Committee votes to give standing committees responsibility for department head evaluations, sparking debate over chair's role

The Kane County Human Services Committee voted Oct. 15 to ask that county code section 2.48 be amended so standing committees perform regular performance evaluations of department heads, clarifying an area committee members described as ambiguous.

The ordinance motion, presented by John (identified in the record as moving the ordinance) and seconded by Cliff, directs that department heads be evaluated by the standing committee with jurisdiction rather than leaving the practice undefined. "The attempt of this committee ' you know ' is to clean up where needed," a committee member said, arguing the move would remove ambiguity.

Committee debate was lengthy. Some members argued that evaluations should be done by the full committee of which the department head is part so multiple committee voices weigh in; others urged the involvement of the county board chair as a helpful point of contact because the chair frequently fields day-to-day operational calls. Deb, a committee member, said the chair's perspective can provide "vital information" because the chair often is the point person for constituents and operational incidents; another member, Michael, cautioned that vesting additional authority in the chair risks centralizing power, calling it "the camel's nose under the tent" in the committee record.

Supporters said the change simply formalizes a process so evaluations happen on a consistent schedule; staff said the implementing procedures (forms, timing and process) would be set later by resolution. Jamie said the ordinance would not change hiring, firing or salary authority, which remain with the full county board.

John moved the ordinance to amend section 2.48; Cliff seconded. The committee voted in favor; recorded aye votes in the transcript included Garcia, Greipe, Lewis, Tarver, Linder and Serges. The motion passed and will proceed to the full board for readings required by ordinance rules.

Next steps: staff will draft the implementing resolution that defines the evaluation form, timing (annual or anniversary-based) and the process for committee members to submit feedback; that resolution will return to the committee and then to the full board for final adoption.