Personnel Hearing Creates Discussion

Published 4:01 pm Tuesday, January 25, 2011

CUMBERLAND – The County's Board of Supervisors decided on a personnel management code amendment during after much time was spent debating before the ordinance was finally adopted in an amended form.

Before the decision, several Supervisors voiced concerns related to language that would give the County Administrator the ability to provide incentives and other types of bonuses not to exceed $2,500, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Afterwards, the sentence in question was deleted in order for the ordinance to gain popularity.

The proposed amendment to the County's Code would prescribe certain duties and responsibilities of the County Administrator for personnel management and administration, including compensation and incentive plans and employee benefit programs.

Email newsletter signup

The overall purpose, according to County Attorney Howard Estes, would be to clarify the responsibility of the County Administrator over personnel matters of the county.

“I was asked by the County's administration to review the personnel handbook,” explained Estes about how the need for this ordinance was originally brought to his attention. “Going through the handbook initially, I started realizing that there had not been any formal ordinance adopted…giving the County Administrator any authority over the County even though that's the way we've been operating.”

The ordinance outlines the County Administrator's functions and responsibilities including leadership over procedural instructions and interpretations of the code and personnel policies and regulations; compliance with equal employment opportunity laws; entering into agreements with other public departments or agencies for joint administration of personnel matters; maintaining employment compensation plan and payroll system; roster of central personnel records; employment performance evaluations; the County's grievance system; and employee benefits programs.

“Lastly, you all may recall that you were concerned about retention of staff and this provision … is a vehicle that if funds were appropriated-obviously, you all would have to take action on any dollars for retention bonuses-it would provide Ms. (Judy) Ownby a method where she could try to retain staff who were offered jobs elsewhere. It provides a vehicle for that process. This is really getting inline with what our handbook currently exists. It's a policy manual but we don't have any legislative authority for that.”

The ordinance would also help insulate the Board from any claims of sexual harassment and employment risks, Estes noted.

“The only check and balance there is is the appropriation of money by the Board,” said Vice Chairman Bobby Oertel, District Five, about the liberties given to the County Administrator. “Is that what I understand?”

According to Estes, the County Administrator serves the Board.

“Any action that she is taking or inaction that she is taking is responsive to you,” he said. “While this is providing the day-to-day administration, any broader policy initiatives that the Board wants to direct can be directed by this body to the County Administrator but there has to be some method to document the legislative authority of the County Administrator over these personnel actions. Right now, we have nothing like this in the Code and it cries out for some action.”

As described in the final portion of the ordinance presented for approval, the County Administrator would also be authorized with Board's approval and appropriated funds to provide incentives, awards, and bonuses to employees-the amount could not exceed $2,500 or four percent of the employee's annual salary.

The questions that came from several Supervisors concerned the monetary amount listed in the proposed ordinance about incentives or awards.

“I don't understand this Section C,” notified Supervisor Tim Kennell, District Two, when Petty called for questions. “I don't follow it…not that certainly the County Administrator wouldn't come to the Board and ask for special consideration, which has happened in the past and has been approved, but I don't understand why it needs to be there. It just seems to be an additional item and if it's an item we want in there at budget time that we find funds that we put into a bonus or compensation fund that the County Administrator can use going forward over the current year…I see it from that standpoint. Otherwise, it seems unnecessary…”

Supervisor Kennell later reiterated the fact that he'd understand it as a budget item but not as part of the presented ordinance for adoption.

“Maybe I just need a clearer explanation on it,” he continued.

According to Supervisor Bill Osl, District One, there are a number of items that are at the state level that end up being adopted by Cumberland.

“The state code…requires that any authority that this Board exercises has to be specified in the state code. That latitude though…doesn't mean how that gets done so we pass and adopt ordinances at the local level to specify how we want these ordinances handled…,” noted Estes. “This body adopts ordinances in the context of what the state law permits. The items enumerated in here are at a minimum of responsibility for a County Administrator…The County Administrator 'may' have authority. It's not the County Administrator 'shall' have authority…”

Related to the financial aspect of the proposed ordinance, the County Attorney, again, called the Board's attention to last year when Supervisors requested, during the budget process, assistance with staff morale issues.

“If you don't have this authority then the County Administrator would have to come to you all at a regularly scheduled Board meeting to get authority to try and provide a retention system for an employee…,” explained Estes.

“You could have an actual emergency situation where you don't have staff in positions and she doesn't have authority to back fill it because you all haven't provided that authority,” he continued. “So, that was the issue that you all talked about during the budget cycle last year…about what to do when there is a key position and they are going to leave and provide no notice or two weeks notice and it's between Board meetings. This provides a vehicle to make sure those positions are filled and if there's any retention needed… This is based on what you all had given me during the budget cycle.”

Supervisor Osl also took time to note that there's not “a dollar in this County that can be spent until it's appropriated funds.”

“We have the ultimate authority,” he said. “And I'm comfortable with that from a budget standpoint and an appropriations standpoint.”

Supervisor Elbert Womack also described that this ordinance isn't any different than the County's normal operating procedure because it would finally be approved by the Board but would be administered by the County Administrator.

“You are not giving any authority to the County Administrator,” added Estes. “It's providing a vehicle for her to be able to say that I've got this authority in the ordinance to administer this activity if there's ever a challenge to it.”

Before a decision was made, the Board did hold a public hearing where one citizen spoke.

“This would be the first step in that process,” said Estes about how the section in question would help with employees. “If you all decided to have a system, you all could provide the parameters around…and you can say that you are not to appropriate any of these dollars without coming to us or you might say, 'Well, based on this, if you have an employee where you think it's critical then you can have a stopgap payment to retain them while duties are transferred to a new employee. This would be the first step in that process…”

Without the section in the ordinance, the Board would not be proactive and would have to have some type of emergency meeting in order to take care of that type of personnel business.

Motion To Table

At this point, Oertel spoke up and turned the discussion in another direction by making a motion that the Board table the decision on the proposed personnel ordinance until February.

“Do you need more information?” asked Chairman Petty. “What's the reason for tabling it?”

Oertel just replied that he thought the ordinance should be addressed at the next meeting.

“I don't think we should have to pass it tonight if some of us are uncomfortable with it,” he said.

According to the County Attorney, direction is needed as soon as possible in order for him to begin working on the County's handbook.

“This provides the direction for me to start working on those elements in the handbook and getting that updated,” he said. “As I've shared earlier I do think there is some exposure to the Board because there isn't any legislative authority-there is no ordinance in place for the personnel administration. So, that does concern me and I do think that the ability for the Board to appropriate dollars on a case-by-case basis still exists…This is providing the County Administrator authority based on your input to administer any type of rewards program, whether it's got money tied to it or not. It provides a framework that is very general in nature but I do think it's something that is important for this body to adopt.”

Supervisor Osl stated that he didn't understand why there would be an issue with the ordinance because the Board would still have ultimate authorization related to the financial aspects.

Estes noted that the proposed ordinance had been crafted after looking at how other localities take care of similar personnel responsibilities.

It was then decided, in order to gain a consensus, to strike the sentence detailing that the incentives and awards and bonuses may not exceed $2,500 or four percent of an employee's annual salary.

“The reason why I put that in there was for the citizens to know that there would never be an award for $10,000 or something like that,” advised Estes. “That's why I really put it in there. It's not really material to what my needs are…”

The Vote

At the end, the Board then voted on the motion to table the adoption of the ordinance. The motion failed on a four to one vote. Oertel voted in favor of tabling the ordinance.

Afterwards, a new motion was made to adopt the proposed personnel resolution as amended (with the sentence in question deleted). That motion passed unanimously.