Backup Documents 09/27/2011 Item #11A11A
Commissioner Hiller Input
The County Attorney is charged with the responsibility of planning, directing and reviewing the
activities and operations of the Office of the County Attorney. The County Attorney is the legal
advisor and counsel for the Board of County Commissioners, its advisory boards and advisory
committees. The County Attorney also provides legal counsel to and assists the County Manager
and his agencies in order to facilitate the goals and objectives established for the County
Manager by the Board of County Commissioners.
The County Attorney, through the assistant county attorneys and supporting staff, represent the
County in wide - ranging complex litigation relating to implementation of government policies
and capital projects, eminent domain, personal injury, property damage, workplace /personnel
matters, finance and land use. In addition to litigation, he is counsel to the County's divisions
and departments for their daily operations. In this regard, the County Attorney is responsible for
the review of all policy documents (resolutions), legislation (ordinances and special acts), and
the drafting, legal review and revision of all contracts, real property conveyance documents and
other Board signatory documents.
The County Attorney's Employment Agreement with the Board of County Commissioners
provides for an annual evaluation of the County Attorney's performance. By custom, this
performance has been measured against performance objectives set forth in that year's annual
Action Plan, by rating each of the performance objectives on a 1 to 3 scale, with 1 being Below
Standards; 2 being Meets Standards; and 3 being Exceeds Standards. Individual evaluations are
then totaled and averaged to determine the Board's collective position.
The following Action Plan illustrates and reviews Board expectations for the County Attorney
for the 2010 -2011 Fiscal Year. The Action Plan is based on the broad areas generally expected
to be performed by the Managing Partner of a significant law firm, including: legal advice;
leadership and organizational direction; communications; fiscal management; and personnel
management.
Page 1 of 12
Goals for Fiscal Year 2010 -11:
I have and will continue to initiate changes to create a more efficient work environment. This
will include hiring and retaining the best employees, focusing on how to conduct business with
better customer service results and making internal changes that result in a more efficient and
effective work product. With the closing of our Horseshoe Office and permanent reduction in
staff through voluntary attrition, the County Attorney Office has completed its restructuring to
assure that Requests for Legal Services are completed promptly, and that there will be
overlapping areas of expertise within the Office. To increase our efficiency, this effort will
require further improvements in our planning, assignment of responsibilities, and establishment
of accountability to assure continued enhancement within the agency.
Specific areas that I propose as part of next year's action plan are:
Continuing Goals
1. Oral Presentations at Meetings. I will continue to work to assure that both the County
Attorney's and the County Attorney Office's presentations at Board of County
Commissioners' meetings, advisory board meetings, and workshops are clear, concise and
effective. All presenters will be charged with making presentations that avoid legalese and
focus on the legal issue in a simple, understandable and brief manner.
Self Analysis:
No change from last year. This Office will continue to endeavor to follow former County
Manager Jim Mudd's sage approach of the "three B's with respect to Board presentations;
that you Be Brief, Be Brilliant, and Be Gone." An ongoing discussion at this Office is peer
evaluation of our responses and presentations at Board meetings to help identify when we
have not been as concise, clear and responsive as we would wish. I will continue to seek
improvement in this area.
Commissioner Comments:
Complete, Current, and Timely advice
is required. I hope you will advise me as such
next year.
Page 2 of 12
ilA
Below
Standards
Meets
Standards
Exceeds
Standards
1
2
3
Rating
1
Page 2 of 12
ilA
ilA
2. Written Legal Advice. Both the County Attorney and the County Attorney Office will
provide professional, objective, unbiased legal advice to the Board of County
Commissioners, its advisory boards and committees, the County Manager and his agencies
and employees as necessary for formulation and implementation of legislative policies and
projects. Responses will avoid legalese and focus on the legal issue in a simple,
understandable and brief manner.
Self Analysis:
The continuing direction to all attorneys is to keep their writing clear, concise, and to the
point.
Commissioner Comment: Complete, correct, and
Timely advice is required. I hope you will advise me
properly in the coming year.
3. Processing Requests for Legal Services. Last year, this Office's response time for
responding to Requests for Legal Services within 48 hours of receipt was maintained at 80%
or more. As always, a number of legal assignments, due to their complex nature, take weeks
and even months to complete. Accordingly, on a going forward basis, this Office will
continue to achieve an ongoing 48 -hour (or less) turnaround time on 80% of all future
Requests for Legal Services received from the Board of County Commissioners and County
Manager agencies. A report will be run from Client Profiles (this Office's data management
system) to determine turnaround time. This will include preparation and review of
documents for legal sufficiency prior to consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners for Board action, including, but not limited to, agreements, contracts, deeds,
leases, bonds, ordinances, resolutions, and other legal documents requested by County
Commissioners, the County Manager, or the staff.
Self Analysis:
The response time to Requests for Legal Services has stabilized in the range of 85 — 95% of
all RLS's being processed within 48 hours. As always, a number of legal assignments, due
to their complex nature, take weeks and even months to complete. I believe the Office has
fully achieved my goals in this area, the results of which are demonstrated in the next Goal
and Objective, which is Client Satisfaction/Peer Review.
Commissioner Comment:
Page 3 of 12
Below
Standards
Meets
Standards
Exceeds
Standards
1
2
3
F-Rating
1
3. Processing Requests for Legal Services. Last year, this Office's response time for
responding to Requests for Legal Services within 48 hours of receipt was maintained at 80%
or more. As always, a number of legal assignments, due to their complex nature, take weeks
and even months to complete. Accordingly, on a going forward basis, this Office will
continue to achieve an ongoing 48 -hour (or less) turnaround time on 80% of all future
Requests for Legal Services received from the Board of County Commissioners and County
Manager agencies. A report will be run from Client Profiles (this Office's data management
system) to determine turnaround time. This will include preparation and review of
documents for legal sufficiency prior to consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners for Board action, including, but not limited to, agreements, contracts, deeds,
leases, bonds, ordinances, resolutions, and other legal documents requested by County
Commissioners, the County Manager, or the staff.
Self Analysis:
The response time to Requests for Legal Services has stabilized in the range of 85 — 95% of
all RLS's being processed within 48 hours. As always, a number of legal assignments, due
to their complex nature, take weeks and even months to complete. I believe the Office has
fully achieved my goals in this area, the results of which are demonstrated in the next Goal
and Objective, which is Client Satisfaction/Peer Review.
Commissioner Comment:
Page 3 of 12
11A
4. Client Satisfaction/ Peer Review. Client satisfaction continues to be a major goal of this
Office. In furtherance of this goal, I have instituted a practice in which performance
evaluation reports are sent to the various Division Administrators and Managers each year to
assess the performance of each attorney in the Office. The reports rate the attorneys on a 1 to
3 scale, with 1 being Below Standards; 2 being Meets Standards; and 3 being Exceeds
Standards. Individual evaluations are then totaled and averaged to determine this Office's
collective score, with a goal of 75% rating level- for exceeding expectations. Client reviews
will factor into each of the Assistant County Attorney's performance evaluations.
Self Analysis:
Again this year, an Attorney- Client Feedback form was provided to the County Manager,
Division Administrators, and select Department Directors to solicit their opinions regarding
the services they receive from the County Attorney Office. These results are utilized to shift
workloads if departments are not satisfied with our services; they are also utilized in the
attorney's individual annual performance evaluations.
The following is a chart showing a comparison of 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 overall client
feedback. As you can see, during my tenure as County Attorney we have eliminated the
"Does Not Meet" portion of the evaluation, with the majority of the Office now exceeding
the client's expectations.
Page 4 of 12
Below
Standards
Meets
Standards
Exceeds
Standards
1
2
3
F7R-ating
2
4. Client Satisfaction/ Peer Review. Client satisfaction continues to be a major goal of this
Office. In furtherance of this goal, I have instituted a practice in which performance
evaluation reports are sent to the various Division Administrators and Managers each year to
assess the performance of each attorney in the Office. The reports rate the attorneys on a 1 to
3 scale, with 1 being Below Standards; 2 being Meets Standards; and 3 being Exceeds
Standards. Individual evaluations are then totaled and averaged to determine this Office's
collective score, with a goal of 75% rating level- for exceeding expectations. Client reviews
will factor into each of the Assistant County Attorney's performance evaluations.
Self Analysis:
Again this year, an Attorney- Client Feedback form was provided to the County Manager,
Division Administrators, and select Department Directors to solicit their opinions regarding
the services they receive from the County Attorney Office. These results are utilized to shift
workloads if departments are not satisfied with our services; they are also utilized in the
attorney's individual annual performance evaluations.
The following is a chart showing a comparison of 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 overall client
feedback. As you can see, during my tenure as County Attorney we have eliminated the
"Does Not Meet" portion of the evaluation, with the majority of the Office now exceeding
the client's expectations.
Page 4 of 12
70%
60%
50 %
40 %
30%
20%
10%
0 %
11A
Comparison of 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 Attorney - Client Feedback
Overall Results
Exceeds Meets Does Not Meet NIA
■ 2008 E2009 52010 ■ 2011
Commissioner Comment:
5. Fiscal Management. I will continue to develop and effectively administer an annual budget
for the Office of the County Attorney in conformance with policies adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners, while at the same time improving the quality of this Office. It is my
intent to continue to permanently reduce this Office's Support Staff through normal attrition
until I reach a ratio of approximately 1 support staff person per attorney, which my research
has found is typical throughout County Attorney Offices in this State.
Self Analysis:
On a net cost to general fund analysis, this Office has reduced expenditures from $3,097,300
in FY 2009, to the current request of $2,366,600 in FY 2012, while eliminating twelve
positions in that same time period. As set forth in that attached chart, during that period this
Office met or exceeded Board budget direction:
Page 5 of 12
Below
Standards
Meets
Standards
Exceeds
Standards
1
2
3
F—R—afing
2
5. Fiscal Management. I will continue to develop and effectively administer an annual budget
for the Office of the County Attorney in conformance with policies adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners, while at the same time improving the quality of this Office. It is my
intent to continue to permanently reduce this Office's Support Staff through normal attrition
until I reach a ratio of approximately 1 support staff person per attorney, which my research
has found is typical throughout County Attorney Offices in this State.
Self Analysis:
On a net cost to general fund analysis, this Office has reduced expenditures from $3,097,300
in FY 2009, to the current request of $2,366,600 in FY 2012, while eliminating twelve
positions in that same time period. As set forth in that attached chart, during that period this
Office met or exceeded Board budget direction:
Page 5 of 12
IWAI
■ Board Direction Percentage Decrease Per Year / Net Cost to General Fund (departments
directed to prepare 2 budgets: 1- 3% decrease; 1- 251 decrease)
■ Percentage Decrease Per Year / Net Cost to General Fu nd
14
12 0
10
S
5 4.5 S 5.0
4 3 3
2
0
FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12
The reduction in personnel was accomplished with no loss in service due to a general decline
in County business (especially land use), and by cross - training the assistant county attorneys
and staff. Again this year I did not request any funds for Capital Outlay.
Commissioner Comment:
6. Public Records and Sunshine Law. This Office will continue to educate and update County
staff, and advisory board members through periodic workshops /seminars, (e.g. Sunshine
Law, Public Records Act, State and local ethics law). This Office will also conduct seminars
with staff on various topics of interest.
Self Analysis:
By the end of August 2011, this Office will have made 6 presentations /workshops / seminars
to County staff and advisory board meetings.
1. September 22, 2010 — FMLA / ADA training for Human Resources;
Page 6 of 12
Below
Standards
Meets
Standards
Exceeds
Standards
1
2
3
-Rating
2
6. Public Records and Sunshine Law. This Office will continue to educate and update County
staff, and advisory board members through periodic workshops /seminars, (e.g. Sunshine
Law, Public Records Act, State and local ethics law). This Office will also conduct seminars
with staff on various topics of interest.
Self Analysis:
By the end of August 2011, this Office will have made 6 presentations /workshops / seminars
to County staff and advisory board meetings.
1. September 22, 2010 — FMLA / ADA training for Human Resources;
Page 6 of 12
iia
2. October 14, 2010 — Sunshine Law, Public Records and Ethics presentation to advisory
boards;
3. November 17, 2010 — Guest lecture at Ave Maria Law School re County Use Issues and
proceedings;
4. February 9, 2011 Public Records, Ethics presentation to Domestic Animal Services;
5. February 14 — Ethics presentation to the Airport Authority;
6. March 9, 2011 — Sunshine Law, Public Records and Ethics presentation to Parks and
Recreation supervisors and managers;
Our Power Point presentations relating to Government in the Sunshine, Public Records Act.
Ethics Laws and Social Networking are available on the internet at www.collieraov.net on
the County Attorney web page for viewing by advisory board members, staff and the public.
Commissioner Comment:
7. Litigation. _ We will continue to prepare and distribute concise quarterly reports for the Board
with respect to current litigation, including potential or anticipated legal issues that may
come before the Board of County Commissioners. We will also evaluate the degree to which
the County Attorney's Office and outside counsel achieves satisfctory outcome on litigation.
Self Analysis:
I have provided the Board with litigation update reports on October, 15, 2010; January 14,
2011; April 14, 2011 and July 29, 2011. A description of all of these cases is set forth in this
report. The next report will be provided in October, 2011.
As you will have noted from those reports, this Office manages a substantial amount of
litigation. As of the July, 2011 report there was a total of 286 open cases, the bulk of which
concern foreclosures (16 1) and eminent domain (24).
From October 1, 2010, to the present there was no decision which materially adversely
affected the County. Highlighted closed cases since October 1, 2010 include the following:
Construction cases. The County had three complicated construction cases with combined
claims of $28.5 million against the County. We were able to settle all of these cases for just
under $100,000 in funds not already budgeted or retained for these completed road projects.
These cases were as follows:
Page 7 of 12
Below
Standards
Meets
Standards
Exceeds
Standards
1
2
3
F-Rating
2
7. Litigation. _ We will continue to prepare and distribute concise quarterly reports for the Board
with respect to current litigation, including potential or anticipated legal issues that may
come before the Board of County Commissioners. We will also evaluate the degree to which
the County Attorney's Office and outside counsel achieves satisfctory outcome on litigation.
Self Analysis:
I have provided the Board with litigation update reports on October, 15, 2010; January 14,
2011; April 14, 2011 and July 29, 2011. A description of all of these cases is set forth in this
report. The next report will be provided in October, 2011.
As you will have noted from those reports, this Office manages a substantial amount of
litigation. As of the July, 2011 report there was a total of 286 open cases, the bulk of which
concern foreclosures (16 1) and eminent domain (24).
From October 1, 2010, to the present there was no decision which materially adversely
affected the County. Highlighted closed cases since October 1, 2010 include the following:
Construction cases. The County had three complicated construction cases with combined
claims of $28.5 million against the County. We were able to settle all of these cases for just
under $100,000 in funds not already budgeted or retained for these completed road projects.
These cases were as follows:
Page 7 of 12
ilA
1. John Carlo, Inc. v Collier County, Case No. 07- 311 -CA [Immokalee Road Case]
and
2. Collier County v John Carlo, Inc., Case No. 09- 8724 -CA [Rattlesnake Hammock
Case]
[Attorneys: Jacqueline Hubbard /outside counsel Paul Ullom]
There were two construction cases involving John Carlo. Inc. ( "Carlo "), concerning the
Immokalee Road Widening Project and the Rattlesnake Hammock Road Widening Project.
Combined claims against the County in these cases two exceeded $14.5 million. On October
22, 2010, a full day of mediation was held and a global settlement was reached with respect
to both cases, approved by the Board on November 9, 2010. The County agreed to pay Carlo
$4,300,000, of which all but approximately $58,000 of this settlement in came out of
retainage and other unexpended funds from these two Projects.
3. Ker Enterprises [Armadillo Underground] v APAC v. Collier County, Case No. 08-
3496-CA; Vanderbilt Beach Road Project
[Attorneys: Jacqueline Hubbard /Gregory Woods]
This case involved a subcontractor [Armadillo] suing the contractor [APAC] for claims
relating to the Vanderbilt Beach Road Project. The contractor brought the County into the
lawsuit as a third party defendant claiming breach of contract and damages. Claims against
the County totaled $14 million. On May 20, 2011, the parties mediated the case for nearly
twelve (12) hours and ultimately reached a settlement agreement, approved by the Board at
its June 14, 2011 meeting. The County agreed to pay APAC a total of $4,500,000, of which
all but $40,520 of this settlement in came out of retainage and other unexpended funds from
this Project.
Other closed cases of interest are as follows:
1. Jerry & Kimberlea Blocker v. Collier County, Case No. 2D10 -1025, LT 08 -66 -CA
[Attorneys: Jacqueline Hubbard /Jeff Wright] (PARTIALLY COVERED CASE)
This and related cases stem from an improperly zoned mobile home park owned by the
Blockers. Oral Argument held December 15, 2009; both parties have submitted proposed
orders to judge. On February 8, 2010, Judge Hayes entered the Final Appeal Order denying
the Blockers' Appeal. On March 9, 2010, the Blockers filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari
with the 2nd DCA. On March 8, 2010, the Blockers appealed the decree to 2nd DCA for Case
Nos. 08- 66 -CA. The Blockers filed with the 2nd DCA a Request for Oral Argument. On
November 10, 2010, the District Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Circuit Court in
favor of the County. This case is closed; however, the Blockers' Bert Harris case against the
County and the County's foreclosure case against the Blockers are still pending before the
Circuit Court.
2. John Lundin v. Fred Coyle, et al., Case No. 10- 6034 -CA [sunshine law]
[Attorneys: Jacqueline Hubbard /outside counsel Greg Stewart]
Page 8 of 12
11A
Complaint was served on October 18, 2010 for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief relating to
the tour of the Jackson Labs facilities by two commissioners, alleging a violation of the
Sunshine Law. The County responded to the Complaint by filing a Motion to Dismiss on
November 8, 2010. A hearing on the County's Motion to Dismiss was scheduled and noticed
for March 1, 2011, and the deposition of the Plaintiff was noticed and set for April 13, 2011.
Plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed his action on February 4, 2011.
3. Aqua Development
[Attorney: Jeff Wright]
As a result of County traffic improvements relating to and directly benefiting the Aqua
Development, which were necessary due to the private developer's failure to perform work
under a County right -of -way permit; the developer became indebted to the County in the
amount of $147,155.39. Through communications between the County Attorney's Office
and counsel for the developer, the County was able to avoid litigation and recover 100% of
the amount due. This amount was obtained by a draw on previously escrowed funds
($76,351.12), plus a January 2011 cash payment from the developer ($70,804.27).
4. Monroe County a Priceline.com, Inc., et al.; Case No. 09- 10004 -CIV
[Attorney: Steven Williams]
On the Tax Collector's recommendation, Collier County joined a class of Plaintiffs in a
federal action against online travel agencies that failed to remit bed taxes to numerous
municipal Tax Collectors for the actual cost paid by a hotel guest for a hotel room.
Settlement was reached by the Plaintiff on behalf of the class and the matter was dismissed
by the Court on February 15, 2011. The County- received $567,645.82 in proceeds from the
settlement.
5. McDonald Transit Associates, Inc. v. Collier County, et al., Case No. 10- 5490 -CA
[Primary Attorney: Steven Williams]
McDonald Transit, the current CAT transit operator, filed a bid protest contesting the
County's current contract to a new company. Following Special Master findings and the
Board of County Commissioners' adoption of those findings to uphold the contract award,
McDonald filed suit in Circuit Court on September 13, 2010. McDonald's lawsuit sought an
injunction stopping the County from entering into the contract with the new company. The
County was served with the lawsuit at 3:22 PM on September 27, 2010. The Court dismissed
the lawsuit at 3:35 PM on the same day. An Amended Complaint was filed on October 6,
2010, which was dismissed on March 23, 2011.
6. Surety Construction, 11 -RMG -00215
[Attorney: Colleen Greene]
This case involved damage to Building H as a result of negligent installation of a dishwasher.
The Settlement Agreement for the total amount of damages ($88,559.00) was approved by
the BCC on the May 10, 2011 BCC Agenda.
9. Collier County v. South Florida Water Management District and Big Cypress Basin,
Case No. 09- 7419 -CA [Primary Attorney: Jacqueline Hubbard]
Page 9of12
11A
On August 24, 2009, the County filed suit against South Florida Water Management District
and Big Cypress Basin for Breach of Contract resulting from the failure to provide 640 acres
for an ATV park. Settlement was been reached with SWFMD to pay the County a total
lump sum of $3 million and SWFMD agreeing to extend the Canal Maintenance Agreement.
On June 27, 2011, a fully executed Stipulated Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice was filed
with the Court.
10. Barbara Burgeson v Collier County, Henning, Chrzanowski & Moss, Case No. 09-
2010 -CA
[Primary Attorney: Jacqueline Hubbard] (PARTIALLY COVERED CASE)
Collier County was served with the Complaint in this matter on March 13, 2009 by former
employee. With respect to Collier County, the Complaint alleged Violation of the Florida
Equal Pay Act; Violation of the General Labor Regulations; Violation of the FCRA, Fla.
Stat. § 760.10; Sexual Harassment in Violation of FCRA, Fla. Stat. §760.01; Retaliation; and
Negligent Supervision. Additional claims were made against Commissioner Henning and
former employees Rudy Moss and Stan Chrzanowski. The Insurance Carrier elected to settle
the entire matter on behalf of all of the defendants in the sum of $75,000.00, paid solely by
the County's insurance carrier (which sum was far less than what the carrier would have paid
for a successful defense of this matter). The settlement agreement was approved by the BCC
at its June 28, 2011 meeting. The Plaintiff also has a pending bankruptcy case, and payment
will be made only upon a signed Order from the Bankruptcy Court, approving the settlement.
Commissioner Comment:
Projects for this Fiscal Year
1. Work with staff to reduce the number of amendments to the Land Development Code.
Self Analysis: Incomplete, as the Board directed no changes to the LDC.
Commissioner Comment: Identify & consider
Recommending changes.
Below
Standards
Meets
Standards
Exceeds
Standards
1
2
3
Ratin
1
2
Projects for this Fiscal Year
1. Work with staff to reduce the number of amendments to the Land Development Code.
Self Analysis: Incomplete, as the Board directed no changes to the LDC.
Commissioner Comment: Identify & consider
Recommending changes.
Page 10 of 12
Below
Standards
Meets
Standards
Exceeds
Standards
1
2
3
Rating
1
Page 10 of 12
11A
2. Work with staff to streamline the process for a quicker turnaround for responses to public
records requests.
Self Analysis:
We continue to work frequently with staff to ensure public records requests are responded to
in a timely, efficient and lawful manner. This Office regularly fields questions and responds
to requests from staff, the press and public the relating to public records requests.
Commissioner Comment:
3. Monitor advertising of ordinances to ensure accuracy and timeliness.
Self Analysis:
Beginning in 2009, with the assistance of the County Manager's Office and the Clerk to the
Board, this Office has monitored all legal advertisements for public hearings before the
Board of County Commissioners. The purpose was to ensure that all legal ads met statutory
and Code requirements and made part of record as back -up material for the agenda item.
Since then, our oversight has expanded to include legal ads for the Planning Commission.
In addition to working with the department in drafting legal ads, our Office receives copies of
all ad requests, which are reviewed by the assigned attorney before they are forwarded to the
Naples Daily News. Support staff then verifies that the ads are published correctly. Our goal
in taking on this responsibility is to avoid the delays, waste, and the potential for legal
challenge associated with defective advertising. We also actively seek to reduce costs by
combining ads where possible and by not running ads where not required.
Commissioner Comment:
Below Meets Exceeds
Standards Standards Standards
1 2 3
F-Rating 2
Page 11 of 12
Below
Standards
Meets
Standards
Exceeds
Standards
1
1 2
1 _ 3
F-Rating
1
2
3. Monitor advertising of ordinances to ensure accuracy and timeliness.
Self Analysis:
Beginning in 2009, with the assistance of the County Manager's Office and the Clerk to the
Board, this Office has monitored all legal advertisements for public hearings before the
Board of County Commissioners. The purpose was to ensure that all legal ads met statutory
and Code requirements and made part of record as back -up material for the agenda item.
Since then, our oversight has expanded to include legal ads for the Planning Commission.
In addition to working with the department in drafting legal ads, our Office receives copies of
all ad requests, which are reviewed by the assigned attorney before they are forwarded to the
Naples Daily News. Support staff then verifies that the ads are published correctly. Our goal
in taking on this responsibility is to avoid the delays, waste, and the potential for legal
challenge associated with defective advertising. We also actively seek to reduce costs by
combining ads where possible and by not running ads where not required.
Commissioner Comment:
Below Meets Exceeds
Standards Standards Standards
1 2 3
F-Rating 2
Page 11 of 12
I IA
4. Cross -train attorneys and support staff to expand the knowledge base within the office as we
continue to become more efficient.
Self Analysis:
We continue to work diligently to cross - train attorneys and support staff so that we are able
to work more efficiently and effectively. Every day -to -day Office function now has at least
two attorneys with hands on experience.
Commissioner Comment:
5. Place more presentations on the web site so that staff and advisory boards can watch at their
convenience.
Self Analysis:
Updated Power Point presentations relating to Government in the Sunshine, Public Records,
Ethics Laws, and Social Networking have been placed on the county's website
(www.collier og v.net) for viewing by staff, advisory board members, Board of County
Commissioners and the public.
Commissioner Comment:
Below Meets Exceeds
Standards Standards Standards
1 2 3
Rating 2
Page 12 of 12
Below
Standards
Meets
Standards
Exceeds
Standards
1
2
3
Ratin
2-F-
5. Place more presentations on the web site so that staff and advisory boards can watch at their
convenience.
Self Analysis:
Updated Power Point presentations relating to Government in the Sunshine, Public Records,
Ethics Laws, and Social Networking have been placed on the county's website
(www.collier og v.net) for viewing by staff, advisory board members, Board of County
Commissioners and the public.
Commissioner Comment:
Below Meets Exceeds
Standards Standards Standards
1 2 3
Rating 2
Page 12 of 12
11A
COUNTY ATTORNEY FY 2010 - 2011 ACTION PLAN / EVALUATION SUMMARY
OF RATINGS
Overall Average 1 2.33
coa60 /64
Overall Percentage 78%
COMMISSIONER
ITEM
FIALA
COYLE
HILLER
HENNING
COLETTA
AVERAGE
Oral
Presentations at
Meetings
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
2.20
Written Legal
Advice
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
2.20
Processing
Requests for
Legal Services
3.00
2.50
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.50
Client
Satisfaction /
Peer Review
2.50
2.50
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.40
Fiscal
Management
2.50
2.50
2.00
3.00
3.00
2.60
Public Records
and Sunshine
Law
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.40
Liti ation
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.40
Amendments to
the Land
Development
Code
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
Public Records
Requests
2.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.50
2.20
Advertising
2.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.30
Cross -train
Attorneys and
Support Staff
2.50
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
2.50
Presentations on
Web Site
2.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.30
Averages Per
Commissioner 1
2.67 1
2.13 1
1.75 1
2.17 1
2.96
Overall Average 1 2.33
coa60 /64
Overall Percentage 78%