Bonner County commissioners put the county's salary benchmarking project on hold after commissioners said the HR presentation lacked required controls, national comparisons and a completed review of job descriptions.

The pause followed sustained criticism from multiple commissioners that the external benchmarking presented by HR did not show how comparator jurisdictions were selected, did not distinguish temporary recruitment-driven pay changes from market value, and relied on job titles and mixes of city and county benchmarks that had not been uniformly vetted. Commissioner Corn said she would not support decisions based on the materials presented and asked whether to adjourn the benchmarking portion of the meeting. Commissioner Corn also pressed HR to provide documented job-description reviews before moving forward.

HR Director Jonathan told the board he needs guidance from commissioners to proceed and that "I can't proceed any further without that," characterizing the meeting as a request for direction and noting he had brought a reorganized presentation that he said would be more constructive. Jonathan also warned the board that payroll deadlines will force work to be re-done if benchmarked pay updates are delayed: the HR director said next Friday is the last day to enter updated pay information with the COLA and step increases for the coming pay cycle, meaning data could become obsolete if the project restarts after that date.

Commissioners said they want a stronger foundation for benchmarking before approving pay changes. Among the questions: whether HR had (1) completed a crosswalk between job descriptions and the actual work employees perform, (2) centralized ownership of job descriptions or relied on decentralized department versions, and (3) incorporated national salary data and proportional comparators rather than a variable mix of two to five jurisdictions. HR said job-description review was part of prior data gathering and that some descriptions have been updated, but Commissioners requested HR email the board the job-description review and the methodology that supports the claim that approximately 18% of positions in the civil pay scale are not aligned to the market data.

Given the concerns, commissioners directed HR to pause the benchmarking recommendations and to return with clarified documentation and a proposed scope before the board takes action. Commissioners also agreed it would be preferable to have all three commissioners present for substantive benchmarking decisions and that, absent complete supporting data, HR should identify administrative matters that can be handled without a public vote and send those items to the board by email for direction.

What's next: HR will (a) check and send the job-description review and supporting benchmarking methodology to commissioners; (b) list the specific administrative items requiring board direction and identify items that require a formal vote; and (c) propose a step-by-step workshop schedule so commissioners can review benchmarking and related policy changes in more detail. The board did not take a formal recorded vote; the outcome was a tabled/pause decision reflected in the meeting discussion.