Health board committee reviews staff evaluations, considers 3% cost of living raise

The Carroll County Board of Health’s Personnel Committee met Wednesday, Oct. 29, to review the department’s employee evaluation process and discuss a proposed cost of living adjustment. The committee includes Board President Dr. Scott Stine, Sue McMillen and Wendy Wiley.

Office Administrator Amy Campbell began the meeting by outlining the department’s strengths and weaknesses related to staff retention. She identified health insurance, retirement benefits, flexible hours and tuition reimbursement as key strengths, while citing competitive pay, limited upward mobility and retention as ongoing challenges. Campbell reported a 32% turnover rate in 2024 and 17% so far in 2025, noting a trend of higher departures in even-numbered years. “We’re hoping in 2026 we can break that trend,” she said.

Campbell and Health Commissioner Kelly Morris then introduced a new employee performance review tool that will be used to determine end-of-year bonuses. The tool evaluates staff in six categories: adherence to the Carroll County General Health District’s mission and policies, work quality, communication, teamwork, problem-solving and professional growth. Employees are scored on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 meaning “does not meet expectations” and 5 meaning “highly exceeds expectations.” Supervisors complete the evaluations, which are then reviewed by Morris and the department’s medical director.

Stine expressed concern about the potential subjectivity of the evaluations. Campbell said evaluators are required to include narrative feedback to explain scores. “If I’m giving an employee a 2 or 3, I’m giving them an example of why they got that score and what they can do to move that up,” she said.

The discussion turned to performance-based bonuses in the public sector and how they align with the department’s emphasis on equity. Morris defined equity as “providing things to individuals who need additional support to succeed.” She said merit-based incentives remain appropriate when accompanied by training and support. “We want everyone to be a 5,” Morris said. “And we might have to help some people more to be that, which we’re willing to do if they’re also willing to do the work.”

The committee also discussed a proposed 3% cost of living adjustment for all full-time staff not on probation. Stine questioned whether a 6% across-the-board raise might be preferable to bonuses. Campbell said a 6% adjustment would not be financially sustainable, noting that one-time bonuses provide flexibility based on available funds. “It’s not a guarantee,” Morris said. “If the board feels that when we do this evaluation we don’t have the funds to do merit bonus increases that year, we might not do that.”

Campbell estimated that the proposed 3% cost of living adjustment would add about $20,183.84 to the fiscal year 2026 budget. Both the performance evaluation policy and cost of living proposal will be presented to the full board at its next regular meeting Nov. 19.