Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates payscale ordinance language; city attorney recommends legal review
Summary
City staff and the city attorney raised concerns that the council’s draft payscale ordinance—an 80-page document including detailed job descriptions—may conflict with state law and the city’s administrative scheme; the council agreed to seek guidance from the Kentucky League of Cities and deferred further action.
Shepherdsville councilors debated a proposed payscale ordinance that embeds detailed job descriptions and hiring qualifications into ordinance language and could limit departmental hiring flexibility.
City counsel told the council her legal review raised concerns that parts of the draft payscale ordinance may not be consistent with statutory law governing mayor-council duties and with the city’s 2021 employee handbook (ordinance 021034). Counsel said the council’s authority is tied to setting compensation and pay-classification plans by ordinance, but that specifying detailed job duties, education and minimum experience in an ordinance risks intruding on executive branch day-to-day management authority. "It is my legal opinion that the current Payscale ordinance... is not consistent with statutory law," counsel said as she advised further review.
Council members debated tradeoffs. Supporters said including clear job qualifications protects fair hiring and prevents politically motivated appointments; critics said embedding detailed descriptions in ordinance would require council approval for routine job-description changes and could hamper departmental operations. One council member described past problems where an improperly tailored job description reportedly led to a hiring that created operational issues.
The council agreed to seek outside guidance: staff said they would contact the Kentucky League of Cities (KLC) municipal-law attorneys (counsel identified Morgan Patterson and Megan as municipal-law contacts) and obtain a second legal opinion if needed. A motion to retain an outside attorney for a second opinion was proposed and later withdrawn while the council pursues initial KLC guidance. The council also directed staff to include any clarified approach in upcoming budget discussions if changes affect compensation tables.
No ordinance final adoption occurred at the meeting; councilors requested legal advice and said they would revisit the payscale language in a future meeting.
