Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board evaluates county engineer; engineers and supervisors trade praise and criticism in lengthy review
Summary
Supervisors delivered mixed evaluations of the county engineer, praising technical competence and project delivery but raising concerns about demeanor, communications and staff relations; the engineer defended use of engineering judgment and said his door is open.
Kossuth County supervisors completed a formal evaluation of the county engineer, leading to a lengthy exchange in which board members praised technical competence and project delivery while raising concerns about interpersonal communication and how routine matters are handled in public meetings.
Multiple supervisors said the engineer is organized, completes plans and reports on time and provides useful technical information for road and drainage projects. Kyle and others complimented project delivery and attention to technical detail. At the same time, supervisors said the engineer’s demeanor in the boardroom and responses to individual supervisors or members of the public have, at times, strained relationships; several asked for more collegial communication and follow‑up when disputes arise.
Doug (the county engineer) responded that engineering judgment sometimes requires refusing or modifying a requested approach; he said that is often perceived as negative, and that he is open to discussion and will check on matters raised in the meeting — including a complaint about staff card playing in the shop. He said "My door is always open" and encouraged supervisors to seek the secondary‑roads perspective before raising concerns publicly.
No formal action was taken; the evaluation was conducted in open session with an option for a closed session if either party requested it. Supervisors asked for continued efforts to improve communications and indicated appreciation for the engineer's technical work.
