Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pay And Salary Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Swain County commissioners defend pay study, face employee concern and closed-session questions
Summary
At a Swain County Board of Commissioners meeting, commissioners and a county employee disputed elements of a recent salary study and pay increases, while several commissioners debated the use of closed sessions and the county’s obligation to honor the adopted budget.
Swain County commissioners on an evening meeting defended a recently completed salary study and a set of raises after county employees and a member of the personnel committee voiced concern that higher-level staff received larger increases than frontline workers.
The issue drew repeated public and commissioner discussion because it touched on pay equity, the cost of the consultant study and whether personnel matters were handled transparently. Gina Wiggins, a county employee who said she served two terms on the personnel committee, told the board the committee aimed to “keep employees here and boost morale” and that committee members expected the salary changes would prioritize lower-paid staff.
Wiggins said the personnel committee had sought a $15 minimum wage for the lowest-paid county positions and that “the majority of us … thought that we were voting for the raises for the little people, not for the big people.” She urged the board to revisit the study if the calculations were not right.
Commissioners and others on the dais repeatedly urged that the adopted budget remain in effect. One commissioner (unnamed in the record) said the board had voted on the budget previously and that “by law, we have to keep that budget.” That same commissioner told employees to “talk to your supervisor, talk to your department head, and let them talk to the county manager” if they have pay or payroll questions.
The transcript records several quantitative details raised during the discussion: the county contracted a salary study consultant for $20,000; one longevity payment cited was $2,348; an example rise in a pay grade from “58 to 68” was discussed; and a commissioner referenced the county manager’s starting salary as “115,000” as context for the debate. A commissioner also said reductions in overtime and schedule changes in the sheriff’s office had reduced overtime costs by about $600,000, a factor that the county said affected the overall payroll picture.
Several commissioners and at least one member of the public criticized the use of closed session for personnel matters. A speaker identified only as a member of the public said, “That’s where we hide and do little deals,” and vowed never to vote to return to closed session for similar items. County officials explained, however, that North Carolina law requires personnel discussions that concern a particular person to be handled in closed session, while compensation plans for positions (not individual employees) can be discussed in open session.
No formal change to the budget or salary policy was made during the meeting. Commissioners who spoke urged staff and employees to use the county’s chain of command to address individual payroll concerns and said the adopted budget, which board members said passed in a previous 4–1 vote, remained in effect.
Gina Wiggins concluded her public comment by asking the board to “revisit it” if the math does not work for everyone.
The discussion closed without a recorded motion to reopen or amend the salary study during this session; commissioners indicated any further adjustments would require additional study or formal action on a future agenda.
