Pulaski County advisory board directs consultant to shorten reorganization survey

Pulaski County’s Reorganizational Advisory Board voted May 20 to ask its consultant to shorten and clarify a draft survey that will gather information from county offices as part of the board’s review of county structure and functions.

The board’s chair, Rosalind Middleton, opened discussion of the draft survey prepared for Dr. Slagle, the board’s consultant, and members raised questions about who should complete the questionnaire, whether responses should be anonymous and whether some questions strayed into employee performance rather than organizational structure. Angela Hookman, a committee member, said, “I think they did a good job of covering a wide range,” but asked whether respondents should answer in writing ahead of interviews or be allowed to prepare answers for in-person committee interviews.

The board debated whether to direct the questionnaire to elected officeholders and department heads, or to solicit additional input — including a shorter, voluntary employee survey — to capture “boots on the ground” perspectives. Legal counsel told the board its charge is to recommend structural changes to the court and noted limits set by state law: “there are many duties that are assigned by statute, and you can’t change part of what you’ll see in the memo…you can revise offices, you can abandon offices,” counsel said, while explaining that some statutory or constitutional duties cannot be reassigned.

Board members pressed for clearer definitions in the survey — especially the distinction between “office” and “department” and whether questions refer to administrative (shared) functions such as HR and IT or to services provided to the public. Members also requested additional IT-related questions; one member asked departments to report how many dedicated IT staff they employ, whether IT staff are shared across offices and how difficult it is to hire qualified IT personnel.

On motions, the board voted by voice to ask Dr. Slagle to try to reduce the length of the draft survey and to incorporate the committee’s comments. The board then approved an amendment directing the consultant to incorporate the specific comments heard during the May 20 meeting. Separately, the board adopted a motion to remove two draft questions that the committee judged to be performance-evaluation items and to delete two bullet items ("improved performance tracking" and "leadership development") from the economy/efficiency section; the board also struck an open-ended interview question asking how performance evaluations could be strengthened. These edits were approved by voice vote.

The board emphasized that the survey should focus on structure, systems and functions rather than individual performance complaints, and agreed members will review the consultant’s redraft when it is returned to the committee. Chair Middleton asked members to continue submitting specific wording or additional short questions (the board noted four questions already submitted by Danny Bradley and three additional IT questions to be placed in the portal for Dr. Slagle).

The board also discussed logistics for collecting responses: staff said the county communications office can email surveys to current county employees (allowing verification of status) and that an abbreviated, voluntary employee survey could be used if the board wants broader staff input without burdening all employees with a long questionnaire.

The board’s decisions on the survey redraft are procedural directions to the consultant; they do not, by themselves, change any county code or statute.