Carroll County adopts amendment to personnel nepotism policy

Carroll County Fiscal Court on second reading adopted an ordinance amending the county's nepotism provisions within its personnel policy during its public meeting.

The ordinance was read into the record and put to a voice vote after a motion to conduct the second reading and a motion for final adoption. Commissioner Scott moved the adoption and Commissioner Dandy seconded; the court called for those in favor and recorded “aye.” The meeting record does not include a roll-call tally or any recorded “no” votes.

The adopted language, read aloud during the meeting, says the policy prohibits supervisors from taking actions that have a direct or indirect effect on a relative’s progress, performance, compensation or welfare as an employee of the county and bars relatives from receiving “special privileges, advantages, or considerations” by virtue of kinship. The reading states that the policy applies only to employees hired after July 1, 1994, and that it does not apply to provisional employees. Provisional appointments will not exceed 10 weeks, though extensions may be granted by the personnel administrator.

The text read at the meeting included: “In no event, shall an employee receive special privileges, advantages, or considerations by virtue of this or her relation to another county employee or officer,” language the court adopted as part of the personnel policy update. The person who read the ordinance language was a county staff member identified in the transcript as the reader.

The ordinance was presented as an amendment to the county personnel policy; the court did not state an effective date for the change during the meeting, nor did the minutes record any conditions or implementation steps beyond the text read aloud.

Speakers identified in the meeting record who participated in or were named during this item include County Judge (presiding), Commissioner Scott (mover), Commissioner Dandy (seconder) and a county staff member who read the ordinance text. No public comment or extended debate on the substance of the policy was recorded in the transcript segment covering the second reading and adoption.

The court materials referenced the personnel policy as the controlling administrative document for county employment practices; the meeting record did not cite a state statute or other external legal force as the basis for this local amendment.

The court did not provide a roll-call vote tally in the record; the adoption was recorded via voice vote with an audible “aye.”