Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Human Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners reopen debate on county HR support and liaison role; past contractor and on-site availability cited
Summary
Keith County commissioners discussed whether to re-establish or revise outsourced human-resources support after mixed experience with a prior contractor (Zelle) and identified a $25,000 line in the current budget for HR; commissioners asked staff to gather comments from offices and return with a recommendation.
The Keith County Board of Commissioners reopened a multi-meeting discussion about human-resources support, liaison assignments and whether to pursue a limited, negotiated contract for HR services.
Commissioners reviewed past experience with an outside HR contractor (Zelle) and said some departments had benefited from on-site, prompt support while others declined to use the service. One commissioner summarized the history: the county had contracted for HR services, received mixed feedback after staff changes at the contractor, then chose not to renew the full contract during a prior budget review.
At the meeting commissioners said offices continue to report persistent gaps: the employee handbook remains partly incomplete, employees and department heads sometimes lack clear guidance on FMLA and other personnel matters, and the county’s small internal staff capacity means some issues stall. Several commissioners emphasized the importance of on-site availability: “If you call Pam, she tells you all this…and she said, check with your county attorney,” one commissioner said, identifying delays when telephone support is the only option. By contrast, commissioners said an on-site or locally available HR contact made problem resolution faster during earlier work with Zelle.
Commissioners noted there is $25,000 currently in the county budget for HR-related services and that Jordan (a county staff contact) indicated the vendor would negotiate a more limited, specific contract focused on the county’s highest-priority needs if asked. Commissioners directed staff to collect feedback from department heads, assemble recommended contract scope options, and return to the board at a future meeting (not next week; a later date was requested to avoid agenda conflicts) with a proposed approach that could include a partial contract, on-site visits for sensitive matters, or other alternatives.
There was no final vote at the meeting; the board agreed to readdress HR at a future meeting after gathering more office-level input.
