Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Of Elections Mou topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve amended MOU with Board of Elections, exempting disciplinary and grievance procedures
Summary
The Harnett County Board of Commissioners voted to accept a revised memorandum of understanding with the Board of Elections that removes county-administered disciplinary and grievance procedures for election office employees while retaining county HR services for pay and benefits.
HARNETT COUNTY — The Harnett County Board of Commissioners voted to accept a revised memorandum of understanding with the county Board of Elections that removes county-administered disciplinary and grievance procedures for elections staff while keeping county human resources services for pay and benefits.
County staff said the Board of Elections requested the change so the elections board will handle discipline and grievances for its employees rather than using the county personnel ordinance. ‘‘They would be responsible for handling that however they see fit,’’ Harnett County staff summarized during the meeting.
Sarah Arbour, Harnett County Development Services staff, told commissioners the revised MOU reflects a recent Board of Elections vote and that the change mirrors existing treatment of other independent offices such as the sheriff’s office and register of deeds. Arbour said the MOU still leaves county HR to manage pay, retirement and health benefits for elections employees, but removes application of Article 9 (discipline) and Article 10 (grievance) of the county personnel ordinance for Board of Elections staff.
A commissioner moved to accept the MOU as presented; another commissioner seconded. After no further discussion, the board voted and the clerk announced, ‘‘Ayes have it.’’ The vote concluded the county’s consideration of the revised MOU; a redlined revision to the county personnel ordinance was described as forthcoming and will be presented at a future work session.
The action does not change employees’ pay, retirement or healthcare eligibility, county staff said; it only removes county-administered disciplinary and grievance procedures from the services the county provides to the Board of Elections.
The Board of Elections had previously voted to request the change. Commissioners advised any resident with questions to consult county staff; the county attorney, identified in the meeting as Thomas, was noted as available to provide additional explanation.
The board’s motion to accept the revised MOU was recorded as approved; individual commissioners’ roll-call votes were not read aloud during the public portion of the meeting.
Looking ahead, staff will prepare a redline of the personnel ordinance to align the ordinance language with the MOU change and present it at a subsequent work session for the board’s review.
"We don't have the authority over their employees… What this MOU did originally was contract to have our HR perform those services on their behalf," county staff said during the discussion.
