and whether evaluations would require closed-session discussion. "Jamie is the executive department head. She answers to this committee," one committee member said; Jamie confirmed that clarifying authority would require legal review.

Ken Shepro, speaking from experience with different committee structures, warned the committee that local practice varies and that changes could create conflicts over which committee or official directs a department. Jamie advised that formalizing a change would likely require working with the state's attorney and producing a resolution or ordinance: "There is nothing in writing or code that dictates who manages a department head," she said, adding that the change should be done "properly so that the necessary steps are taken first to establish that process."

Why this matters: committee members said clearer supervisory lines and consistent appraisals would make it easier for directors to know who to report to and would help the county measure departmental performance.

Next steps: Anita and others volunteered to draft a proposal and circulate it to committee members, department heads and the state's attorney for review. Committee counsel reminded members that any working group with three or more members would trigger open-meeting requirements; staff suggested that the committee that reviews a director's budget should be the body to conduct that director's evaluation.

Ending: The committee agreed to pursue a working draft, coordinate with the state's attorney, and bring a formal proposal back for the board to consider in coming months.