Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners split over assessorffffffrecusal and pay for chief deputy
Summary
A disagreement over whether a commissioner with a relative in the assessorffff
Bonner County commissioners debated a pay and classification change for an assessor27s chief deputy and whether a commissioner should be excluded from that discussion because a relative works in the assessor27s office.
Commissioners reviewed benchmarking that treats the assessor27s chief deputy as an "assistant department head" and said the position should be compensated accordingly because it supervises staff and carries significant responsibilities. One commissioner objected to making the change without waiting for the third commissioner to take part in the vote because of a perceived conflict; other commissioners and a county prosecutor27s opinion cited in the meeting said ordinary budget decisions do not automatically require recusal unless the board is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity such as a Board of Equalization hearing.
"BOEs is one thing because you're sitting in a quasi-judicial function," a commissioner said during the exchange. Another commissioner noted she had received a written prosecuting-attorney opinion saying budgets are not included in the exclusion standard. Commissioners ultimately did not approve a pay change during the meeting because the body was split and staff recommended addressing the matter through HR outside the formal budget vote window.
Why it matters: The assessor27s office argued the chief deputy performs duties comparable to assistant department heads in other county departments and therefore merits a grade/step adjustment. The dispute also highlighted how commissioners handle conflicts of interest and the limits of recusal for routine budget decisions.
Discussion vs. decision: Commissioners discussed benchmarking evidence and a prosecutor27s email; no pay change was approved in the meeting. The board directed HR to continue benchmarking and report back; staff suggested placing a placeholder amount in contingency if the board wanted to reserve funds pending HR review.
Ending note: The matter remains open; commissioners said HR will continue the review and the full board will revisit the pay classification outside the immediate budget decision if necessary.
