The best and worst.

Frankly we have been swamped with requests for stories. We get e-mails telling us what candidates are saying, pieces of campaign lit, and invites to almost every type of fund raiser for Park commissioner there is.

One of the issues that struck me as something worth writing about was the best and worst examples of things happening on the stump. Let’s face it, if you’re running for Park Board you can pretty much do or say anything because the press isn’t going to cover your race anyway.

So please send us your suggestions for the best and worst on the park board campaign trail.

Evaluation of Superintendent Jon Gurban

Now we all know that superintendent Jon Gurban is number 1 on the Park Watch hit list. And while the Park watch slate of candidates (Guest, Stone, Tab, Vreeland, Wielinski and Bourn.) are all vague if not deceitful about where they stand on anything, they are united in saying that Gurban should go.

What this should point out is the lack of management experience or background that this slate has. Wielinski is a part time office supply store clerk; Guest is a lobbyist who just moved into the area he is running in, Vreeland use to build stage props. Bourn has yet to list a single issue on his web page.

But has any HR director can tell you one of the best tools a board can use is the JOB Performance and Evaluation survey.

Let’s look at the last evaluation done on Gurban. This one was basically a survey of sitting Board Members.

Summary of Salient Points of 2008 Evaluation of Superintendent Jon Gurban
The Park Board retained James Metzen to evaluate the current performance of Superintendent Jon Gurban. The evaluation was presented to the Park Board on October 1, 2008.

Superintendent Gurban was evaluated in ten areas and also gave him an overall rating. For each area, the possible ratings were
• Below expectations; needs improvement
• Meets expectations
• Exceeds expectations
• Consistent superior performance

The following is a summary of the salient points of the evaluation of Superintendent Gurban:

1) Board Relations
Below expectations; needs improvement (3)
Meets expectations (3)
Exceeds expectations (1)
Consistent superior performance (0)
Board members felt the Superintendent and his staff have a deep commitment to the parks and
done good work and deserve credit for that work. However, several Board members continued to have serious issues with the lack communication between the Superintendent and Board
members.

2) Staff Leadership and direction
Below expectations; needs improvement (0)
Meets expectations (3)
Exceeds expectations (3)
Consistent superior performance (2)
Board members felt Superintendent Gurban has done a tremendous job in putting in place
excellent staff is excellent and that our staff is our greatest asset. The need for strong diversity in management and staff was stressed.

3) Strategic Direction
Below expectations; needs improvement (0)
Meets expectations (2)
Exceeds expectations (3)
Consistent superior performance (1)
Board members praised the Superintendent and staff for the direction of the Park Board and
in particular the Comprehensive Plan, and for making the Park Board a national leader. One
Board member expressed the desire to work collaboratively with other park systems in the
region.

4) Innovation
Below expectations; needs improvement (2)
Meets expectations (2)
Exceeds expectations (2)
Consistent superior performance (1)
Board members addressed the "hub model," one feeling it was a great idea and another
expressing hope that it would improve the organization. One Board member expressed concerns about Phillips.

5) Thriving System
Below expectations; needs improvement (0)
Meets expectations (2)
Exceeds expectations (3)
Consistent superior performance (2)
Board members again stressed the excellence of the Superintendent and Staff in the
Comprehensive Plan.

6) Sustainability
Below expectations; needs improvement (1)
Meets expectations (2)
Exceeds expectations (3)
Consistent superior performance (1)
One Board member suggested the Park Board share a sustainability coordinator with Three
Rivers or St. Paul. Another noted concern that the Park Board does not get enough credit for the good things it does.

7} Dynamic Parks
Below expectations; needs improvement (O)
Meets expectations (2)
Exceeds expectations (3)
Consistent superior performance (2)
Most board members felt that the Superintendent and Staff had done an excellent job in this area.
One commented that data preservation, record keeping and information retrieval systems are poor and other commented that progress on the assessment of Park Board properties was slow.

8) Safety
Below expectations; needs improvement (0)
Meets expectations (3)
Exceeds expectations (0)
Consistent superior performance (5)
One Board member noted uncleamess on the Park Board's goals in the area of safety. One Board member felt that the Superintendent and staff should get an A+ in the area of safety and another also praised not only the commitment to safety but the monthly police updates for the Board.

9} Urban Forest, Natural Areas and Waters
Below expectations; needs improvement (1)
Meets expectations (2)
Exceeds expectations (3)
Consistent superior performance (1)
More than one Board member noted the lack of an overall environmental plan. One Board
member felt there was a need to focus on getting information to citizens on what the Park Board is doing. Others felt the Superintendent and staff was doing a good job, particularly given limited resources.

lO} Independence
Below expectations; needs improvement (2)
Meets expectations (3)
Exceeds expectations (1)
Consistent superior performance (1)
Board members had mixed opinions on this point including about what relationships are
necessary to maintaining the Board's independence.

1 1) Overall rating
Below expectations; needs improvement (1)
Meets expectations (2)
Exceeds expectations (2)
Consistent superior performance (1)
Board members again stressed that the Superintendent has strong leadership skills, particularly
with staff, and that he is highly competent and loves the park system. However, Board members
also reiterated that the Superintendent continues to have significant difficulties with
communicating with the Board and the Community and needs to improve these relationships.

Once again, this evaluation says a lot about some (Vreeland, Young) board members.

In almost every measurable area Gurban gets great reviews. The board thinks Gurban has Great leadership skills, has shown great Strategic Direction, We have a thriving system that’s sustainable, It’s Dynamic and safe.

But for some reason 1 board member (Vreeland?) thinks Gurban is working below his expectations. 3 board members (Vreeland, Young and?) think board relations need improvement. I agree with this. But rather than replacing an innovative great leader with strategic vision who’s created a thriving system, isn’t it better to replace the board members who oppose him?

Staff shows support for Gurban.

About 100 park board staff employees showed up after work to the board meeting to show their support for extending Superintendent Jon Gurban’s contract for another year.

The board will take up this matter in their November meeting but it looks like Jon has the support of 6 of the members. Annie Young and Scott Vreeland wanted to put off the vote until there is a new board but thankfully were over ruled by members who knew they were elected to make decisions. Tom Nordyke tried to walk the line between doing the right thing and pleasing Park Watch by saying he would go along with whatever the majority of members wanted to do.

I suspect this did not sit well with the Park Watch crowd. They were counting on Nordyke, Young and Vreeland to make good on their promises to do away with the Superintendent in spite of the outstanding performance reviews he gets year in and year out. Having 100 staffers show up in support also tends to make politicians like Vreeland less boisterous because almost all of these staffers vote.

It says a lot about Gurban that so many of his staffers showed up. It also says a lot about those who oppose him about what kind of relationship they will have with staff should they take power.