HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmployee Survey-Part Two
Summary
Employee Survey: City Charter Issues
Parks Department
City Recorder and Judge
Total responses: 47 (17% response)
The city employee survey was administered to all employees in March-April, 2005 as part of an
effort by the City Charter Review Committee to assess the potential impacts of proposed
charter changes. The first set of findings, addressing city structure, was issued earlier this
month. This document contains the results for questions that addressed the city Parks
Department and the election of Judge and City Recorder.
Questions regarding these findings or the survey in general should be addressed to Pam Marsh,
482-4742, marshp@students.sou.edu.
II. Does the (Parks) Department’s independence affect your status as a city employee in
any way? Do you believe that the current arrangement helps, hinders, or does not
affect your work?
Fifty percent of respondents reported that the independent operation of the Parks
Department has little or no affect on their day-to-day work life. The remaining
respondents split almost evenly between the viewpoint that the current organization
helps (8 responses) or hinders (9 responses) city operations. Eight respondents were
uncertain or failed to answer the question. Specific comments are included below.
?(Park Department’s independence) is confusing, often causing conflict and costing
more. It hinders work, confuses most on who does what and how the citizens’ tax
dollars are to be spread. The commission Board should just be a committee.
? Sometimes I feel that it hinders my work…they have had a different system of
hiring than the city…I feel that Parks, HR, and the accounting department should be
looked at. HR might be able to help with the benefit packets and hiring and bring
the information closer to the accounting group.
? I’m an employee who is directly affected by this set up and am extremely pleased
with the current system. It helps that the Parks Commission is a separately elected
body that oversees the work/mission of the Department. Great checks and balances
system.
? It makes it more difficult to get cooperation sometimes. We aren’t all singing off
the same sheet of music.
? It is curious to me that Parks is administered separately. Why?
? The Parks Department can make its own rules regarding Parks in Ashland and these
rules are different or not included in the municipal code (hinders). They also have
their own personnel code (duplication of effort). However, I think our many parks
are better managed under the current arrangement. The city council already has
enough on its plate.
? Helps the Parks Department not get bogged down with other city council problems.
1
? There is no compelling reason to have Parks as an independent department.
? Parks employees have the same privileges but are not held to the same standards as
other city employees. Parks purchases items without using bid or quote process
other employees must use. I am asked why Parks acts so independently and must
explain Parks Commission status to citizens.
? I would like the city to have more oversight of Parks as it does of other departments.
? It helps to be independent under current management.
? Department employees are more supported by the Parks Commission than
employees are supported by the council. By supported, I mean that park employees
are not bashed by the commission during public meetings; they generally leave the
management of employees to the Director. Some councilors try to position
themselves in a better light by blaming staff…I haven’t heard of that happening in
Parks.
? The autonomy of the department is good for the city in general and provides me
(parks employee) with my own sense of autonomy. We work closely with other
departments when needed. For the most part there is inter-cooperation with other
departments. I believe change in this arrangement could decrease Parks Department
efficiency. I believe the Parks Commission work and responsibility is considerable
and a change would add a burden to the city council.
? I believe it helps my work greatly, and that the Parks Commission is doing a good
job of handling the vastly immense amount of issues, projects, policies that Parks
and Recreation Department has to deal with. It is still working well.
? Place Parks under the city like any other department. Parks spends over $6 million
a year to water and mow grass. It would be cheaper to privatize park maintenance.
Or at the very least share the workload with other city departments.
III.From your perspective, does the election of one or both of these city officials (Judge
and City Recorder) affect city operations in any significant way? Do you believe that
the current arrangement helps, hinders, or does not affect your work?
Twenty respondents said that they were unaffected by the election of either the Judge or
Recorder; 10 stated that the current arrangement helps them in their work, and 9
reported that it hinders. Eight failed/declined to answer or were uncertain. Specific
comments included:
? The Judge’s responsibilities to operations of the Municipal Court office confuses
staff in operational issues. The Recorder’s role in daily operations is often
disruptive. Their elected status gets in the way of managing operations.
Outsourcing the courts should be considered. The Recorder could be an appointed
position, responsible to the city manager. If elected the Recorder should report to
the city council and should not manage banking and treasury functions.
? I feel that they affect the way some city policies are run…by elections some
qualification might be overlooked.
? It (election) gives voting citizens the opportunity to choose instead of the alternative
(which would inhibit citizen involvement). Judge and Recorder are accountable to a
greater number of people with the present system.
2
? It is sometimes counterproductive having an elected official functioning as “staff”
but clearly not “staff.” It tends to hinder coordination.
? You want people in these two positions to answer to the citizens of Ashland.
Citizens need an advocate to explain and try to resolve conflicts.
? We do not need an elected city recorder. Huge duplication of tasks And city does
not need to pay this position $31 per hour plus an assistant.
? Election of these officials may open the door to allow a candidate with little or no
qualifications or capabilities to assume a high level role in the city.
? System tends to confuse on who controls what. Maybe work is done by two people
when one would be enough.
? Both should remain elected officials.
? They should be employees – at least the City Recorder should. When election time
rolls around, the Recorder interferes with the normal functions of the departments.
? City Recorder should be hired by city manager.
? Due to interaction with both positions in the past it has hindered my work in
operations – especially when either gives direction to staff without going through
administration.
? As a voting resident of Ashland I believe that both officials should be elected. The
Recorder’s position has been elected forever and has operated very efficiently.
? It seems strange that a city employee with full and complete benefits and payroll
status should be an elected position. I think that the Recorder position should be
hired.
? Elected officials are more accountable to the people, and maybe a better situation
for city operations and the citizens. The Recorder has been very helpful and is
doing a great job.
? I believe that there is a strong argument to be made that an elected Recorder can
serve as an ombudsman and is perceived as more open and neutral whereas a hired
employee is seen as serving whatever agenda the city may have. While I realize that
this arrangement is fairly unique…I think it is a reflection of just how unique
Ashland and its citizens are…it does help a certain constituency…feel that they
have more open access to city records and information than they would have were
the Recorder hired or appointed.
? In regard to the Judge, the current arrangement…is helpful in that the public
chooses a person who, potentially, affects individual freedom. … I like the idea that
this person’s decisions may reflect those of his/her constituency.
? Leave the Judge position to the voters. All the Recorder really does is photocopy
requested public records. With the advent of computers and the Internet, public
records can be accessible…There’s no reason the “Clerk” position can’t be a staff
position.
? I don’t know if I’d know the Judge if I saw him on the street. I know that he only
works on Tuesday for a few hours and makes $42,000 per year. Seems like an
awful lot of money when other departments who need staff and can’t get any help
because “it’s not in the budget.” Seems like something that could be contracted out.
? An elected Recorder definitely affects city operations. The Recorder does not have
to check in with or cooperate with anyone. The recorder can decide what she wants
to do and go ahead and do it regardless of consequences. …. I’m not sure what she
3
does…yet she is paid more than most other mid-managers who have specific skills
and education necessary to help run the city. I think the position is needed, but
don’t understand why it is an elected position. …It’s just a popularity contest and if
you win you make a nice salary. In addition, the Recorder has a dedicated full time
employee, which equals a department of two. Every department needs additional
staff and not a single department has a dedicated staff person for one person. Why
don’t we just advertise for a support staff position and pay that person an
appropriate salary…I don’t understand that within a system of checks and balances
there can be one person who runs amok and is not accountable to anyone.
4