Geary County staff say sick-leave payout applies only to retirees; former sheriff disputes interpretation

Geary County commissioners returned from executive session and, with no action taken, heard staff describe a dispute over sick-leave payouts after an elected official left county employment.

Crystal, a county staff member, told the commission a former sheriff contacted county payroll to ask whether he would receive a sick-leave payout because he is eligible for retirement. Crystal said the countys older policy — the policy he elected to keep — states "an employee who retires from county service" is eligible for sick-leave payout, and that the wording does not say that being "eligible to retire" is sufficient to trigger the payout.

Why it matters: Commissioners were told that overturning that interpretation could create additional payroll liability for other employees who were grandfathered under the 2018 policy. Some employees opted to stay under the older policy in the countys 2023 revision; staff said about 24 people chose to grandfather in and that 15 of those have since left, though the staff member said that number might be inaccurate and could be higher.

Details of the dispute and precedent

Crystal explained the administrative facts presented to the commission: the former sheriffs final paycheck would be issued Jan. 31 and would be prorated, and would include an annual-leave payout. The former sheriff requested sick-leave payout on the grounds that he is "eligible for retirement," but Crystal said the policy language she highlighted refers to employees who actually retire.

"The policy that he signed up under stated an employee who retires from county service. It doesn't say if you're eligible to retire. It says if you retire, you get the sick leave," Crystal said. She added that the county revised its annual sick-leave policy in 2023 and gave employees the option to grandfather into the old plan or accept the new plan; the newer policy removes the "retire" wording and allows payout to anyone who leaves under specified good circumstances.

Board members pressed staff for examples and history. Staff recounted two prior cases involving elected officials who previously were employees: one, Eric, asked to have his accrued leave frozen rather than paid out when he became an elected official so he could return to employment later without losing his accruals; another, Sherry, initially had annual leave paid but had not received sick-leave payout under the older policy, and staff said the county later reauthorized the sick-leave amounts so she would be eligible when she eventually retires. The staff member noted the 2018 policys payout limits (up to a cap) were the same under both the old and revised rules for employees who actually retire.

Unresolved questions and timeline

Commissioners were told that if the county determines the older policy was misinterpreted and that the former sheriff is owed sick-leave payout, it could set a precedent obligating the county to pay others who were eligible but did not formally retire. A speaker asked for time to "mull it over," and staff said the county would need a decision by the 24th in order to process the Jan. 31 paycheck as currently scheduled.

No formal motion or vote was recorded on the matter. The meeting record shows the commission returned from executive session and took no action; staff presented the policy materials and asked whether the commission wanted to review or change the interpretation.

What happened next

Members and staff discussed how to handle input from an absent commissioner, and staff offered to present any written comments from that commissioner to legal counsel (Betsy) so follow-up legal questions could be answered. The commission did not take a formal vote at the meeting on changing the interpretation or ordering a payout.