Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission approves personnel step increases for recent hires after debate over timing and budget control

3862571 · June 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Board approved the personnel actions on the consent agenda item G by a 3–2 vote after commissioners raised concerns about step increases granted to employees within their first year and the effect on long‑term budgeting.

Pennington County commissioners approved personnel actions on the consent agenda (item G) with a 3–2 roll‑call vote on June 17 after a substantive discussion about department‑level step increases granted to employees within their first 12 months.

Commissioner Drews and others asked why two newer employees in the human resources office and other recent hires were being moved multiple steps on the wage scale so soon after being hired. Carol Bancroft, the county HR director, explained the policy allowing step increases within the first 12 months of employment and said the individuals involved were below the policy cap; she said one was at step 5 and another at step 3 and that the policy allows movement up to 10 steps.

Several commissioners raised budgetary concerns. Commissioner Durr said ad‑hoc step increases can make personnel budgeting unpredictable and argued changes to the employee manual should be considered as part of the 2026 budget process so the county can achieve consistent, organization‑wide policy. Commissioner Hadcock and others said the HR office had been applying the existing policy consistently and that the increases reward experience and retain staff.

The board voted 3–2 to approve the consent agenda action on item G; the minutes record votes of the board and a subsequent motion to proceed with the listed personnel transactions.

Separately, commissioners noted a corrected personnel item for an interim commander classification and confirmed changes intended to match a prior board motion.

The action was approved by majority vote; several commissioners asked staff to return with proposed manual amendments as part of the next budget cycle to address organization‑wide consistency and fiscal planning.