The Anderson County budget committee voted down a payroll transfer request for the law director's office on a hand vote during its monthly meeting, and members then debated whether interim pay increases should be decided by committees or require explicit funding from county commission.

The contested item, number 20 on the committee agenda, was described by staff as "$5,646 from the assistant law director’s code to two other payroll codes (2343306)." Commissioner Vandergriff moved to approve the transfer; Commissioner Smallridge seconded the motion. The committee conducted a hand vote and the motion failed.

The vote came amid a lengthy discussion about recent personnel changes in the law director's office and whether pay adjustments should be decided outside the formal budget process. Nicole Brooks, the county law director, told the committee that a recent staff departure had shifted responsibilities to remaining employees and that the office was operating "in a state of flux." Brooks said the office had not paid the departed employee since mid-September and that, because the transfer request represented an annualized figure while the county is midyear, she expected leftover funds at year end.

Commissioner Mason (first reference used as "Commissioner Mason") said he opposed interim raises while leadership and budget impacts remain unsettled, calling the office's situation a reason to delay pay decisions. "I don't feel comfortable giving any kind of raise to anybody for that matter," Mason said, adding that the county had recently granted large retention payments and countywide increases and that targeted midyear raises should be treated cautiously.

Other committee members defended the law office's work and argued for flexibility. Commissioner Bell noted the office frequently works to reduce legal exposure and costs across county departments, saying, "The law director's office probably does more for every county department than we probably realize."

Finance staff reiterated that any pay increase requires a specific funding source in the county budget code before payroll changes can be authorized. The committee discussed whether past committee and commission actions creating a pay increase without an identified funding line are "voidable but not void," and legal staff referenced the need for roll-call votes on personnel pay adjustments under the county's governing statutes.

The committee did not adopt the transfer, and members agreed to raise broader questions about pay-setting procedures, committee recommendations and the consent-agenda process at future meetings.

Ending

The failed transfer leaves the law director's payroll codes unchanged for now. Committee members asked county staff to provide department head salary histories, job descriptions and comparative data for surrounding counties before further personnel or pay discussions.