|
|
|
|
FAIR HOUSING
ADVISORY COMMISSION
|
AUGUST 15, 2005
ATTENDANCE: Rev. Jeffrey Ingraham, Chairman; Mary Corcoran; Lori Torrano; Heather Rodin; Bernadine Tatem; Cesar Ramirez
STAFF: Margaret Suib, Fair Housing Officer
OTHERS:
I. CALL TO ORDER
Rev. Ingraham called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF JUNE 13, 2005 AND AUGUST 8, 2005 MINUTES
The following changes to the minutes of June 13, 2005 should be noted:
Page 2, paragraph 1, 4th sentence, change the word “build” to “built.”
Page 4, paragraph 1, change spelling of “Burrett” to “Burritt.”
Page 4, paragraph 3, 4th sentence, change “Housing Act law” to “State Building
Code.”
Page 4, paragraph 3, 5th sentence, insert the word “Federal” in front of “law.”
Page 5, paragraph 1, 3rd sentence, insert “such an organization exists” after
“that.”
Page 6, paragraph 3, 14th sentence should read, “Ms. Suib stated that she probably
would have an issue…”
** MS. RODIN MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 2005 AS CORRECTED.
** MS. TATEM SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The following corrections to the minutes of August 8, 2005 should be noted:
Page 1, under “Attendance,” delete Cesare Ramirez from list.
Page 1, paragraph 2, delete entire paragraph.
Page 1, paragraph 3, sentence should read, “…resulting in a lack of a sufficient
quorum to do a performance evaluation.”
Page 1, bottom of page, delete entire sentence concerning Officer Ramirez.
** MS. CORCORAN MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 8, 2005 AS CORRECTED.
** MS. RODIN SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
III. FAIR HOUSING OFFICER’S JOB EVALUATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005
Rev. Ingraham directed the Commission to the evaluation instrument that had been mailed to the members and asked that they go through the items one by one and to be as thorough and expeditious as possible with their comments and recommendations. He noted that there would be some items in the document that were not applicable for this evaluation. Rev. Ingraham asked if anyone had questions to raise before proceeding. Ms. Torrano asked who would be the secretary for the Commission during the evaluation. Ms. Rodin agreed to act as secretary.
Rev. Ingraham asked Ms. Suib if there were any remarks she would like to make before the Commission continued with the evaluation. He reminded the Commission that Ms. Suib does not comment during the evaluation and that it is his responsibility as Chairman to present the evaluation to Ms. Suib and receive her response. Ms. Suib responded that since the Commission had never done this before, it was somewhat difficult to anticipate what she might have to say about anything but at the moment she had no comment.
Rev. Ingraham asked the Commission if they would like to make comments before proceeding. Mr. Ramirez said that he would like it noted that in the few months he has been on the Commission he has found Ms. Suib’s performance to be excellent.
THE EVALUATION INSTRUMENT
PART 1
Category 1: Performance of Job Skills
1a) The employee’s quality of work.
Rev. Ingraham asked the members to be spontaneous with their response. Ms.
Torrano said that she felt Ms. Suib had exceeded expectations in the performance
of her job skills. Ms. Rodin agreed. Ms. Torrano said the quality of Ms. Suib’s
work exceeds expectations. Ms. Tatem and Mr. Ramirez agreed. After a discussion
the Commission agreed that Ms. Suib meets and exceeds expectations in this area.
1b) The employee’s quantity of work.
Ms. Rodin was concerned that there was a lack of in-person interviews and ongoing
cases. Ms. Torrano said that there just isn’t a lot of volume because there
isn’t a huge call level or a lot of activity. She said the nature of the kinds
of cases that are being brought forward is not the same as it has been in the
last few years since there is a greater level of awareness of Fair Housing guidelines
and the type
of work isn’t the same any longer. Ms. Tatem wondered if Ms. Suib should be advertising her presence in a more direct way to attract more cases. Ms. Rodin said that outreach was a different question than this, that this particular question was concerning the output of Ms. Suib’s work for the Commission. After a brief discussion the Commission determined that Ms. Suib meets and exceeds expectations in this area.
Rev. Ingraham said that for the future the Commission should put some emphasis on the question of outreach. Ms. Corcoran agreed, saying that they have discussed outreach many times, and the Commission agreed to add this question to the evaluation for the following year.
1c) The employee’s work is accurate.
The Commission agreed with Ms. Torrano who said that as an overall rating, the
work is accurate and meets expectations. Ms. Torrano said that Ms. Suib usually
proofs the Commission’s work and points out errors and typos.
1d) The employee’s job skills match the position.
After a short discussion the Commission agreed that Ms. Suib’s job skills meet
and exceed expectations in this area.
1e) The employee takes full advantage of on the job training opportunities.
The Commission agreed that Ms. Suib exceeds expectations in this area.
1f) The employee anticipates jobs that need to be done and does them.
The Commission agreed that Ms. Suib meets expectations in this area.
1g) The employee has a positive relationship with the FHAC.
Ms. Tatem commented that when the Commission asks Ms. Suib to do something,
Ms. Suib gets very offended at times which was uncalled for. Ms. Torrano said
that if the Commission was going to determine that Ms. Suib meets expectations
then some comment is appropriate, because they should be clear about their perceptions
for the record. She felt it was in everyone’s best interests to come up with
what they really mean when they say it. Ms. Torrano said that, for her part,
while the quality of Ms. Suib’s work exceeds expectations and she has great
qualifications for the position, Ms. Suib has repeatedly displays a negativity
toward the Commission, either disregard for what they’re working for or it comes
across as insubordination or lack of respect for the role the Commission plays,
and that it has been a very difficult relationship at times. She said at times
it’s been discourteous.
Ms. Tatem said she agreed with Ms. Torrano and was not willing to say Ms. Suib’s performance exceeds expectations, she felt it needs improvement. Rev. Ingraham said the only thing that troubles him with what Ms. Torrano said was the whole issue of lack of respect as it is such a subjective statement, he would rather go with a statement of insubordination. Ms. Torrano said that she would go with however the Commission decided to word their comments but having sat on other commissions it was apparent to her that the relationship between this Commission and Ms. Suib was difficult. She felt that the word insubordination might be too strong a word. Ms. Tatem said that anytime an employee raises their voice at their supposed boss, she felt it was insubordination.
Ms. Rodin said she would rather go with Ms. Torrano’s wording of lack of respect. She said she did feel that there were many times where Ms. Suib has come across as not respecting the Commission, and she would say a lack of respect is the way to word it. Ms. Corcoran said her perception was that Ms. Suib has been hostile and angry toward the Commission at times when the Commission has raised a question and Ms. Suib snaps back and she felt that straight through.
Mr. Rivera said he has only been on the Commission for the last several months but he wondered if in any way this has been a two-way street. Ms. Rodin said that his comment merited some discussion but that sort of discussion was not necessary at this point, that what the Commission was trying to get at was what the Commission was going to do about it. Mr. Rivera said that the reason why he made the comment is that if the Commission wanted to see improvement in this area but has not given Ms. Suib a chance to make improvement within her relationship with the Commission, then it needed discussion. Rev. Ingraham said that after the evaluation is done it will be presented to Ms. Suib who will then have the opportunity to discuss the findings with the Commission.
The Commission found that at times Ms. Suib could get defensive, that they repeatedly experienced displays of negativity toward the Commission which sometimes comes across as lack of respect, and as being hostile and impudent.
1i) The employee practices safety on the job.
The Commission agreed that this item is not applicable at this time.
1j) The employee is a self-starter.
Ms. Tatem felt this item was not applicable as there was no way the Commission could know this. Ms. Torrano felt that it did apply and said she thinks of the things that Ms. Suib has done, she takes the next step before coming to the Commission, such as going out and looking at projects. Ms. Torrano felt that the Commission doesn’t sit there telling Ms. Suib each step of a project before Ms. Suib does it, that Ms. Suib is able to move ahead and not wait to be told what to do. Ms. Tatem said she felt the question was addressed more to Ms. Suib’s performance in an office and not in how she took on projects from the Commission. Rev. Ingraham said that the question did have some bearing and said that he thought Ms. Torrano’s point was that Ms. Suib doesn’t have to wait around for the Commission to tell her what to do.
Ms. Rodin read the definition of the statement from the evaluation form and suggested crossing out the last sentence in the definition and adding “…but doesn’t have to be told what to do and when to do it.” Ms. Rodin said her feeling was that Ms. Suib certainly meets expectations as far as work for the Commission is concerned. The Commission agreed with Ms. Rodin and determined that Ms. Suib meets expectations in this area.
1k) The employee works to help the organization function better.
Ms. Rodin read the definition from the evaluation form and asked the Commission if they should make changes in the wording or find it not applicable. After some discussion the Commission agreed to change the word “organization” to “FHAC” and deleted the third sentence in the definition in its entirety. After the changes made, the Commission determined that Ms. Suib meets expectations in this area.
1l) The employee works cooperatively with others.
Ms. Torrano said that she felt on the one hand that if there are tasks and projects that the Commission specifically asks Ms. Suib to do, she will do them, and Ms. Torrano didn’t feel that Ms. Suib does a shoddy job, she does them well. However, she felt that this question goes past that and focuses on the attitude and the spirit in which things are done, and it is subjective as it is their perception, but overall there is a feeling that what gets displayed is a feeling of autonomy and separateness from the Commission, so she feels, based on her own observations, that Ms. Suib sees herself not as working for the Commission but as a peer with the Commission.
Ms. Rodin clarified Ms. Torrano’s comments for the record and said that Ms. Suib really does not see herself in the role of staff to the Commission. Ms. Torrano
agreed, saying not in the traditional sense. Ms. Torrano said that this question was not about how they think Ms. Suib thinks, but about the Commission’s perception of what they see, so the Commission doesn’t really feel a commitment or sense a willingness to take direction from or accept the authority of the Commission easily. The Commission agreed that there is no feeling on the part of the Fair Housing Advisory Commission that there is a commitment on the part of the Fair Housing Officer to the Commission and that she is not willing to take direction or to accept the authority.
Ms. Torrano said she felt the statement was too strong, as Ms. Suib will take some direction and she has not seen a flat-out refusal to do something, but that the hierarchy doesn’t seem to be there. Ms. Torrano said they have heard repeatedly that Ms. Suib doesn’t work for the Commission, she works for the Redevelopment Agency, so how do they express this question as it is the essence of a lot of the dysfunction and the roles are confused. Ms. Rodin said the basic thing is, the employee values working for the FHAC and looks for ways to improve what the FHAC does, that is basically what they are responding to. Ms. Rodin said that they do not feel that Ms. Suib values working for the Commission.
Ms. Torrano said it was important that if they were going to make that comment then they need to show some reason why they think this, and what pops into her mind was the independent work product that Ms. Suib will come out with apart from the Commission and that Ms. Suib has a perception that it is okay to do that. Ms. Torrano said she didn’t know, maybe it was okay based on Ms. Suib’s definition of the consent decree, but in terms of how this Commission functions, it is the Commission’s understanding that she can’t be doing that, that Ms. Suib is staff to the Commission and it is the Commission that issues the work product, not the Fair Housing Officer independent of the Commission. Ms. Tatem agreed, saying that Ms. Suib does a report that she says is “her” report, the Commission has no input and if they disagree with something in it, Ms. Suib says it is her report and the consent decree says she has to write a report each year. Ms. Tatem says that’s where they fall apart on the question.
The Commission reworded the comment so it read that there is a need for the Fair Housing Officer to recognize and work cooperatively with the Commission as a staff person. After further discussion the Commission determined that Ms. Suib needs improvement in this area.
Category 2: Personal Qualities
2a) The employee is enthusiastic about Fair Housing.
After a short discussion the Commission determined that Ms. Suib exceeds expectations in this area.
2b) The Commission agreed that this item is not applicable at this time.
2c) The employee accepts responsibility.
Ms. Torrano said there was a real difference of opinion on this item. She said
there was a real bifurcation because on the one hand, the work product by itself
in general is something that Ms. Suib does well and is open to correction and
change on, but then there are other times where there is a definite digging
in that happens, there is a feeling of not budging. Ms. Rodin said that what
Ms. Torrano said was a perfectly valid comment. The Commission determined that
Ms. Suib needs improvement in this area.
2d) The employee demonstrates integrity, self-worthiness and tolerance.
The Commission agreed to remove the last line in the definition paragraph and determined that Ms. Suib meets expectations in this area.
The Commission determined that questions 2e through 2g were not applicable in this instance.
2h) The employee handles change well and is flexible.
After brief discussion, the Commission agreed that while Ms. Suib is flexible in some matters, there are occasions when she is highly resistant to the Commission’s requests for changes. The Commission determined that Ms. Suib needs improvement in this area.
Category 3: Relations to Co-workers and Organization
After a short discussion the Commission deemed this section as not applicable at this time.
Category 4: Relationship to the Public.
4a) The employee is courteous to others.
Ms. Corcoran said that she feels Ms. Suib goes out of her way to empathize and assist clients on the phone. The Commission determined that Ms. Suib exceeds expectations in this area.
4b) The employee helps to meet the needs of clients by providing service.
The Commission determined that Ms. Suib’s performance in this area was very
good.
PART 11
Rev. Ingraham stated that it was not necessary to respond to these items if they thought the responses in previous areas adequately covered the employee’s performance. Ms. Torrano suggested that if they think they are going to respond to the questions, they should take five minutes to think about how to express their answers.
1) What are the major areas in which the employee has performed well that are not adequately reflected in Part I of this evaluation?
Ms. Rodin said she had a very quick point for this item. She said the evaluation document does not address Ms. Suib’s writing skills which are excellent; also it does not address the few times she’s seen Ms. Suib at public meetings and when she spoke in front of the Human Relations Commission Task Force she did an absolutely superb job as far as presentation. Ms. Corcoran said Ms. Suib’s preparation, presentation and subject matter are excellent. Ms. Torrano said that Ms. Suib really displays a passion for her job, she stays on top of the current trends and changing laws and has a real interest for her work and her field.
2) In what area(s), not covered in Part I of this evaluation form, does the employer need to improve performance?
Rev. Ingraham said the sentiment is, the issue is not so much in performance per se, but the issue is attitude and perception of being adversarial. Ms. Torrano said the working relationship needs improving. She also said that while the Commission has tremendous working relationship with Ms. Suib, her willingness to accept criticism and attitude needs improvement. The Commission as a whole agreed with these statements.
3) What are the unique features of the employee's job that need to be mentioned?
The Commission agreed that Ms. Suib’s self-motivation was superb.
Rev. Ingraham asked if any of the Commissioners had a strong compulsion to go over the document again. He stated that his office would take responsibility for typing up the responses and getting a copy to Ms. Suib.
Rev. Ingraham said the Commission would table the rest of their business for the evening.
** MS. CORCORAN MOVED TO TABLE THE REMAINDER OF THE AGENDA FOR THE EVENING.
** MS. TORRANO SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT
** OFFICER RAMIREZ MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
** MS. TORRANO SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda J. Hayes
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |