In a recent meeting of the Jefferson County Board of Supervisors, significant concerns were raised regarding the hiring process for the position of ambulance director, particularly surrounding the treatment of current interim director Judy. The meeting, which was conducted via Zoom, faced technical difficulties but proceeded with discussions that highlighted potential procedural irregularities and allegations of inappropriate conduct.

Paul Roof, a temporary HR consultant, addressed the board, emphasizing the need for transparency and adherence to the county's employee handbook. He argued that Judy's performance had consistently received positive reviews, yet her appointment to the permanent position was stalled due to unproven allegations of an inappropriate relationship. Roof asserted that the board's actions appeared to violate established policies regarding employment of relatives and romantic relationships, suggesting that no disciplinary action had been taken against Judy despite the allegations.

Roof pointed out that the board had previously promoted Judy and acknowledged her strong performance, raising questions about the rationale behind not making her position permanent. He noted that a petition from employees supporting Judy's continued employment had been initiated, further indicating her positive standing among staff.

The discussion also touched on the board's decision-making process, with Roof questioning the fairness of the hiring practices and the apparent disparity in salary discussions for the new ambulance director compared to Judy's current compensation. He highlighted that while the board considered offering a new hire a salary significantly higher than Judy's, she was performing multiple roles without a corresponding increase in pay.

Concerns were also raised about the conduct of the interview process, with allegations that inappropriate and potentially illegal questions were posed to Judy during her interviews. Roof suggested that these actions could expose the county to legal liabilities and called for a reevaluation of the board's approach to hiring and employee treatment.

The meeting concluded without a clear resolution, leaving lingering questions about the board's commitment to transparency and fair employment practices. As the situation develops, the board faces scrutiny over its handling of personnel matters and the implications for county governance.