Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fallon County debates closed-session personnel policy, weighing privacy against public right to know
Summary
The commission and county attorney discussed options for pre-disciplinary meetings, closed deliberations and whether employees should be present for deliberations; legal advisers presented differing guidance and commissioners asked for a policy defining the process.
Fallon County commissioners spent extensive time in a Jan. 27 work session reviewing how the county should handle personnel matters that implicate employee privacy and public‑meeting law.
County Attorney Darcy summarized conversations she had with outside legal advisers and the Montana Local Government Center, which offered differing guidance. Darcy said one adviser recommended a two‑phase process: a pre‑disciplinary meeting in which the employee is present to be heard, followed by a separate deliberation by the commission that could be closed. Another adviser recommended conducting decisions in closed session to better protect the county.
Why it matters: open‑meeting laws require the public body to balance an individual’s privacy interests against the public’s right to know; how the county structures hearings affects employee due process, legal risk and transparency.
Discussion highlights
- Commissioners and counsel discussed a model in which the employee is notified and given an opportunity to be heard (a pre‑disciplinary meeting) and then the commission may deliberate in a separate session. Counsel noted that if the commission determines privacy interests "clearly outweigh" public disclosure, the presiding officer must state that on the record before closing a meeting.
- Counsel warned that a closed deliberation can invite later court requests for closed-session minutes; opening the deliberation to the employee can reduce litigation risk but can also limit frank internal discussion. Several options were raised, including: (a) ask the employee to leave before deliberation, (b) allow the employee to waive privacy and force an open deliberation, or (c) create a standing personnel committee or hire an administrator to handle disciplinary decisions.
- Commissioners asked staff to draft a written personnel meeting policy so the county consistently applies its approach going forward. Darcy and others recommended a policy that explains notice, the employee’s right to be heard, and whether deliberations will normally be closed or open.
Ending
The commission agreed to continue the item to the Feb. 10 meeting to allow time for written policy language and for absent commissioners to participate in the discussion.
