Holmes County commissioners weigh social‑media and records-retention rules, county phones and on‑call pay at policy workshop

Holmes County commissioners and staff on Monday discussed adding a social‑media and records‑retention policy, options for issuing county phones instead of stipends, and how the county should handle on‑call/callback pay and communications equipment.

The discussion focused on compliance with public‑records law and practical limits the county faces because of limited staff and spotty cellphone and radio coverage. Staff were asked to draft policy language and to convene a small committee to propose formal changes for the board to consider at a future meeting.

The conversation began after resident Linda Parish raised concerns about representation by a road‑department figure at a prior meeting. “He stated he was representative of the road department, and I want to make it clear that District 1 and 2, he does not represent us as the road department,” Parish said, using that exchange to prompt a broader review of county policies.

Staff member Nate (first name given in the meeting transcript) told commissioners the county’s existing personnel policy does not address social media use by the county as an entity, backups for posts or livestreams, or retention procedures. “I’m fine with bringing something for y’all for approval to add to this particular policy,” Nate said, indicating he would draft language based on models from neighboring counties.

Why it matters: speakers repeatedly noted that public‑records law requires the county to preserve documents and communications created in the course of official business. Multiple speakers cited Florida’s public‑records obligations and said the county lacks a documented practice for backing up livestreams, Facebook posts or other social‑media content so those items could be produced on public‑records request.

County staff and commissioners described three practical constraints. First, Holmes County is small and understaffed: a presenter noted the county currently has a two‑person records team. Second, much of the county has patchy cell service, complicating a plan that relies on individual phones or cloud uploads. Third, cost is a factor: upgrading to a fully digital radio system would likely require “hundreds of thousands of dollars,” a staff member estimated, and paid archiving services for livestreams or social platforms can also be expensive.

Phone stipends versus county phones: several road‑department employees and supervisors said the county used to issue county phones with an archiving service but shifted to a stipend when employees objected to carrying two devices and because of coverage problems in some areas. Keith Bennett, identified in the meeting as the Holmes County building official, said he carries both a personal phone and a company phone and has found a second device helpful for separating personal and public records: “It’s not a big deal to have a second phone to keep up with it,” Bennett said.

A $50 monthly stipend for personal phones was mentioned during the discussion; one speaker said that equates to roughly $600 per year per stipend recipient. Commissioners asked staff to analyze current stipends, the cost of county‑issued phones with archiving, and cheaper alternatives such as using YouTube for livestreams or work‑order apps that route calls and create records.

On‑call and callback pay: the workshop revisited how the county pays employees called back to work outside their shifts. Meeting participants cited federal wage rules requiring callback pay and said the county’s current practice provides a minimum callback payment of two or three hours in some instances. One staff member summarized the existing practice as “a minimum of 2 hour” for callbacks. Commissioners discussed clarifying the policy to define who is on call, how designees are named if a foreman is unavailable, and how supervisors must verify callback times on timesheets.

Communications and work orders: road foremen and public‑works staff described operational problems when staff cannot be reached or when multiple crews are needed after storms. A county road‑department employee, Greg Reshecco, suggested using a mobile work‑order application that would allow an on‑call employee to log an incident and immediately notify the designated backup. Staff warned that such an app would create public records that the county must be able to retrieve.

Other policy items: commissioners and staff also touched on uniform materials, noting some employees found current shirts heavier than the originally agreed‑upon quick‑dry fabric; the board asked staff to check insurance implications for allowing shorts. County HR staff requested clearer guidance on criminal‑history checks for new hires; staff said Holmes County currently performs background checks but lacks written thresholds or guidelines for disqualification.

Next steps and direction: commissioners did not take formal votes on the policy changes during the workshop. Instead the board asked staff to draft proposals and to convene a small committee to review the full personnel policy. Staff member Nate was asked to prepare draft social‑media and retention language; county administrator‑level staff (referred to in the meeting as David) was asked to form a two‑ or three‑person committee with HR (Angie) and other staff (Judy) to develop recommendations. The board agreed to revisit the items at a future regular meeting.

The meeting ended by voice with a motion to adjourn; the board moved to adjourn by voice and the workshop concluded.

Ending note: commissioners said the proposals will return to a regular meeting for formal consideration after staff and the ad hoc committee prepare draft policy language and cost estimates.