Rutherford County HR reports staffing metrics and flags open-records payment dispute

Rutherford County human resources staff presented a year-to-year snapshot of staffing, recruitment and public-records work and told commissioners about a recent open-records payment dispute that may require policy changes.

HR representative Sonya told the commission that personnel changes totaled 386 for the year (compared with 346 the prior year), promotions increased by about 25, and there were roughly 40 transfers. She said the department recorded 8,749 entries in an audits/recurring count (the speaker attributed the higher number to adding electronic files) and that HR trained 5,709 employees in 2024 on various topics. Sonya reported 412 offboardings (down 66 from the previous year) and said the sheriffs office had reduced vacancies to about 21 positions.

On public records, Sonya said the county processed 2,675 open-records requests this year, about 1,000 fewer than the previous year, and that Title VI interpreter requests totaled about 2,634 requests across 11 languages (Spanish 2,384; Arabic 87; Burmese 30; Mandarin 10; Russian 14). She explained that records-request costs arise primarily from staff time to gather records and redact confidential material, and that for large requests the county issues an invoice and requires payment before redaction and delivery.

Sonya described a case in which a requester paid for records and received them but later rescinded the payment through their bank. "They initiated that dispute after they got the product," she said. Commissioners pressed staff about potential remedies; one commissioner said the conduct "sounds like fraud" in the scenario described. Sonya said she had discussed the issue with the open-records council representative Tony Chadwick and that civil recourse may be available; she and staff will consider policy changes and bring recommendations back to the commission.

The county will also review its open-records policy and the possibility of adding electronic-payment procedures and other safeguards when the records policy is updated, Sonya said. Commissioners asked follow-up questions about cost estimates for records requests, payment handling and whether the county can withhold future requests from requesters with unpaid balances; Sonya said state law allows withholding future requests when the requester has not received records, but the situation is more complex when records were received and a payment subsequently reversed.