Commissioners debate sheriff’s proposed FTEs; motion to pick some positions fails, sheriff’s full recommendation moves forward

County commissioners spent substantial time on April 28 reviewing the St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office staffing requests, FTE corrections and equipment needs as part of the FY2015 budget work session.

Background: county staff said some FTEs had been funded in the recommended budget but inadvertently were not listed in the FTE table; the sheriff’s office sought authorization updates and a set of new or changed positions (records/ background investigator, NCIC validation coordinator, PIO civilian, detective and patrol deputies, patrol administrative coordinator, supply specialist and classification specialist).

During discussion several commissioners said they supported making the current background investigator and a records position full time, and adding one detective and one patrol deputy, but opposed authorizing other proposed civilian/administrative positions immediately. One commissioner moved to approve only the patrol deputy, one detective (to be used at the sheriff’s discretion for CID/drug work), the classification specialist as full time, and the background investigator as full time, and to decline the other positions. A second was made for discussion.

Vote and outcome: after discussion the motion to approve the limited subset was put to a vote; the motion failed (the chair recorded "the nays have it"). After the failed motion the transcript records the original sheriff submission "just moves forward as presented." The transcript does not provide a roll‑call tally by name for that failed motion; the motion is recorded in the minutes as failed and the sheriff’s original recommended package was to proceed according to the clerk’s summary of the discussion.

Equipment requests: the sheriff also requested funding to replace tasers (transcript text records a figure of $4,500,868 to replace 36 tasers; that number appears in the staff presentation transcript and will require verification from the county budget office because it appears large relative to typical unit costs). The sheriff’s staffing requests also included timing adjustments that produced $49,029 in savings by moving four start dates from Jan. 1 to Jan. 31.

What happens next: county staff and the commissioners noted differences in philosophy about authorizing recurring FTEs and emphasized that the county had set budget parameters that the sheriff had been asked to follow. Because the transcription records that the sheriff’s recommended package "moves forward as presented," staff will implement the FTE authorizations as laid out in the recommended budget documents unless the commissioners later amend them in the May work session or at budget adoption.

Ending: commissioners requested that staff ensure the documentation of FTE counts and timing be corrected in budget tables and that savings/timing changes be tracked precisely in the May cleanup session before the May 13 budget vote.