New Castle County personnel subcommittee reviews draft employee handbook, discusses background checks, evaluations and workplace conduct

The New Castle County Personnel Subcommittee met July 15 to review draft sections of a proposed employee handbook that would govern hiring, conduct and workplace policies for council staff and legislative aides.

The meeting focused on whether applicants may review information obtained from previous employers, the meaning of an "employment-at-will" clause for council hires, a proposed consolidation of evaluation dates, updates to a smoke‑free workplace policy to cover vaping and the interaction between marijuana legalization and drug‑free workplace rules. Counsel to council recommended several clarifying edits but the subcommittee took no final votes on handbook language.

Valerie George, chair of the personnel subcommittee, opened the session and led the group through the draft handbook sections, telling members she would address questions section by section. The text under review included chapter 1 (preamble and purpose), chapter 2 (hiring) and chapter 3 (employee conduct and safety), including sections 2.1 (application for employment), 3.2 (evaluations) and 3.8 (drug and alcohol policy).

One of the longest exchanges concerned section 2.1's proposed wording that would authorize the council or its designee to obtain information from an applicant's previous employers and state that "failure to provide accurate and complete information to council or its designee shall be grounds for immediate termination." A speaker identified in the transcript as Mr. Smiley asked whether applicants would have a chance to review information supplied by other parties and whether applicants could later be penalized for inaccuracies in third‑party reports.

Mike Migliore, counsel to council, told the subcommittee that the draft already contemplates applicants' access to their files. "They do have a right to review their file," Migliore said, and he recommended adding explicit language clarifying that applicants would have an opportunity to review and verify third‑party information used in hiring decisions. The subcommittee agreed that adding language to that effect would better balance employer verification needs with applicants' ability to correct errors.

The group also discussed the handbook's statement that employment by the council is "at will." Migliore reminded members that Delaware is an employment‑at‑will state but pointed to a provision within the draft handbook (section 5.7) that would alter that default for council employees by requiring a supermajority vote of nine members and documented legal grounds before a termination could proceed. He recommended preserving and clarifying that internal exception in the handbook text.

Members debated whether the handbook's rules should be described as the "rules of the County Council of New Castle County" or as the council's "procedural rules." Councilman Brandon Toole asked whether the phrase intended to refer to the handbook itself or to separate procedural rules; Migliore said adding the word "procedural" in front of "rules" would make the reference clearer and better reflect the relationship between the handbook and the council's procedural rules.

On employee evaluations, the subcommittee considered a proposal to change timing so that new hires receive a first evaluation on their anniversary date and all future evaluations would be performed in January. Supporters said the change would streamline administration for the clerk's office and avoid tracking many different anniversary dates. Some members observed that county pay step increases have been decoupled from supervisor evaluations in the past and that the proposed change would not remove supervisors' responsibility to evaluate performance.

The draft's conduct provisions prompted several specific discussions. Counsel noted that language in the appropriate appearance section effectively adopts elements of the CROWN Act (an anti‑hair discrimination law) and warned members the handbook's wording should reflect current social norms. On smoking, Migliore described proposed updates that would make council property smoke‑free and would prohibit use of "tobacco substitutes," defined in the draft to include electronic smoking devices that produce aerosol or vapor (commonly called vaping). He told members the revised smoking provisions would be considered by the full council early next year and that recreational marijuana legalization would require a separate accommodation in the text.

On marijuana and drug testing, Migliore told the committee that, despite recreational legalization, the county's drug‑free workplace rules continue to prohibit controlled substances on premises and do not permit reporting for work under the influence. He described a "reasonable suspicion" standard for determining impairment and said the county would refer employees to licensed testing sites when testing is required; the council does not conduct on‑site testing. Members asked what would happen if an employee refused to be tested; counsel pointed them to cross‑references in the draft handbook (section 3.8 together with section 5) that address enforcement and consequences.

The subcommittee also discussed a provision that bars solicitation and distribution of literature by persons not employed by the council and that requires any solicitation by council employees to be coordinated through the clerk's office. Members asked for clearer guidance and examples of permissible solicitations and confirmed that "the clerk's office" as used in the draft refers to staff such as Nellie (Nelly) Hill and Tara, who manage the clerk's functions for council business.

No final amendments or formal adoptions of handbook language were recorded in the transcript. The subcommittee chair requested additional written suggestions be sent to her, the co‑chair and counsel before the next meeting. The committee noted it will review sections 3.9 through 3.11 at a future session and that the smoking/vaping language will be further revised to address recreational marijuana rules.

Votes at the meeting were limited to routine meeting business: the minutes for the prior meeting and a motion to adjourn. A motion to approve minutes from "06/17/25" was moved, seconded and approved by voice vote; the record shows members responded "Aye" but no roll‑call names were given. The meeting was then adjourned by voice vote.

The committee session lasted about 28 minutes and the subcommittee set follow‑up work for staff and counsel to return revised draft language at a later meeting.