Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Harney County court weighs creating county administrator role, considers phased approach
Loading...
Summary
The court discussed adding administrative capacity—either by hiring a county administrator or expanding existing positions—while raising concerns about funding, staff equity and statutory constraints on changing the form of government.
Harney County Court spent significant time at its work session discussing whether to create a county administrator (or chief of staff) role, how to fund it and how to phase any change so it does not undermine other departments.
Commissioners and staff agreed they need more administrative capacity to handle payroll, human resources, intergovernmental agreements and project management. The court discussed several options: hiring a full‑time county administrator (cost estimates cited near $100,000 a year), reclassifying and expanding the executive assistant role to take on county administration duties while adding a deputy or clerical position (estimated $37,000–$40,000 plus benefits), or easing in by reallocating duties among existing staff.
Renee, who identified herself as a long‑time employee in the district attorney’s office, described current staffing pressures and the difficulty of absorbing additional duties without losing frontline services. “We have been buried for years out there,” Renee said, urging the court to consider how adding countywide administrative roles would affect already short staffing in other offices.
Court members raised equity concerns about creating a new administrative position while other offices lack staffing or pay increases. Several members recommended completing the county compensation study and classification review before making staffing changes so new roles and pay grades align with county needs and available revenue.
The court discussed funding realities at length. Members noted that grant revenue is variable and that using grants to pay an administrator’s salary is risky; a member summarized common administrative cost allowances, noting federal “de minimis” administrative rates at about 15% and lower percentages for some state grants. The court also discussed using existing general fund revenues, reallocating positions, or seeking new revenue sources through economic development.
Legal and structural issues surfaced in the discussion. A participant said Harney County’s current form of government (county court with a county judge and two commissioners) carries statutory probate authority that complicates a move to a board of commissioners; changing that structure would require a legislative fix and voter approval and could take years. Commissioners emphasized the need to define any administrator’s signing and procurement authority clearly to avoid unintended obligations.
No formal motion or vote took place. The court directed staff to continue work on a compensation study, to explore phased options that reduce immediate budgetary impact (for example, expanding the executive assistant’s duties and adding a supporting clerical role), and to solicit employee input on potential staffing changes.
Ending: Court members agreed the topic requires more study and that any change should minimize harm to existing services while improving administrative redundancy and continuity.
