Brittany Kelley
SAN MARCOS — Following subordinate surveys and a personal improvement plan (PIP) yielding “concerning” results, the Hays County Commissioners Court voted 4-1 to terminate Transportation director Jennifer Moczygemba at its Aug. 12 meeting.
According to item sponsor commissioner Walt Smith, this is the second PIP for the county’s Transportation director, which had a duration of 60 days, with an evaluation that followed.
Human Resources director Erik Granjeno stated that the PIP began after receiving concerns from both current and past employees regarding Moczygemba’s leadership, agenda management, delegation and overall performance.
Following the PIP, a survey consisting of nine questions was conducted with the director’s five subordinates, many of which resulted in one individual agreeing to the statements, with four strongly disagreeing. For example, the question “My director fosters an environment where openness is encouraged,” yielded one “agree” and four “strongly disagrees.”
When asked what is an area that the director could do to improve their leadership, one respondent stated, “Listen to her staff. She may be experienced in planning and engineering, but she does not know how the sausage is made and won’t listen when it is explained to her. Her emphasis at the Transportation Department is not building roads; it is planning and policy changes. Hays County needs a road builder.”
Another said that the “Direct insults have subsided” and now “take the form of questioning the understanding of particular subject matter.”
These survey questions related to goals that were set by staff after Moczygemba’s initial PIP was concluded.
“What we have in this situation is, in my view, a director the employees do not feel like care about them at all,” said Smith. “I honestly believe that we have a good Transportation director that is an extremely good engineer … [but] I have serious doubt over her managerial style and the tenor with which she deals with her overall staff … At this point I don’t think it is tenable to move forward with [her] as our Transportation director.”
Echoing this sentiment were commissioners Michelle Cohen, Debbie Ingalsbe and Morgan Hammer, who stated that the expectations were given for this position and they were not met. Hammer also stated that there were conversations occurring on the side that the commissioners weren’t privy to, which shouldn’t be happening.
Regarding the feedback from the subordinates, Hays County Judge Ruben Becerra stated that “without having the whole audience, it can be a ‘he said, she said’ [ordeal, which] is not fair.”
In response, Granjeno did note that there was not a significant amount of sit-down time between Moczygemba and the employees to “hash out those concerns in a real-time setting.”
“I have been married 32 years and we all know how life is; I could be divorced next month, but the truth is I’ve made it this far — however far I’ve made it — because we have those arguments and those conversations while we are both in the room and not telling our friends at a bar,” emphasized Becerra. “I am very surprised and disappointed [that the parties were not in the same room]. That was an opportunity for us to create that dialogue.”
Becerra continued to inquire on the process, asking Granjeno if the investigation into Moczygemba was held to industry standards. According to the HR director, he conducted the process based on information provided to him by commissioners. Granjeno explained that he did not go directly to the Transportation director with the complaints, as to protect the identities of those involved, but that in a normal situation, they would be revealed.
“So, allow me to restate to see if it makes sense, if I understood correctly. Commissioners gave you parameters that were more restrictive in this process that prevented you from conducting an investigation, if you will, as industry standards would typically afford you,” said Becerra. “I am not saying that the commissioners intentionally told you … That was [just] apparently the end result.”
Cohen stated that she originally supported the PIP because the culture in Transportation is different and that it has been run a certain way for a long time. So, she saw the period as the director attempting to get a handle on everything occurring in the department at the time. After speaking with one of the staff members, Cohen felt as though they were not against the change from the director, it was just the way it was delivered to them.
“I want Jennifer to succeed. I always have. I understood [that] as a leader that coming into this, it was going to be difficult, but we still need to move forward with this. There are too many things at stake here in Transportation,” said Cohen.
Moczygemba was given an opportunity to make statements prior to the decision. She began by explaining that this was the first time she was hearing the survey results and that it is difficult to fix issues if she was never given information on what the problem actually was.
The Transportation director continued by listing her achievements during this time, which includes filling many vacancies within the department, improving cash flows, learning the county in a two-month timeframe to make a realistic budget and more.
“My belief is that the concerns that have been stated are largely just a difference in opinion of management style. For example, I have been told that I have not been in the office enough. I have also been told that I am in the office too much and should be out in the field more. It is not possible to satisfy both of these options,” explained Moczygemba.
She also stated that there have been collaborative efforts made, like sitting down as a team to develop goals, working on response surveys, determining what roles Transportation should be responsible for and more. Aspects outside of the office are being tended too, as well, Moczygemba continued, as there is a big breakfast planned in the upcoming weeks to spend more time together. Additionally, she said that she requested time to be able to meet her staff properly and introduce herself, but this was never granted.
“We also have monthly staff meetings. We had a meeting yesterday [and] only three people showed up. One of those was a notetaker, who is not a direct report,” she added.
Smith stated that it is concerning that in the PIP meetings, it was discussed to go out and meet the crews and teams to introduce herself and that she is only now, seven months in, looking to do so.
“I talk to my direct reports every day,” the Transportation director said.
“As a director, how many employees do you have right now,” asked Smith, to which Moczygemba stated that she was unsure. “I think that is very telling and I think that’s the point … It’s not personal, but I’ll tell you, if there aren’t any more comments, I am going to move for termination today.”
According to Becerra, when asked if she should be terminated, Granjeno shook his head to indicate that she shouldn’t.
The motion to terminate Moczygemba as Transportation director was passed 4-1, with Becerra dissenting.
“I really feel like the decision was already made before anybody came to court today,” Moczygemba concluded.
Granjeno stated that he believes, in the future, a more holistic process for evaluating directors should be implemented, where feedback is not strictly taken from their subordinates, but also the goals set for the departments that are specific and measurable.
Following the vote, Becerra took to social media to condemn the vote, citing it as part of a “troubling pattern.”
“I voted no because there was political pressure to move transportation funds in ways the Transportation Director and our former Budget Office Director refused to support,” said Becerra. “Both stood their ground. Now, both are gone.”
To listen to the discussion, visit bit.ly/3JfoULl.
