Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Hiring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners postpone action on Public Works Director job description after detailed review of duties and conflicts
Summary
Hart County commissioners declined to approve a drafted Public Works Director job description after an extended discussion flagged conflicts with the county employee handbook, unclear on-call expectations and whether a professional engineer (PE) should be preferred or required.
Hart County commissioners on Sept. 2025 declined to approve a proposed Public Works Director job description after an extended discussion about the document's scope, conflicts with county policies and candidate qualifications.
Commissioners raised multiple concerns: parts of the draft assign duties that overlap with state responsibilities (for example, erosion-control permitting handled by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division), the draft includes responsibilities that may conflict with the county employee handbook, and it lists a wide range of "essential functions" that some commissioners said should instead be framed as knowledge, skills and competencies.
Board members debated whether the county should require a Professional Engineer (PE) registration or merely prefer candidates holding a PE. One commissioner said a strict requirement might shrink the applicant pool but favored a PE so the county could perform more engineering work in-house rather than contracting it out. Another commissioner emphasized the need to attract applicants who are willing to be hands-on and to serve as a long-term, results-focused leader rather than a retiree seeking a quiet post.
Other points discussed included whether the position should supervise fleet maintenance for all departments (the board clarified that fire-department fleet will not be part of the role), whether the director should be explicitly on call 24/7, and whether the position description should remove items that legally rest with state agencies (such as certain erosion-control permits). One commissioner recommended trimming overlapping language and resolving conflicts with the county employee handbook before advertising the position.
Outcome: The board did not take action on the job description and directed further review. Commissioners said they want a broader applicant pool and clearer language on duties, 24/7 expectations, succession planning and the role's technical focus before posting the position.
Ending: Staff and commissioners will revise the draft to remove conflicts with county policy, clarify required versus preferred qualifications (including whether PE registration should be required), and return a cleaner job description to a future meeting for formal action.
