[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6569037,"mediaKeyId","3192691-704da3060f82433d90d60fe49e3e227a","parentId",3192691,"title","Cass County commissioners approve developing countywide employee-recognition policy; commissioners seek committee-based review","audioSeconds",1226,"startMs",2228000,"endMs",3454000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3192691-704da3060f82433d90d60fe49e3e227a&start=2228&end=3454","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3192691-704da3060f82433d90d60fe49e3e227a/thumbnail_2228000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6569037/Cass-County/North-Dakota/Cass-County-commissioners-approve-developing-countywide-employee-recognition-policy-commissioners-seek-committee-based-review","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6569037-4d5702d7f9b1748505d6ab76487bffbe/orig.mp4?Expires=1773135654&Signature=MHI-b4TuTNHc83HcyTUHgIp6eXiUJSOUnW8W-DsVPR~VFLWmCDgBirw54xjd4Yvl7I7JTi1RqJkkWu~W77IAI-zRSLlvTy894KdfSLgGmKC5GiUhKJdzkuqNEX6ro~G805zmFrQBAO~XaKCYIGTLB2ZT0b~wvcLVx~IFJtCM1a5xh7QWhtTJYsSBGJFDbs1U7xuoCSKUNf2egXylo3Fh8uqSzf8SIoDYagTxkG1R8MuAeayAFV8Mgd9ZYJBxDJuTIMcG~CQ~OW76UOY6ZCnKYwpgSgrwWMX6HpCY-m~NWQwWm~Qg2Nv1hdc-rvTP~YkVBoy9ZRRHYQz173lVWH6Lzg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Cass County, KS","date","2025-05-05T18:20:48.24Z","article","Cass County commissioners directed staff to continue developing a countywide employee-recognition policy and return the proposal as a commission agenda item after additional work with department heads and HR.

Commissioners discussed a two-tier recognition concept: a lower-tier acknowledgment (certificate and consent-agenda write-up) and a higher-tier recognition (standalone agenda item, plaque and public acknowledgement). The proposal would allow department heads and portfolio commissioners to flag employees or small teams for recognition when work is clearly \"above and beyond\" normal duties.

The discussion focused on how to preserve the award’s value and avoid perceived favoritism. The sheriff described his office’s existing awards process — written policy, nomination criteria, an awards committee and an annual ceremony — and cautioned that awards should be structured with clear criteria and committee review to avoid internal morale problems. Commissioners and department heads raised concerns about smaller departments feeling disadvantaged and about timeliness: several speakers said recognition has more impact when it occurs soon after the action being recognized.

Some commissioners suggested creating an awards committee with cross-departmental representation to review nominations; others favored keeping initial responsibility with department heads but involving the portfolio commissioner. The county’s administrator and HR director said the current draft is a concept for discussion and that they plan to bring a formal policy back for adoption.

The commission approved a motion to continue work on the recognition policy and to bring a formal draft to a future commission agenda. No formal awards were made at the meeting.

Commissioners asked HR to ensure recognition records are placed in employee files and to consider a committee-based review for larger awards so that the process is standardized across departments.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Personnel Overview Committee Meeting 5/5","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners asked staff to develop a countywide employee-recognition policy with safeguards and return it as a commission agenda item. Commissioners discussed criteria, timeliness and the potential for an awards committee modeled on the sheriff’s office process.","taxTitle","Cass County, North Dakota","taxId",2734,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6569042,"Cass County commissioners forward six job reclassification requests to Gallagher for review",877,452000,1329000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3192691-704da3060f82433d90d60fe49e3e227a&start=452&end=1329","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3192691-704da3060f82433d90d60fe49e3e227a/thumbnail_452000.jpg","/articles/6569042/Cass-County/North-Dakota/Cass-County-commissioners-forward-six-job-reclassification-requests-to-Gallagher-for-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6569042-0c157e7800975b30807afe5592ee88d4/orig.mp4?Expires=1773135654&Signature=O20GjrGQVN4UdY4WyF7PsWkPidpEIul5q5OTin52W04kDr2Q446os2IizuKg6zRAz05SobapUuMgF1FIwPOxMmQvw7ajMUy4OrVkX23H~HgN4X2kzB991Qd5okVA1a6cODC59by8bTTJr6WnPmDQHY9rJhcfOUxw8bVmj9BRo35K6XC5F9znK9viBnyn6PdvQDxCRcTfg0iVLWcCS5~ed~5cZLfTkkq4Nu7waogAHFOR5eGZqTQJM-ga3Gm~Uk3x2IvD8mwqeE2IVzMvQuIhf7nwNT1PC~1FJjOJc-JptJ1zQgTng4jncgQ~sxEEHOpCoW5OCeLaUYk6jclDLOT3Ig__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Cass County Board of Commissioners on an administrative meeting voted to forward six personnel classification requests to Gallagher, the county’s compensation consultant, for formal job-analysis review and grading.

The requests the commission approved to send to Gallagher included a reclassification request for the vector-control supervisor position, a request to re-evaluate an information-technology account technician (front-office) role, a request for a GIS specialist reclassification, a request to review the accounting manager position, and a request to replace an election-administrator FTE with a new financial-analyst role. Commissioners also approved creating advancement steps for an existing security analyst classification so employees can promote from Security Analyst 1 to 2 and 3 under an established advancement policy.

The action matters because Gallagher’s review determines whether the county will adjust pay grades, minimum qualifications and formal classifications — changes that shape recruitment, retention and internal pay equity across county departments. Several department heads told the commission they had not completed PAQ (position-analysis questionnaire) reviews for these positions in many years and argued duties have changed materially.

Department heads summarized the primary reasons for each submission. Kyle Litchi said the vector-control supervisor’s PAQ had not been updated since 2018 and that the incumbent now supervises a full-time staff member, manages 40–45 seasonal employees at peak, and has added GIS mapping, time-and-materials tracking and increased certification/training responsibilities. An IT official (Bob) described how an information-technology account technician’s duties have shifted from accounting tasks to being the first stop for technical support, onboarding automation and process ownership; the role is currently graded B21 and the department seeks re-evaluation (they suggested a target closer to B22). The same IT presenter said the county’s GIS specialist role has moved from producing ad-hoc maps to managing back-end GIS infrastructure and automation (FME workflows), enterprise licensing and staff training — duties he said had not been reviewed since about 2017.

Grady, identified in the meeting as the finance director, said the accounting manager role (currently D61) last underwent classification review in 2012 and has expanded after the auditor and treasurer offices were combined; the position now supervises five direct reports and the county is proposing a bachelor’s-degree requirement in accounting for the role if reclassified. The finance office also proposed replacing an election-administrator FTE with a new financial-analyst position (C52 base) to handle cash-flow management, state-mandated central voter file support, property-tax software and other systems-management duties; staff said recruitment would occur immediately if the PAQ is approved because the role supports upcoming 2026 election work.

On the IT advancement item, staff acknowledged an administrative omission when the security-analyst role was first created and asked the commission to authorize Security Analyst 2 and 3 steps to mirror the existing IT analyst advancement steps (proposed grades C43 and C51). The county described a merit-based advancement policy for IT roles requiring minimum time-in-step (two years from 1 to 2; five years from 2 to 3), preapproved training and demonstrable project work.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about the degree to which duties changed (the county repeatedly cited increased technical responsibilities, supervision and automation/infrastructure work) and confirmed that the actions taken were referrals to Gallagher for external review rather than final reclassifications or immediate pay changes. Each motion to forward the requests, and to create the security-analyst advancement steps, carried without recorded opposition.

Votes at a glance: all personnel-related submissions considered at the meeting were approved to be forwarded to Gallagher for classification review (commissioners recorded unanimous \"Aye\" on each motion). Specific effective dates noted in discussion: the accounting-manager reclassification request, if approved by Gallagher, would be effective Jan. 1, 2026; the proposed financial-analyst position would be filled immediately if approved because it fits an existing budgeted FTE.

Department heads and commissioners flagged several implementation and administrative points for follow-up: standardizing account-tech titles to avoid confusion across departments, reconciling legacy GIS-specialist PAQs in the county’s HR system, and ensuring internal advancement policies are clearly documented and applied consistently across departments.

The commissioners did not take final classification or pay actions at the meeting; the referrals will return to the board if Gallagher recommends grade changes or reclassification outcomes.","At a county commission meeting, commissioners voted unanimously to forward six position reclassification or review requests — including vector control supervisor, two IT roles, a GIS specialist, accounting manager and a new financial analyst — to Gallagher for external classification review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Cass County commissioners approve developing countywide employee-recognition policy; commissioners seek committee-based review

Cass County commissioners forward six job reclassification requests to Gallagher for review