Minutes of September 22, 2003 Meeting                                                         

Steering Group #4

Process Improvement Team II

 

Reviewed minutes from meeting of September 10, 2003.

 

Exit interview data:

·        How far back in time will Dianne provide data for?

·        The report regarding 24 people who left P&D between 1997 and 2000 could not be released due to confidentiality issues, but Joe will summarize it for us.  In addition, approximately 15 on-line survey responses were received from people who left P&D.

·        County-wide, employees are most likely to leave between 2 and 5 years.

·        We should look at the data regarding people who left P&D between 1997 and 2000, and people who have left since 2000, separately.  What general trends are there?

 

Note taker & Minutes:  Thank you to Marc for taking notes and preparing the minutes from the  September 10, 2003 meeting.  Tina to take notes and prepare minutes for today’s meeting.

 

P&D Survey Information:

• Lynn and Noah have coordinated and disseminated all the data, and have determined that about half of the suggestions from newer staff have been implemented already.
• Thank you to Noah for e-mailing data and documents, including the 9-page summary, regarding the Dev Rev survey. 
• What trends do the data show for 4 focal points (i.e. training, role of supervisor, recruitment, and staff retention and morale)?
• What level of detail do we want to attain from the data?
• Impression from newer staff that there really isn’t any structured training, but the individual supervising planner’s help is great.  However, consistency is an issue. 
• Lynn and Noah are working on a booklet for new employees.

 

Supervising Planners:

·        In the South County, there are about 5-6 Supervising Planners with 5-6 planners each.

·        In the North County, Supervising Planners do not only supervise planners, but other staff members (i.e. Building Technicians, Office Assistants, etc.).

·        Joe provided 2 documents to the group: (1) Job Description of Supervising Planner (1995), and  (2) Job Bulletin for Supervising Planners in both Dev Rev and Comprehensive Planning Divisions

·        Often, Supervising Planners have technical expertise, but lack important supervising skills (i.e. reviewing time sheets, mentoring, preparing evaluations, etc.).

·        City of Santa Barbara has “Project Planners” who manage larger projects and don’t supervise.

·        City of Santa Maria has Planner IIIs who function as either (1) project managers who don’t supervise, or (2) first line supervisors.

·        Option – Create a Planner IV job category.  Job would include managing large projects, but no supervising.  Issues – Similar pay scale as a Supervising Planner?

·        Supervisor’s Institute – Should we require recently promoted or hired Supervising Planners to attend this program within one year of obtaining the position.

 

There’s a need for a mentoring program.

 

 

 

Cause Analysis Worksheet (handed out):

• Decided to remain in larger group to discuss.
• There is a training wish list that was compiled in 2002.
• We need to provide all planners with all current policy documents and ordinances.
• Permit Procedures Manual is an important, useful tool.
• There are training videos available to planners.
• Can we obtain turnover data by division?  Have we left out anything significant?  In the report that covered 24 people who left between 1997 and 2000, some people said what division they were in and some didn’t.  Who would be best to ask about this in the department?
• Currently focusing on Dev Rev, but the work we do may apply to other divisions within P&D.
• Lynn’s work is department-wide.
• Tracking training – General Services Department uses “Score card” program, and staff’s training is linked to their EPRs.
• What are the top 5 reasons why people have left the department, and generally, where are they going?

 

Potential Actions:

• Revise job description of Supervising Planner & analyze how Employee Performance Reviews (EPRs) are conducted. – Jan, Marc, Joe, and Alice to look into.  May propose language to make the job description and EPRs more effective.  Bill to provide group with 2 EPR formats.  Jan to provide “EPR” document from City of Santa Barbara, and Marc to provide “EPR” document from City of Santa Maria.
• Examine jobs and how they relate to one another (Technical and/or Supervisor/Manager). – Jan, Marc, Joe, and Alice to look into.  How do the jobs interrelate?  What kind of creative changes could we propose?
• Orientation, Training Curriculum, and Wish list. – Noah and Lynn working on.  Including on-the-job training.
• Proposed rotation of specialty assignments. – Goals are to avoid becoming stale, obtaining experience, and retaining employees.  Would planners focusing on geographic or other specialties benefit the process?  Should each planner have a variety of projects?  How does this affect planners’ learning curves?
• Market the Permit Procedures Manual. – Lynn, Noah, and Nicole to work on.  Launch, make it available to everyone (for example, Energy Division didn’t receive them), and print more.
• Data Analysis. – Lynn, Noah, Adrienne and Tina to work on.  Do we need to include the entire department in the survey regarding the Ministerial Permit Process, or is surveying Dev Rev enough?  Obtain exit interview data.  Does Ruth Reverdy have turnover data?  Summarize the key findings of the data we already have.
• Lynn’s update.

 

Board of Supervisors Report:  Our steering group expects to have information (i.e. recommendations?) to report to the Board of Supervisors by January, 2004.

 

Future Meetings:

• Wednesday, October 22, 2003 (12-2 PM) @ Santa Barbara Bank & Trust in Solvang
• Tuesday, November 18, 2003 (12-2 PM) @ Santa Barbara Bank & Trust in Solvang