Evaluation disclosure leads to Thiede outburst

The summary of a performance evaluation led to what Commissioner Paul Thiede self-described as a tirade.

At issue at Tuesday's Crow Wing County Board meeting, was Tim Houle's performance evaluation.

Once a performance evaluation is completed, often behind closed doors, public bodies are required to provide a summary of conclusions. In the past, Crow Wing County typically summarized the evaluation with a "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" response.

A Minnesota Department of Administration Advisory Opinion, looking at the requirements of the state's Open Meeting Law, concluded the law clearly indicates "the governing body ought to summarize each salient point of the evaluation so that the public is given the opportunity to get the best possible sense of the performance - good, bad or indifferent - of the public employee."

The Dispatch requested the evaluation summary, citing the advisory opinions. Houle further researched the issue with the Minnesota Attorney General's office, other counties and the Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust. Houle said it just happened to all coincide with his own review and the county is trying to settle on a standard form. Tamra Laska, human resources director, then provided a summary of points in the evaluation for Tuesday's meeting.

Thiede questioned why the document was before the board, saying he wanted Laska to explain step by step how the summary document appeared before the board.

"I want to express just an absolute outrage," Thiede said. "We are in a state that is facing a $6 to $7 billion deficit and now I find out we not only have a department of administration but we also have the attorney general who is looking at us and saying that they are going to dictate to us and monitor to us the wording on how we evaluate our employees. How stupid do they think we are?"

Thiede said employees have the right to be evaluated outside of the public eye. Laska said the county is not required to perform evaluations, but does so as an appropriate way to manage the organization. Once the decision is made to do the evaluations, the employee may decide to have the evaluation in open session. The county is required by law to provide a written summary of the session at its next meeting.

Thiede said there was no case law requiring it and it was based on opinions. Later, Thiede said he'd prefer to just say satisfactory following the review. For the state to waste its time requiring a summary and dictating to the county was pathetic and beyond the pale, Thiede said.

"I need to clarify in my own mind the origin of your fit," said Commissioner Rachel Reabe Nystrom. "Do you have a problem with the content of this or is it the fact that someone has dictated?"

Nystrom said as she read the report she thought it was a nice job of summarization.

Thiede said the problem was someone dictating to the board how it will do its evaluations.

"I don't want someone telling me I have to have this on file," Thiede said.

Nystrom said: "But as a former journalist, as you are, I personally as a resident of this county - who is paying the freight for our administrator, as well as everybody else and us - I would appreciate the chance to look at what was discussed in closed session. I have no problem with this at all. I think this is great. ... I think this serves the public."

Thiede said he sees no reason to put forth a sanitized version of what an employee didn't want out in the public just because of the opinion of the department of administration. Once the board chooses to do a performance review, Houle said the law requires a summary of the outcome and it doesn't hinge on whether an employee had the review in closed or open session.

Laska said the county can work on the format, potentially one that is more abbreviated, that the board is comfortable with.

Thiede said it's the state telling the county they don't have the sense to evaluate employees unless a dictated form is used. Nystrom said there are some public officials who don't serve the people because they don't want to release any information.

Thiede said the county is effectively talking to and evaluating employees. This is the state saying the county is not doing a good enough job, Thiede said. Nystrom said that made absolutely no sense.

The board approved the summary with Thiede opposed.

Chairman Phil Trusty said he did not want this discussion to get the board away from doing reviews.

Thiede said if the county had to be taken to court and be fined to force the county to do it, he guessed they had to do that sometime.

"I will not go to jail with you," Nystrom said, getting laughs from the audience. Lost in the discussion, Nystrom said, was the review that said Houle was doing a great job.

The review praised Houle for strong and innovative leadership with specifics of the creation of electronic board packets to replace paper, video-taped meetings and improved customer service.

RENEE RICHARDSON may be reached at renee.richardson@brainerddispatch.com or 855-5852.