Greene County board keeps EMS position description, sets interview plan and application cutoff

Greene County board members voted to keep the current EMS position description unchanged and agreed on a process to review applicants for the role, including naming two members to screen applications and coordinate interviews.

Why it matters: The board’s decision preserves the qualifications and responsibilities that will govern hiring for an EMS leadership role and sets the near-term steps for selecting candidates, affecting local emergency medical operations and staffing.

At the meeting, a board member moved to leave the position description "as is," and the motion was seconded by George; the board approved the motion by voice vote. The board then discussed who should review applications and conduct candidate interviews. One member said the board needs two reviewers because "when you only have 2 because, 3 is a quarter. So we need 2 to review these applications," and members agreed to nominate reviewers rather than expand the panel.

The board nominated Troy and Brad to serve as the primary reviewers and to arrange interviews. Marvin, a board member, stated during the meeting, "20 third. 20 third. 20 third is the last day of applications," and also indicated a 4:00 deadline in the same exchange. The members discussed holding interviews at Station 3's conference room to make attendance easier for hospital staff and a named doctor in attendance, and they agreed to use a common set of interview questions to keep evaluations objective: "you gotta ask the same question ... to see how you think," one member said.

Members debated the desirable background for candidates. Several speakers emphasized that the role includes both administrative and clinical elements: one board member said candidates should be "well rounded" and noted the advantage of medical experience for evaluating equipment and overseeing clinical operations. Another member suggested including people with medical knowledge on the interview panel so they can judge clinical qualifications.

The board also discussed operational context that bears on hiring: staff reported recent ambulance call and transport totals and described a service warranty issue that delayed parts delivery from Florida for a new vehicle. Those operational items were noted as background for why a candidate with clinical and operational familiarity would be valuable.

On budgeting, members said the FY2026 budget is in good shape and that the FY2027 outlook is uncertain; one member reminded the board the budget must be approved at a future meeting and referenced a required submission "by the third," as stated in the meeting. No formal budget action was taken at this meeting.

Next steps, as described by members: Troy and Brad will review applications, decide which candidates to interview, and report back to the board; the board will schedule interviews and seek to finalize hiring steps after interviews are complete. The record in the meeting indicates members expect to act after the application cutoff and interviews are held.