Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Evaluations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Personnel committee keeps annual department head evaluations, schedules April start
Summary
After extended debate about purpose and format, the Watkins Glen Board of Supervisors personnel committee voted to keep an annual department head evaluation process and to begin evaluations in April, while asking staff to consider schedule and format changes to reduce intimidation and improve discussion.
The Watkins Glen Board of Supervisors personnel committee on March 13, 2025 voted to continue its annual department head evaluation process and to begin scheduled evaluations in April after a lengthy discussion about the format and purpose of the reviews.
Committee members debated whether the annual review duplicates ongoing supervisory oversight or serves an important record-keeping and development function. Supporters said the reviews give supervisors a chance to hear the county administrator's assessment and to memorialize performance notes; others argued problems should be raised and documented throughout the year, not only at a single annual session.
County Administrator Melissa (County Administrator) told supervisors that in earlier years the administrator prepared a written review but that she prefers the current practice of having supervisors participate directly and of providing input when asked. Committee members proposed several procedural changes during the discussion, including a hybrid model in which the personnel chair and the relevant committee chair jointly run an evaluation, spreading evaluations across a month rather than compressing them into two days, and giving department heads greater opportunity to discuss goals and obstacles in a less intimidating setting.
After discussion, a motion to continue the evaluation process as currently structured (with adjustments to scheduling) passed. The committee also voted to start the evaluations in April and asked staff to coordinate schedules so reviews follow committee meetings. The transcript records the approvals as "Aye," but individual vote counts were not recorded in the meeting text.
Discussion points included whether the personnel chair or each committee's chair should lead reviews, how to set and assess department goals, whether interviews intimidate newer department heads, and whether evaluations should focus more on development and an open dialogue about needs and goals. Several supervisors urged maintaining a written, memorialized evaluation to preserve documentation should performance concerns later require formal action.
The committee directed staff to return with a schedule and to consider allowing more time per review if the board wants fuller discussion of goals and needs.
The action will be implemented by scheduling staff and department heads for April evaluations and by coordinating committee chairs and the personnel chair on the calendar.
