Rusk County struggles to fill finance director; board weighs recruiters, advertising and pay

Rusk County officials reviewed recruitment for a vacant finance-director post and debated whether to hire an executive recruiter, increase advertising, or raise the posted salary to attract qualified applicants.

The finance position has been open since mid-January and the county reported no qualified applicants after four months. Staff told the board the job posting received roughly 9–11 views through the county’s career page and related job-aggregator sites. The board discussed contingency-based recruitment firms with no upfront fees and executive search firms that charge staged fees — including an example quote near $40,000 plus reimbursables — and higher-cost interim finance support currently billed at roughly $10,000–$13,000 per month.

County staff said the finance job has been posted on the Rusk County careers page, GovernmentJobs/NEOGOV, and the Wisconsin Government Finance Officers Association site. Additional advertising on NEOGOV would cost several hundred dollars for a 10–14 day push and would exhaust a significant portion of the county’s modest remaining advertising budget. Staff also said that contingency-based recruiting vendors exist but tend to be large firms and may not provide targeted outreach for executive-level county finance positions.

Board members questioned whether the county's advertised pay was competitive. Staff reviewed the current published pay scale in the packet and noted step-level hourly figures; the packet’s published top step and midpoint figures were discussed in the meeting as roughly in the mid‑$40,000 range per pay period scale (discussion characterized in the meeting as equating to roughly $93,000 annually for the top step on the posted range). Supervisors urged the board to consider whether raising the advertised salary or promoting internal advancement pipelines could be more cost‑effective than paying substantial recruiter fees.

The finance committee previously authorized HR to pursue a recruiter subject to a cap: no upfront costs and a total recruitment expense not to exceed 25% of the position’s annual salary, with final contract approval by the finance chair. Staff noted that many reputable executive-search firms require staged upfront fees and that those fees often exceed the committee’s 25% cap. Staff reported identifying two contingency-based firms (no upfront fee) as potential options but warned those firms may provide less-targeted outreach.

No binding contract was approved at the meeting. The finance committee chair and HR were asked to continue exploring options — including contingency firms, a targeted advertising push, and whether to adjust the posted salary range — and to report back to the finance committee and full board.