Dane County ombuds reports low in‑person use, requests county mentor; committee to study office hours and survey plan

Diana, the contracted ombuds working with Dane County, told the Personnel and Finance Ombuds Subcommittee on June 10 that the office has logged 39 office visits year‑to‑date (29 unique visitors), seven facilitations or mediations and one training since opening to visitors in June 2024 and that the office’s workload is currently weighted toward management and availability rather than one‑on‑one appointments.

"Open office hours is accounting for a lot of the time, but we're not receiving any value out of that at this point," Diana said, describing an analysis she prepared that converts her time into standard consulting rates to illustrate where effort is going. Diana said she counted roughly 475 hours of active work on the contract since June 11, 2024 — excluding travel and some administrative tasks — and used internal rates of $250 per hour for prep/administration, $500 per hour for direct mediation or coaching, and a typical $2,000 minimum per training as a yardstick for estimating value.

Why it matters: the ombuds office is a county‑funded contract intended to provide confidential, neutral assistance to employees. The committee discussed whether the current mix of scheduled open office hours, onsite availability and virtual appointments is producing value commensurate with the contract and whether changes to hours or outreach could increase in‑person and appointment use.

Diana requested the committee help identify a county mentor — a non‑decisionmaker within county government who could introduce her to department leaders and other staff to increase outreach and scheduled appointments without undermining her neutrality. "I would like to request a mentor at the county," she said. She emphasized that any mentor should not be part of her ombuds work or have a role that could be perceived as taking away her neutrality (for example, someone who decides grievances).

Committee members responded that the request was reasonable and discussed possible candidates and offices to ask. Shannon Meyer (committee member and contract overseer, as discussed in the meeting) said she would hope Diana would feel comfortable coming to her and that the Department of Administration (DOA) staff could be a natural access point. Other members suggested equity office staff or administrative assistants who have cross‑department knowledge but not grievance authority. No formal mentor assignment was made; members asked for time to identify and approach potential mentors and encouraged Diana to submit a short written request describing desired mentor characteristics and expected time commitment.

The subcommittee also discussed the office hours model written into the contract. Diana said the contract includes a requirement for on‑site office hours and recalled that the county can require a minimum of "8 and a maximum of 14" hours per week; she said she would need to read the contract to confirm the exact terms. Committee members cautioned against eliminating on‑site hours entirely, arguing that even unused hours may be critical for someone in urgent need of an anonymous, in‑person visit.

To increase accessibility without violating building hours, Diana proposed maintaining scheduled daytime office hours while offering additional virtual or scheduled after‑hours appointments one evening per week (she mentioned the idea of extending availability on Wednesdays until 7 p.m. for scheduled virtual meetings). She said scheduled after‑hours meetings would not create a physical presence in the City‑County Building beyond permitted hours but would give employees an option for off‑work‑hour appointments.

Diana also outlined plans to collect visitor feedback and discussed survey design with the committee. She raised concerns about preserving visitor anonymity: survey responses could be subject to public records requests, and some visitors prefer not to leave any searchable trail. Committee members suggested batching survey responses and using anonymous distribution to reduce identifiability and urged Diana to include at least one quantitative referral question (a net promoter‑style question) plus optional open‑ended fields while making clear the confidentiality limits. Diana said she would avoid attaching names to survey responses and would consider sending batched requests covering a set of visits rather than immediate, individual follow‑ups.

No policy changes or contract amendments were adopted at the meeting. The subcommittee asked members to research potential mentor candidates and to return with recommendations; Diana said she would prepare a brief written request specifying mentor duties and time commitment. The committee and Diana agreed any substantive changes to office hours or other contract terms would be considered in light of the existing contract language and likely would not take effect before the contract renewal period (Diana referenced December/January timing).

Votes at a glance

- Approval of minutes: Motion to approve carried by voice vote; mover Shannon Meyer. Specific vote names and counts were not fully recorded in the transcript.

- Adjournment: Motion carried by voice; formal roll call not recorded in the transcript.

The subcommittee’s next regular meeting is scheduled for Aug. 12; Diana said she will continue outreach and follow up with a written mentor request and draft survey language for committee review.