Walton County commissioners split over HR restructuring; agree to revisit Krisner Group contract

Commissioners at a Feb. 6 special meeting debated a proposal from Commissioner Dan Curry to change the countys organizational chart so three departmental directors would report, concurrently, to the Board of County Commissioners as well as the county administrator.

Curry framed the move as a way to increase board oversight and accountability after multiple investigations and staff turnover in the countys Human Resources Department. He called for the planning director, a risk manager and the chief human resources officer to be placed on a dual-reporting line to the board so commissioners could have more direct oversight while those positions would remain under the county administrator for day-to-day operations.

"The purpose of this motion is to enhance accountability and responsibility and from a board standpoint, take direct action when needed," Curry said as he described the suggested organizational chart. He pointed to what he described as repeated problems in HR and a series of investigations that prompted the proposal.

Several commissioners opposed the plan, saying it would politicize personnel functions and undercut the county administrators executive role. Commissioners repeatedly cited a grand-jury recommendation and the countys governance norms that the board should not handle day-to-day personnel management. "If you put more people up under us, you get into problems," one commissioner said, urging patience while new leadership is recruited.

The personnel discussion drew extended public comment and multiple employees and residents spoke. Two HR staffers and other witnesses told the board they had experienced aggressive or intimidating behavior by a consultant working under a vendor contract; other employees said the outside consultant had been helpful. Human Resources staff members urged the board to support the department and to avoid further disruption while a replacement HR director is recruited.

Separately, commissioners debated the countys contract with the Krisner Group and associated consultants. The Krisner Group contract was described during the meeting as running about $18,000 per month, with up to $10,000 in travel expenses noted in the contract. Commissioners said the county earlier authorized a contract worth up to $100,000 for a five-month review; the consultants role was to review policies, update training, and assist with leadership and management training. Some commissioners said the firm had exceeded the original scope after encountering unexpected conditions in the HR office; others said the firms work was valuable.

After public comment and extended discussion, commissioners asked County Administrator Stan Sunday and County Attorney Clay Atkinson to meet with the Krisner Group and return to the board with a clarified scope and, if necessary, a revised contract at the next scheduled meeting. Several commissioners explicitly asked that the consultant team consider rotating or replacing the individual consultant on-site while preserving the contracted firm relationship, if that was the firms recommendation.

The boards public discussion emphasized two consistent points: commissioners want HR problems fixed quickly, and some members warned against structures that could allow day-to-day political influence over personnel decisions.

Notes: Commissioners repeatedly emphasized that the county administrator retains responsibility for day-to-day operations; the board directed staff to document the requested scope and to return recommendations to the full commission for formal action.