County commissioners have unanimously agreed to support county administrator Jim Dyer.
The board, voted 7-0 during a special meeting Thursday morning, to provide a vote of confidence for him.
“I support the efforts of (Dyer) and appreciate our growing relationship with him,” District 5 commissioner Alan Campbell said. “I look forward to working with him in the future.”
Action was taken after an hour-long closed session to go over board member reviews of the administrator’s job performance during his 4-month tenure.
Board chairman Steve Yoder called for the review in July after criticism levied by commissioners and some from the general public regarding his candidacy for the board of Cherryland Electric Cooperative and concern about a plan to streamline affordable housing efforts.
Dyer’s performance review was broken into 10 categories: administration, leadership, initiative/commitment, problem solving/judgment, adaptability to change, planning/organization, professional presentation, public relations, financial knowledge and productivity. Commissioners were asked to assign a number, from 1 to 5 with 1 as unsatisfactory and 5 being “outstanding.”
He was given a composite score of 4.1 on a 5-point scale. His highest rating was 4.4 in professional presentation. However, he was also given high marks (4.3) in initiative/commitment, adaptability to change, and financial knowledge. Scores of 4.2 were awarded in problem solving/judgment and leadership.
Dyer was given a 4 out of 5 in public relations. His lowest scores of 3.7 and 3.8 were in administration and productivity.
And as interesting as the numbered review findings, and perhaps more telling, were commissioner comments in each category.
In administration, one commissioner opined “(Dyer) has done exactly what leaders must do when they begin a new job — listen a lot, learn about operations, meet with board members, meet staff, reach out to community and address emergency needs.”
However, another board member didn’t agree.
“… To gain a 3.0 rating — ‘consistently meets expectations’ does not seem appropriate,” the comment said. “In particular, the decision to unilaterally assume oversight of the county affordable housing program prior to informing the planning director, not informing all commissioners about personal decisions that edge toward violating terms of our contractual agreement come to mind.”
There was also a difference of opinion about productivity.
“Productivity has been curtailed by continue non-county activities,” a commissioner wrote. “I’m hopeful that he will concentrate on county budget and business.”
Another comment supported Dyer’s performance.
“(Dyer) works hard and puts in long hours. The first four months have been spent learning about the organization, consulting with department heads and elected officials and considering necessary change.”
Dyer requested the review presentation be conducted in closed session as allowed by law.
“I really considered having it done in open session. But figured commissioners could speak more candidly in closed session,” he said. “By no means am I suggesting that I want to hide anything… I’m proud of what I’ve done for the past four months.”
After the closed session, there was nothing but encouraging words for Dyer.
“I have full confidence in our administrator and we’ll continue moving forward with this,” commissioner Will Bunek said. “ Thank you for all you’ve done.”
District 6 commissioner Gwenne Allgaier heaped praise on Dyer, who began working for the county March 31,
“I support you and appreciate the skills that you have brought to us,” she said.
District 2 commissioner Mark Walter said communication is a “wonderful thing” and something the board and administrator should practice a little more.
In closing, Chairman Yoder had this to say:
“It’s a tough job and to have the tenacity you brought to get through it all… I can’t express the confidence I have in you as we negotiate this going into the future,” he said. “I appreciate you sticking it out and giving it your best effort I know you will.”
