Kane County board members spent much of the meeting on a training-style presentation about employee evaluations, where Professor Liberlo urged clear expectations, objective measures and consistent documentation.

"Employee evaluations, they're not just paperwork," Liberlo told the board, saying evaluations should help employees develop, clarify expectations and drive efficiency rather than serve as a surprise disciplinary tool. She said job descriptions should anchor evaluation criteria and that forms used by human resources will be circulated and are editable for department heads.

Liberlo walked the board through a 1-to-5 grading scale and stressed that a score of 3 "does not mean average" but rather indicates an employee has met expectations. "If someone is meeting all of your expectations, they are an excellent employee," she said. She urged that any score above or below 3 be supported by written examples and comments so employees understand why they received that rating.

Using a concrete example, Liberlo said some difficult but expected work — including managing complex funds — should not automatically be treated as "exceptional." "I manage the health insurance fund, $25,000,000 a year of county money," she said, to illustrate how routine but complicated duties can be properly scored as meeting expectations when performed well.

Board members asked how the county should set and align goals. Liberlo recommended committees set high-level goals while department heads develop subordinate, realistic SMART goals — specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timebound — and that goals be developed with department-head input so they are achievable given available resources.

The consultant advised using objective evidence in evaluations: self-assessments, key performance indicators (budget performance, claims trends), observations and cautious solicitation of partner feedback. She warned against soliciting vendor input because of potential conflict-of-interest concerns and said 360-degree evaluations can be useful for healthy teams but are not generally recommended as part of standard annual reviews.

Members pressed on process questions: whether compensation adjustments should be attached to evaluations, how job-description changes are handled, and who should deliver evaluation feedback. Liberlo said compensation policy remains a board decision and that evaluation results should inform pay discussions but do not themselves set salary. She said job-description changes historically have been made through board resolution.

A central point of debate among members was delivery of evaluation feedback. Some members favored a single designee — or a one-on-one meeting — to present the written evaluation to a department head, citing concerns about intimidation and mixed messages. Others argued full-committee participation would expose directors to more perspectives and deepen understanding of departmental priorities. Liberlo cautioned that sending multiple designees can create Open Meetings Act issues and recommended a single designee to deliver predetermined written feedback to avoid procedural risk.

Before adjourning, Liberlo agreed to send the evaluation form, the presentation slides and a calendar of department-head anniversary dates to the board. Chair Surgess confirmed no votes were taken at the session and declared the meeting adjourned.