Barry County approves multiple pay-scale reclassifications after officials cite recruitment struggles

The Barry County Board of Commissioners on March 11 approved a package of job reclassifications for public-safety and court positions, citing long recruitment gaps and competition from neighboring counties.

County commissioners voted to reclassify the assistant public defender from grade 11 to grade 12 and the senior assistant public defender from grade 13 to grade 14 on the BCCEA pay scale. The board also approved the same pattern of reclassifications for assistant prosecutor and senior assistant prosecutor positions, and a reclassification for a trial court staff attorney from grade 12 to grade 14.

Why it matters: Prosecutors, the public defender and court staff told commissioners the county is losing candidates to nearby counties that pay more for entry-level attorneys, leaving long vacancies and reliance on costly contract lawyers. The actions restore higher pay ranges for internal hires and aim to make the county more competitive when recruiting qualified attorneys.

Public defender: The speaker identified in the meeting as Public Defender told the board that an advertised attorney opening produced no applications in 17 months and that local starting pay lags neighboring counties. “I had an open position, attorney position, for 17 months, and I have not had 1 application. Not 1,” the Public Defender said. He and others argued that moving to a full-time public defender office and hiring salaried staff would ultimately reduce contract-attorney costs.

Prosecutor and court administrators: A prosecutor and trial court administrators described similar recruitment challenges and the emotional and technical demands of prosecutor and defender work. Inez, identified as Trial Court Administrator, and Daisy, deputy trial court administrator, said the staff-attorney role carries statutory duties including paternity and collections work and that filling the vacancy is necessary to comply with those duties. Louella, identified in the record as a county HR/administration official, explained the reclassifications trace to the county’s use of a proprietary classification system and a 2015 compensation study and to subsequent work by a classification committee.

Cost and funding: The trial court office said the position is funded under the county’s CRP contract and receives state reimbursement (66%); payment of a county share of approximately $14,322 was referenced in the discussion. Commissioners and administrators said that some vacancies have produced budget savings that can offset reclassification costs, and that hiring salaried staff may be fiscally preferable to continuing high contract-attorney pay dictated by state rates.

Vote: Each reclassification was approved by roll call. The meeting record shows the commissioners present—Bassett, Carlton, Campbell, Getty, Hatfield, Toonison, Colton and Jackson—voted aye, and each motion passed.

What’s next: Commissioners discussed a broader, updated classification and compensation study to replace the county’s nearly decade-old review, and several members urged placing that study on a future agenda so staffing levels and pay scales can be reassessed across departments.

Ending: Officials said filling these positions will proceed through the county’s normal hiring and classification processes, and that the county will continue to monitor recruitment outcomes and budget impacts.