Bonner County commissioners weigh monthly, quarterly and annual staff recognition options

Bonner County commissioners and staff debated whether to maintain monthly employee recognition or move to a quarterly-into-annual model during a workshop session, with discussion focused on program design, taxable rewards, department size and budget implications.

The county workshop centered on whether the Board should continue a monthly “employee of the month” program or instead recognize staff quarterly at the department level and select a smaller number of annual countywide honorees. Commissioners and department leaders said some small departments lack enough employees to sustain a monthly program and that monthly awards had become “obligatory” in some places rather than a meaningful recognition tied to performance evaluations.

Supporters of a less frequent, higher-value award said tying the county-level recognition to annual performance evaluations would make the award more substantive and encourage directors to complete evaluations. Assessor Englehart recommended having departments select quarterly honorees that would create a three-person pool per category for the board to consider for an annual award. Several participants suggested categorizing awards to cover staff with external public contact, internal-support staff and emergency-response staff so recognition could reflect different job types rather than compare dissimilar roles.

The meeting covered what recipients should receive. Participants discussed the current monthly gift-card practice (described in the workshop as a $100 gift card plus a plaque) and proposals to increase the county-level prize — one suggestion was $500 — or to use noncash options such as an extra day off, comp time, a reserved parking spot, branded Bonner County “swag,” or a gift basket. Staff cautioned that most cash or gift-card awards must be coded and taxed as bonuses under state payroll rules; several speakers asked the auditor’s office to review whether different terminology or benefits could reduce tax withholding.

Commissioner Corn and others raised concerns about public perception and the use of taxpayer funds if the county moved to larger cash awards. Proponents said the county already spends modestly on monthly awards and that consolidating to fewer, higher-value recognitions could increase impact while remaining fiscally neutral or even saving money once plaques and monthly payments are accounted for.

Human resources input was discussed: an evaluation form has been distributed for department heads to use, and HR staff described using performance evaluations as a basis for county-level recognition. Participants noted some elected officials have declined to share evaluations with HR and that HR would continue to work with departments to collect evaluations and standardize criteria. Several speakers urged that HR, elected officials and department heads participate in the selection process to reduce the perception that commissioners alone choose honorees.

Other process questions raised included whether all departments must participate every quarter, how to prevent “participation trophy” outcomes if criteria are weak, how to ensure small departments are not disadvantaged, and whether the county should permit departments to continue internal monthly recognition while the board handles quarterly/annual awards. The group discussed creating objective criteria (for example, “exceeds expectations” on evaluations) so nominations reflect job-related performance and are not arbitrary.

The workshop ended with commissioners asking staff and interested commissioners to draft concrete options. Participants agreed to return with defined proposals (monthly, quarterly-plus-annual, and annual-only variants), suggested criteria, budget estimates and recommended reward mixes for the Board to consider and present to staff and employees for feedback.

No formal motion or vote was recorded in the transcript excerpt reviewed; the session was a workshop to develop program options and next steps.