Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Speaker asks supervisors to investigate county response to bomb threat at Registrar of Voters
Summary
A public commenter said county staff continued to work after the Registrar of Voters received a bomb threat and asked the board to investigate potential liability and whether the county adhered to memoranda of understanding protecting employee safety.
A public commenter asked the board to investigate the county’s response after the Registrar of Voters received a bomb threat and to clarify whether county leadership exposed employees to danger in violation of labor agreements.
“Here on November 8 the registrar of voters received a bomb threat... What is the county's liability regarding [the official] who knowingly kept workers, staff, and observers working in a building during a bomb threat for over 52 minutes?” Cheryl said during public comment, quoting language she read from a memorandum of understanding that states “no employee shall be required to work under conditions dangerous to the employee's health or safety.”
Cheryl asked whether the issue had been referred to appropriate investigators and whether swift corrective actions would follow. She said the registrar received the threat at 6:08 p.m. and alleged the workplace remained staffed for 52 minutes after the notice; she requested the board demand accountability and asked whether the county risked additional lawsuits.
Why it matters: Bomb‑threat protocols and employer responsibilities for safety are matters of liability and staff protection. The commenter directly asked supervisors to ensure an investigation and corrective actions.
What the board did: The item was raised during public comment; no staff report or board directive was recorded during the meeting. A separate speaker elsewhere in the meeting briefly cited “Title 8, section 133,” but no formal legal finding or staff action was recorded at the time of the comment.
Clarifying details: The commenter cited a memorandum of understanding provision (no employee shall be required to work under conditions dangerous to the employee's health or safety) and said the registrar received a bomb threat on Nov. 8 at 6:08 p.m.; she asked whether the matter had been referred to appropriate law enforcement or investigators and whether the county would face liability.
