Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVjera Stark letter 11.06.09 - harassment at work Vjera Stark 1 11/06/2010 Vjera Stark 2062 West Sacramento Ave Chico, CA 95973-9627 Butte County Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive, Suite 200 Qroville, CA 95965 11/06/2009 b Op ImsORs To: Mr. Bill Connelly Ms. Jane Dolan 0ROVlLLE,CALlFORNlA Ms. Maureen Kirk Mr. Steve Lambert Mr. Kim Yamaguchi Re: Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation expressed through Unjustfall Annual Performance Evaluation Report Dear Gentlemen and Gentlewomen, Respectful Members of the Board, With all my regret and sincere apology for having to write you again with the problems experiencing at my work place in Butte County DESS in Chico,I am enforced to do so. My intention is not to be difficult, or to ask for attention, or to complain towards people who deservedly cover their respectful positions. I need help in order to address, identify, and eventually,eliminate the abuse,harassment, marginalization,micromanagement, mismanagement,discrimination, and above all, retaliation for exercising my rights that I believe rightfidly belong to me as an employee. I am exposed to such work environment for so long time. I am well aware that putting my own problems in front of you may be understood as just an individual and small situation that does not deserve the high level attention. I strongly suggest that my problem is not just about me,but about the justice and legal system at large. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere can jeopardize the justice everywhere." I am sorry if my quotation is not precise to the last word,but the essential meaning is there. You will find enclosed my last Annual Performance Evaluation Report dated 1011212010, and my Rebuttal to the same Evaluation. I would like you to read my rebuttal, so you can see my detailed objections to this Annual Evaluation Report without repeating them here again. In Section A of this evaluation was noted that there are four areas of job performance requiring improvement. These areas are: Vjera Stark 2 11/06/2010 1. Employee Contacts 2. Accept Direction 3. Effectiveness Under Stress 4. Professionalism The basic conclusions of this evaluation were that: In Section C was noted that the two goals related to Employee Contacts, an element in Section A of the evaluation, were not met because "in the past few weeks you have returned to a more disruptive style of interaction with others within the Support Services Division', even though, "until recently you were demonstrated success in meeting both of these goals." Facts: I have not";returned to a more disruptive style of interaction with others within the Support Services Division." Simply,there was not disruptive style of interaction with "others"even thought they want to present it that way. Further in Section E, it was stated again, "As noted in Section C interactions with peers have been addressed on a number of occasions for the inappropriateness of the interaction and disruptive impact on co-workers." Facts: The Section C addresses the issues of two set goals from the previous evaluation, and it does not talk about the"interactions with peers [that] have been addresses on a number of occasions." In Section C states about"recent set backs in achieving related goals for the past review period....." Facts: There were no "recent set backs"in my behaviors as same as there were no "interactions with peers [that] have been addresses on a number of occasions,"and there was not"disruptive style of interaction with others within the Support Services Division." Simply,there is no plurality, or abundance, or numerous number of events for this evaluation period that this Annual Evaluation is addressing. Since EIP on February 12,2009,through Assessment ElP on August 5, 2009,when I successfully pass the EIP, and until August 18, 2010; which is an interval of 18 (eighteen) months,there was not one single interaction, or how management likes to call it "incident",that happened and that was ever addressed. It is needles to say that did not happen"on a number of occasions." No produced records about any of the alleged"disruptive style of interactions with others"during this evaluation period can support that. The predominant number of conclusions in this Annual Evaluation cannot be supported and documented by any written records. Vjera Stark 3 11/06/2010 In Section E,it was stated that"...due to the long history of required guidance and direction that goes back many years,recent unacceptable interactions carry great weight" The reasoning that"due to the long history of required guidance and direction that goes back many years"recent unacceptable interactions carry great weight,"raises the concern what information the management used to come to the desired rating in the Annual Evaluation. As far as I know,there is no"the long history of required guidance and direction that goes back many years..." County and their management signed off their"the long history of required guidance and direction..."by signing the agreement before the WCAB Administrative Judge Sala on March 27, 2007. At the same time,this agreement annulled any validity of the alleged conduct of mine that needed guidance and direction prior to this date. Prior to the date of April 29,2008,there is no substantiated written documentation about any of my so called questionable interactions with my peers. The Court's Minutes of Hearing and Order of Dismissal confirm County's pledge and agreement that: 4. The counter J11 not consider any actions or activities of the applicant for an ose s ecifieFilly including but not limited to disci)Iingg which took place prior to 16 March 2006" Considering that this settlement before the WCAB Court requires from both parties to honor it, that makes the statement of"the long history of required guidelines and direction that goes back many years"unsubstantiated,undocumented, and invalid. I strongly disapprove and reject this statement. I found this Annual Performance Report to be undocumented,unsubstantiated, contradictory in its conclusions, and not fitting to the facts and the truth. It is done in the manner of adverse action of discrimination and retaliation which is implemented upon me for some time. My department exercises upon me constant, consistent and continuous discrimination and retaliation against me for exercising my right to speak up openly about their actions to appropriate authorities. For so long time I have been portrayed by some in my department who are always telling one and the same single story about me. I have been labeled, stereotyped, always shown through some individual perceptions as not good enough. Those perceptions can be reality for those certain individuals, but those perceptions are not reality for a reasonable person's judgment,and they are not supported by facts and the truth. I have very good standing among our internal and external customers as a person who does exceptional work and customer service. My supervisors are the ones who always find something wrong done by me,but they are the ones who did to me everything wrong by the book of wrongdoing. They have shown me no respect,consideration, and due process, and also do everything to marginalize and Vi era Stark 4 11/06/2010 ignore my presence in functioning at my job to the point to disable me to attend the unit meetings held outside of the building. This happened on September 25,2010, in the morning when the entire unit went to breakfast outside of the building. Only one person from our unit stayed behind out of her own personal preferences,but I was never told that they are gone until I went to look for some of them. One entire area where my unit is stationed was abandoned. There were no signs at their desks to show where they were. I asked supervisor Homesley to tell me where the rest of my unit is. The same happened earlier on December 9, 2009, during Christmas celebration when they left me behind. They admitted the mistake and they sad it will not happen again. But it continued again. It is well known that when unit goes out of building for breakfast or lunch on County time(usually everyone has half an hour lunch and those outings lasts much longer) it has to be organized as unit meeting. So I have been screened out and denied basic rights to attend my unit meetings at those occasions. In my rebuttal to Annual Evaluation I asked my supervisors to revise this document and correct the parts that do not fit the truth. I especially, strongly object the discriminatory statement of my supervisors that"due to the long history of required guidance and direction that goes back many years,recent unacceptable interactions carry great weight." I reject this statement as unacceptable, invalid,unsubstantiated, and undocumented. I asked my supervisors to distance themselves from the same statement too. I asked them to show very clear and specific incidents that resulted into this rating for the areas of job performance requiring improvement,and to use more detailed and precise description of the incidents in"interactions with others,"rather then in general,or in"lump-sun" recaps of alleged reasons for needed improvement in the related areas. This would be important just for the sake of truth, fairness,and justice. Unfortunately,one event did happen in the last 20 months, or exactly on August 6, 2010, at 4:35 p.m. between supervisor Christine Homesley and me. I explained this event in detail in my rebuttal to this Evaluation. Please read my encounter of the event to better understand the entire story. This was a moment of very difficult and stressful day when I had hard time to multitask three different and for me all priority tasks. The fact that my supervisor was not at work to understand exactly what tasks she had required from me, forced me to deal with the supervisor who did not care what tasks I have to do, but required from me to do one task which she considered only priority. The fact that Ms. Kroepelin, Program Manager, and Ms. Kerr, Supervisor, interviewed me on August 10,2010,about the event and what happened that day did not make a difference. When the event was investigated and I was questioned about this day,there was a chance to find out that my response"done in such a manner as to give appearance of being argumentative"was not really argumentative. The statement that I"questioned the Supervisor"was only that I was asking for help from the supervisor to deal with the completion of all necessary tasks under very stressful circumstances, and in very short Vjera Stark 5 11/06/2010 interval of time before the end of the week. I knew our department gives protective and preferential treatment to some people who easily get stressed at work. I expected to be nothing less in my case. On the contrary,my supervisors showed a pattern of behavior and intent to jeopardize my working conditions by giving me additional assignments all of a sudden, and all the time. That particular week when this event happened,I was asked every day,always last minute, always after 4:30 p.m. or very close to 5:00 p.m.to go to Reception to do SFIS/fingerprinting. That happened on August 3,4, 5, and 6. There was no need to create last minute emergency and priority without having any concern for my essential job duty, especially when they knew that the woman who was doing fingerprinting leaves work at 4:00 p.m. The fact is there were so many days when this lady and I were only ones doing fingerprinting and none of us is employee from the Reception unit. She is not permanent County employee, but she is working for experience, and I am from the Accounting unit. It is obvious that the elements of stress that was playing role that day were not accepted. For that reason, I am surprised that there is a need for me to improve in the area Effectiveness under Stress. After investigated this event,my supervisors concluded,"It was demonstrated that you will place your own level of priority on your projects,"(Counseling Memo,August 18, 2010), or"You have acknowledged that you cannot stop pushing yourself to complete your personal work goals with the performance excellence. That at times interferes with meeting Department work priorities."(Annual Evaluation, October 12,2010). This initiated the new set of goals for improvement which are: 1. Prioritize Department work expectations over personal expectations. 2. You are to consistently place Department priorities before any others 3. Place Department priorities before your own. I am not objecting to these goals. I am just not sure they are necessary because for me there are no such things as"personal expectations, own priorities,or other priorities." During my entire work day and my entire work life,my only priorities are work/ Department priorities. There is not a single second of the County time during my work that is not dedicated to the Department needs and work priorities. I believe this is already well known throughout our Department. It makes me confused to learn that my completion of the"work goals with performance excellence""at times interferes with meeting Department work priorities." I always understood that the performance excellence goes hand-in-hand with the Department work priorities,and they do not interfere,but complement each other. I though that my work performance excellence can only enhance the Department goals,policies,mission and vision, and the reputation among the outside public. I also believe it is a testimony of my Vjera Stark 6 11/06/2010 work ethics,professionalism, dedication to my work,respect to our customers/clients, and loyalty to my employer,as well as the very solid foundation of the Department, as our Program Manager Ms. Kroepelin said in her recent article posted on the Intranet. Everything that I thought I was doing best and exemplary way for the last ten years and eight months working for Butte County DESS,all of a sudden is considered unprofessional. I am having pretty hard time to understand it after all this time. Respectful members of the board, It does not concern my supervisors what they are doing to me as long as they know I will have hard time to prove my case. I am addressing to you the above mentioned problems,hoping that you will be able to identify the issues and find possible solution to stop the practice that has been imposed upon me at my work place. Something definitely does not feel right,and I am pretty much exhausted by standing up for myself alone and with no help. I do not want to loose my job just because somebody decided to dislike my personality. Ido my job well, as even my Evaluations say,and there is no reason that I should feel fear of being fired. I believe there must be something one can do to correct inappropriate actions by my supervisors at Butte County DESS in Chico. There is no reason for County to treat people like they treat me. County would loose nothing if its supervisors treat their employees with dignity and respect too. Thank you for your understanding,time and consideration. Sincerely, Vjera Stark 0 llln6��ol0 Enclosures: Annual Performance Evaluation Report, 10/12/2010 Rebuttal to the Annual Performance Evaluation Report, 10/29/2010 Stark 1 10/29/2010 Vjera Stark 2062 West Sacramento Ave Chico, CA 95973 October 29,2010 To: Lisette Kroepelin,Program Manager DESS, Penny Kerr, Supervisor Cc: Sean Farrell, Assistant Director DESS Brian Ring,Director Butte County Human Resources Butte County Board of Supervisors Rudy Jenkins, Christina Foreman, BCEA Re: Rebuttal to the Annual Performance Evaluation Report of October 12, 2010 My last Annual Performance Evaluation Report that was due on 1010712010,was given to me five days later then it was supposed to,which I consider at least unusual. Every previous evaluation was done from two weeks to even entire month earlier then due date. In Section A of this evaluation was noted that there are four areas of Job performance requiring improvement. These areas are: I. Employee Contacts 2. Accept Direction 3. Effectiveness Under Stress 4. Professionalism In Section C was noted that the two goals related to Employee Contacts,an element in Section A of the evaluation,were not met because"in the past few weeks you have returned to a more disruptive style of interaction with others within the Support Services Division', even though,"until recently you were demonstrated success in meeting both of these goals." The fact is I have not"returned to a more disruptive style of interaction with others within the Support Services Division." There was not disruptive style of interaction with "others." Since EIP on February 12, 2009,through Assessment EIP on August 5,2009, when I successfully pass the EIP, and until August 18,2010,there was not one single event, or how management likes to call it"incident",that happened,that i was involved in or I was talked to about, and there was not personnel record produced that was related to any of the alleged"disruptive style of interactions with others"during this period. Further in Section E, it was stated again,"As noted in Section C interactions with peers have been addressed on a number of occasions for the inappropriateness of the interaction and disruptive impact on co-workers." Stark 2 10/29/2010 The fact is,the Section C addresses the issues of two set goals from the previous evaluation, and it does not talk about the"interactions with peers [that] have been addresses on a number of occasions." Again, since February 12,2009, until August 18, 2010,which is an interval of 18 (eighteen)months,there was not one single interaction that was addressed even on one occasion. It is needles to say that did not happen"on a number of occasions." No produced records about any interactions with peers can support that. In Section C states about"recent set backs in achieving related goals for the past review period....." There were no "recent set backs"in my behaviors as same as there were no"interactions with peers [that] have been addresses on a number of occasions,"and there was not "disruptive style of interaction with others within the Support Services Division." I would like to ask that these not precise and unsubstantiated facts related to my performance and contact with my peers be corrected. The way the mentioned"disruptive style of interaction withathers�'the"interactions with peers [that] have been addresses on a number of occasions,"and"recent set backs in achieving related goals..."were evaluated and rated does not fit the truth. Simply,there is no plurality, or abundance,or numerous number of events for this evaluation period that this Annual Evaluation is addressing. There was only one event that happened on August 6,2010, around 4:35 p.m.between me and Supervisor Christine Homesley. This event was addressed in the Counseling Memo dated August 18,2010. If you want to punish me for that single event, you may do so, but you have to say precisely so and let that single event carry an appropriate weight for the punishment. In Section E,it was stated that"...due to the long history of required guidance and direction that goes back many years, recent unacceptable interactions carry great weight." First, as I pointed out earlier,there were no"recent unacceptable interactions..." The one single interaction that happened between Supervisor Homesley and me on August 6, 2010,can carry great weight, if the management chooses so,but there was not any other single interaction for the last 18 months. Second,the reasoning that"due to the long history of required guidance and direction that goes back many years"recent unacceptable interactions carry great weight,raises the concern what information the management used to come to the desired rating in the Annual Evaluation. As far as I know,there is not"the long history of required guidance and direction that goes back many years..." County and their management signed off their"the long Stark 3 10/29/2010 history of required guidance and direction..."by signing the agreement before the WCAB Administrative Judge Sala on March 27,2007. At the same time,this agreement annulled any validity of the alleged conduct of mine that needed guidance and direction prior to this date. The Court's Minutes of Hearing and Order of Dismissal confirm County's pledge and agreement that: 4. The cojMty will not consider ggy actions or activities of the applicant for gpy Mose, specifically§pecifically including but not limited to disgiplinn which took place Lnor to 16 March 2006." Considering that this settlement before the WCAB Court requires from both parties to honor it, there is not"the long history of required guidelines and direction that goes back many years." I reject the above statement as unsubstantiated and undocumented. It is scary to see that County and its management are not holding to their words and legal obligations. It is even scarier to learn that the EIP did not have intention to make me improve but to bring me one step closer to progressive discipline. That shows there was not even a chance for improvement. The entire idea to take an employee through EIP, or at least this is the case with me,is to eliminate any margin of error for an employee from that point on, and to make even smallest things that have the legitimacy of happening at work,always carry great weight against the employee in question. I know very well what was done wrong against me. I see no reason that an employee with my work ethics,dedication,job skill,quality of work,and determination to carry on County policies,mission and vision,has to go through this fear mongering,hostile, and unfriendly work environment. There is no way that anyone can successfully survive it. Working under such circumstances is doomed to fail. Event on August 6 2010 at 4:35 p.m. The event which happened on August 6,2010, at 4:35 p.m.between supervisor Homesley and me was addressed in the Counseling Memo of August 18, 2010. This is the only event that happened in over 18 months,that according this evaluation, is described as "disruptive style of interactions with others.,""recent set backs in achieving related goals,""a number of occasions for the inappropriateness,"and"recent unacceptable interactions"that carry great weight. Unfortunately,this was a moment of very difficult and stressful day when I had hard time to multitask three different and all priority tasks. The fact that my supervisor was not at work to understand exactly what tasks she had required from me, I had to deal with the supervisor who required from me to do one task which considered only priority. The fact that Ms. Kroepelin and Ms. Kerr interviewed me on August 10, 2010,about the event and what happened that day,did not make a difference. Stark 4 10/29/2010 As I explained to them, I was working with my co-worker Hellena that afternoon until 4:30 p.m. on the enhancement of the Excel spreadsheet to track bus tickets in the Ca1WORKS inventory. This is the document that was in Section B -Record job strengths and superior performance incidents noted as"Recently you developed a grater enhanced user friendly spreadsheet to track bus tickets for the various areas involved. Thank you for taking the initiative to do this." I am praised in this Annual Evaluation for doing this task. But they totally ignored the circumstances under which I had to perform it. They are not mentioning the fact this was the task which performance caused for me such a stress level that day on August b,2010. They are using one same thing in two different ways which resulted in two opposing and contradictory decisions. I believe it is not right. My supervisor said she did not tell me this task was a priority to do. I agree. But as I told them,the truth is the priority of this task was never discussed at all. Note: The fact is that the enhancement of this spreadsheet involved the updates for the month of June,July and beginning of August 2010. This three months' period since the start of C-IV program,has shown that this task was long overdue. Usually this inventory log has to be done by the 2d of the 3`d of the Following month. Also, my co-worker Hellena had to send this finished inventory log to Program Manager Ken McKell(12'of August)because he requested the information about the bus pass/tickets distributions within C-IV. I was trying to explain that I worked on that task that afternoon because there was a time to do so whether it was priority or not. I said that I believe it was and still is my duty to plan and organize my work,use all my skills and knowledge, and manage my time the best I can in order to process all my tasks by Department standards and required deadlines. They simply interpreted this statement of mine as"It was demonstrated that you will place your own level of priority on your projects, " (Counseling Memo of August 18, 2010), or"You have acknowledged that you cannot stop pushing yourself to complete your personal work goals with the performance excellence. That at times interferes with meeting Department work priorities."(Annual Evaluation on October 12,2010). This interpretation was put into a set of goals for improvement which are: 1. Prioritize Department work expectations over personal expectations. 2. You are to consistently place Department priorities before any others 3. Place Department priorities before your own. I am not objecting to these goals. I am just not sure they are necessary for there are not for me such things as"personal expectations, own priorities, or other priorities." During my entire work day and my entire work life,my only priorities are work/Department Stark S 10/29/2010 priorities. There is not a single second of the County time that is not dedicated to the Department needs and priorities. I believe this is already well known in my Department. It makes me confused to learn that my completion of the"work goals with performance excellence" "at times interferes with meeting Department work priorities." I always understood that the performance excellence goes hand-in-hand with the Department work priorities,and they do not interfere, but complement each other. I though that my work performance excellence can only enhance the Department goals,policies,mission and vision, and the reputation among the outside public. I also believe it is a testimony of my work ethics,professionalism and loyalty to my employer, as well as the very solid foundation of the Department,as our Program Manager Ms. Kroepelin said in her recent article posted on the Intranet. On that ill-fated day on Friday,August 5, 2010, when Supervisor Homesley come to direct me with another priority assignment(SFIS), I just started to work on my second priority task,my self-evaluation that my supervisor requested from me to be completed by August 10,2010. There is a documentation to support this priority that I am talking about. My supervisor had to meet her deadline towards her Program Manager by August 31, 2010. Considering that I was scheduled that entire week to do SFIS every afternoon, and considering that I have a day off on next Monday, August 9,2010, I understood this task of doing self-evaluation was of high priority. Nothing about this task was ever mentioned in the Memo of August 18, 2010. It is obvious that my three highly prioritized tasks were the stressors which make me react the way I did that day. My supervisors did not accept any of the explanations that stressors were involved. It was just concluded that my"response was done in such a manner as to give the appearance of being argumentative,"and that I "questioned the Supervisor." When the event was investigated and I was questioned about this day,there was a chance to find out that my response"done in such a manner as to give appearance of being argumentative"was not really argumentative. The statement that I"questioned the Supervisor"was only that I was asking for help from the supervisor to deal with the completion of all necessary tasks under very stressful circumstances, and in very short interval of time before the end of the week. I knew our department gives protective and preferential treatment to people who easily get stressed at work. I expected to be nothing less in my case. It is obvious that the elements of stress that was playing role that clay were not accepted. For that reason, I am surprised that there is a need for me to improve in the area Effectiveness under Stress. Where this comes from? If the stress was not an issue this day, and the stress was never discussed with me,then the needed improvement in the area of the effectiveness under stress has no place in this evaluation. There was never any notation related to the stress issue that would result in such performance evaluation. Stark b 10/29/2010 As I pointed above,there are some discrepancies and contradictory assessments that are noted in this Annual Performance Evaluation Report. I would like to ask you to revise this document and make very clear and specific incidents that resulted into this rating for the areas of job performance requiring improvement. I would like to ask you to use more detailed and precise description of the incidents in"interactions with others,"rather then in general, or in"lump-sum"recaps of alleged reasons for needed improvement in the related areas. I especially, strongly object your discriminatory statement that"due to the long history of required guidance and direction that goes back many years,recent unacceptable interactions carry great weight." I reject this statement as unacceptable,invalid, unsubstantiated,and undocumented. I would like to ask you to distance yourself from the same statement too. I hope you will understand my reason and legitimate right to ask you to do so. I also hope you will give me the response to my requests and clarify the parts that are confusing, contradictory, conflicted, and unrelated to the facts and truth. Thank you for you understanding,time and consideration. Sincerely, Vjera Stark v �' AultIn 29'��1 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT (Use fnlc,typewriter,or computer for final marlangs) Empldyee Name: STARK,Vjera Employee Number: 36041 Department: Employment& Social Services(DESS) Class Title: Account Clerk,Senior Employee Status Probationary ❑Permanent IF UNSCHEDULED Report Check Here ❑ DUE DATE: 10/07/10 a b c d e PERFORMANCE FACTOR CHECK LIST See Attached for Sections B thru E c Immediate Supervisor mo Must Check Each Factor v, w in the Appropriate Column z X 1. Observance of work hours X 2. Attendance X 3. Grooming&dress X 4. Compliance with rules X 5. Safety practices X 6. Public contacts X 7. Employee contacts X 8. Knowledge of work X 9. Work judgments X 10.Planning&Organizing X 11.Job skill level X 12.Quality of work X 13.Volume of acceptable work X 14.Meeting deadlines X 15.Accepts responsibility X 16.Accepts direction X 17.Accepts change X 18.Effectiveness under stress X 19.Appearance of work station X -20.Operation&care of equip. X 21.Work coordination X 22.Initiative SUMMARY EVALUATION: (Check Overall Performance) X 23.Professionalism []Not Satisfactory []Requires Improvement 24 ®Effective Meets Standards []Exceeds Standards 25. RATER: I certify this re rt=resents my best judgment. 26. []IDO ❑I DO NOT recommend permanent status(final probationary reports only). 27 ❑I DO ©I DO NOT recommend annual merit increase. 28 ®N Nnot applicable) -- loyee at top step of range or is not eligible for increase at this time.ALA-^ 6 FOR EMPLOYEES WHO SUPERVISE OTHERS Rater's Signature 4 Date 29.Planning&organizing REVIEWER: (Dartment d Designee) 30.Scheduling&coordinating 3i.Training&instructin lC7 v 32.Productivity I R sewer's Si a Title Date 33.Evaluating subordinates E : I ce'rWthat this report has been discussed with me. 34.Judgments&Decisions I understand my signature does not necessarily indicate agreement. 35. Leadership 36..Operational economy Comment:(attach additional sheet) 37.Su M.sog control 38.(Additional Factors) 39. LmaloLee Signature Date CHECKS IN COLUMN(a)OR (b)MUST BE a, Forward original to the Human Resources Department far placement in employee's EXPLAINED IN SECTION E personnel file. Performance Evaluation DESS-Rev 01-01-20U9 COUNTY OF BUTTE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT & SOCIAL. SERVICES PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT VJERA STARK 36041 SECTION B -- Record 'ob STRENGTHS and superior performance incidents. Your primary assignment is supporting the Employment CalWORKs desk, coordinating and processing the work with another peer. You are very knowledgeable with the various functions -of the job and can be relied upon to efficiently carry out duties. You are diligent in assuring that tasks are completed timely and are committed to producing quality work. When our Department recently transitioned to a new system, C-IV, you and your desk partner were dedicated and determined to learn the new program as it related to the CalWORKS support functions. You took advantage of working in the mock environment to understand and recognize what potential issues could possibly affect your desk directly. You worked together to determine how current processes would now be completed in the new system. Recently you developed a greater enhanced user friendly spreadsheet to track bus tickets for the various areas involved. Thank you for taking the initiative to do this. You assist in other areas in our unit when needed such as creating EBT Cards, processing Rush Warrants, and completing various MEDS transactions. You also help with-file clearing client aid applications and fingerprinting for the Eligibility Reception unit. Your help in these other areas is appreciated. SECTION C — Record PROGRESS ACHIEVED in attaining reviousl set aoals for improved work performance, for personalor iob qualifications. Two goals were set in your previous evaluation. Both related to Employee Contacts, an element in Section A of the evaluation. These two goals were established to build upon previous efforts to improve in the area of employee contact by means of the following: ➢ Accept responsibility, accept direction, and display flexibility. Be courteous and work cooperatively with all staff while promoting a sense of teamwork. Be agreeable and display a willingness to interact harmoniously with others. Foster a sense of unity with your peers in working together toward common goals. ➢ Develop a more user friendly communication style. Be open to others thoughts and ideas. Respond to co-workers in a calm and professional manner. Think first and be aware of how your words/and or actions will be perceived. .State issues in a concise and clear manner, and once you have done so; do not repeat over and over. Until recently you were demonstrating success in meeting both of these goals. In the past few weeks you have returned to a more disruptive style of interaction with others within the Support Services Division. Therefore these goals were not met. See Section E. COUNTY OF BUTTE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT & SOCIAL SERVICES PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT VJERA STARK 36041 SECTION D — Record GOALS or IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS to be taken during next evaluation period. The following goals have been set for the next review period: ➢ Documentation of C-IV procedures. As many of the CalWORKs desk duties have changed due to the implementation of C-IV, work with your desk partner to write down procedures for processing the work for the purpose of cross training your unit peers for coverage when needed. By doing this there will be a manual that other staff can utilize when training. Prioritize Department work expectations over personal expectations. You have acknowledged that you cannot stop pushing yourself to complete your personal work goals with performance excellence. That at times interferes with meeting Department work priorities. You are to consistently place Department priorities before any others. SECTION E — Record specific work performance DEFICIENCIES or 'ob behavior requiring improvement or correction. As noted in Section A of this annual evaluation, there are 4 areas of job performance requiring improvement, they are: 1. Employee Contacts 2. Accept Direction 3. Effectiveness Under Stress 4. Professionalism On August 18, 2010 1 met with you and presented you with a counseling memo as a result of an inappropriate interaction with a Support Services Supervisor. (See attached) In the counseling memo you were directed to: • Be flexible and accept direction from your chain of command in a calm and professional manner. • In all communication be tactful, courteous and respectful. • Place department priorities before your own. As noted in Section C interactions with peers- have been addressed on a number of occasions for the inappropriateness of the interaction and disruptive impact on co-workers. Had there not been recent set backs in achieving related goals for the past review period you would have been marked as meets standards in these areas. However due to the long history of required guidance and direction that goes back many years, recent unacceptable interactions carry great weight. COUNTY OF BUTTE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT & SOCIAL SERVICES PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT VJERA STARK 36041 SECTION E: Continued To assist you in improving in the 4 required areas you are directed to adhere to the standards as outlined below: • Follow the direction you are provided by your supervisor or your chain of command. ■ Communication, verbal and written, shall be conducted in a manner that is professional, constructive, non-confrontational and does not work against the effectiveness of the workplace. ■ Interactions within the workplace shall follow a line of conduct that exhibits a businesslike manner of respect and courtesy. When interacting with others remain calm, listen while others speak to you and when you speak do so with a restrained, modulated voice. Maintain a pleasant demeanor, positive approach and practice tactful honesty in the workplace. ■ Accept responsibility, accept direction and display flexibility. Be courteous and work cooperatively with all staff while promoting a sense of teamwork. Be agreeable and display a willingness to interact harmoniously with others. Develop a more user friendly communication style. Respond to co-workers in a calm and professional manner. You demonstrated your understanding of expectations by meeting them for 15 months. Now is your opportunity to move beyond this lapse and recommit yourself to making permanent changes in how you go about the business of working with others. RA R'S SIG TRE TITLE DATE RE IE S G ATURE TITLE DATE te4e -P EMPLOYEE'S SIGNATUR " TITLE DATE