Adams County board adopts five-year administrator contract after hours of debate over pay, term and severance
Loading...
Summary
After more than two hours of debate and several failed amendments, the Adams County Board of Supervisors approved Resolution 17 — an employment contract for County Administrator Cynthia Haggard — while adopting a single clarification that any future amendments require a majority board vote.
The Adams County Board of Supervisors voted to adopt an employment contract for County Administrator Cynthia Haggard after extended debate over compensation, term length and severance provisions.
Board members approved Resolution 17 as amended; the final roll call was 13 in favor and 6 opposed. The amendments adopted during the meeting included language specifying that “any amendment of this agreement must be made in writing and signed by the parties after majority vote of the county board prior to becoming effective.”
Why it matters: the contract sets pay, term and severance provisions for the county’s chief executive and establishes the process for changing that contract going forward — matters that affect county budgets, legal exposure and how future boards can modify the administrator’s terms.
The meeting produced a prolonged, sometimes heated exchange. Supervisor Sue Barry Shelton moved an amendment to leave the administrator’s wage unchanged at $142,000; that motion failed on a 6–13 vote. Multiple subsequent amendments seeking to shorten the five-year term (including proposals to end the contract in 2027 or 2028, and a two‑year cap) also failed. A later motion to reduce severance from six months to two months likewise failed (6–13).
Several supervisors criticized the size of the total compensation package and the process used to assemble the wage study. "We hit the easy button," Supervisor Dolezal said, arguing the county had not done sufficiently detailed research. Supervisor Jerry Posdanski said he appreciated Haggard’s reported comment that she was “good with where she is with the pay,” and described that as relevant to deliberations.
Legal context and limits were discussed on the floor. Outside counsel Andy Phillips summarized the statutory ambiguity the board had asked about: "The state statute doesn't mention majority or two thirds. What it says is the county administrator serves the pleasure of the board," Phillips said, adding that the statute could be read in more than one way. Corp. counsel and other speakers clarified that the contract is between the county and the administrator and that the chair signs on behalf of the county.
Board members also debated the contract’s severance, PTO and related payout rules. Corp. counsel and others noted the existing personnel policy caps PTO accumulation (discussed during the meeting as a 325‑hour maximum) and that certain accrued leave payouts are governed by county policy. A number of supervisors raised concern that changes to PTO or severance could lead to legal claims because an earlier three-year contract had permitted banking PTO.
The board rejected a motion to send the contract back to committee for further negotiation for lack of a second. After the final vote, the chair declared Resolution 17 adopted.
Ending note: several supervisors asked that future reviews and any remaining procedural questions be taken up in committee or at a future meeting; supervisors were also reminded that a performance review process for the administrator would take place and that supervisors could submit questions for that review before the next cycle.
