Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves management resolution update and two personnel contracts after debate over attorney pay equity
Summary
Supervisors updated the county’s management resolution and approved personal-services contracts: an assistant auditor-controller and a senior deputy district attorney. The district attorney requested a higher step for the senior deputy; the board approved the contracts as presented after discussion about internal equity and future budget review.
The Board of Supervisors on March 25 updated the county management resolution for management employees and ratified two personal-services contracts tied to that resolution.
The board first amended and approved the updated management resolution (listed in the packet as 2025-O8). Supervisors then considered a contract to hire Courtney Girardin (listed in the contract packet) as assistant auditor-controller, with compensation stated as grade 20, step C ($9,678.41 per month) and a $750 monthly vehicle allowance. The board approved that contract by motion.
Separately, the board considered Amendment No. 1 to the personal services contract for Senior Deputy District Attorney David Christiansen. County staff said the earlier contract used an incorrect grade; the amendment set the senior deputy at grade 24, step E (monthly pay listed at $12,836.93). District Attorney Dana Crom urged the board to approve the contract at step F to address compaction between the senior deputy and the deputy-4 position the senior deputy supervises. Crom described Christiansen as having more than 30 years of prosecutorial experience and said supervising responsibilities and case complexity (including a current death-penalty murder case) warrant a higher step.
Supervisors discussed internal equity, the Evergreen compensation study implementation, effects on represented union positions and the timing of evaluations that produced step changes. County staff explained that much of the budgetary impact listed in the agenda text reflected total salary and benefit costs for a six-month period (January–June) rather than only the incremental change. After discussion, the board voted to approve the contract amendment at the step presented in the recommended motion (step E). The motion to approve the recommended actions for items 26–28 passed by voice vote with no roll-call tally recorded in the minutes.
Supervisors and county staff agreed the DA’s office may return during the budget process with a request to address attorney-classification parity and to seek an authorized assistant position; board members said broader internal-equity fixes are best handled through a transparent budget and classification process.
No supervisor requested the contract be continued to a later meeting; the board’s action immediately ratified the management-resolution update and the two contracts.
