Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses updates to county fleet policy; vote deferred pending finalized language
Summary
The board reviewed changes to the county fleet policy, including restrictions on personal use, driver walk‑around inspections, and family passengers when staff travel on county business. Commissioners asked for revised wording and recommended returning the policy for a formal vote once edits are made.
Elbert County commissioners reviewed proposed updates to the county fleet management policy and directed staff to finalize wording before taking an action vote.
County attorney Bart Greer explained the update was prompted in part by stipulation agreements and a need to clarify expectations about county vehicle use. He said the policy revisions aim “to better reflect and communicate what the purpose and expectations are with regard to” county vehicles.
Several commissioners raised specific wording concerns. One commissioner asked that a passage be changed to read, “County vehicles shall not be used for anything other than official county business,” and that a follow‑up sentence explicitly say, “vehicles shall not be used for personal use.” A commissioner also recommended that the required driver “walk around,” to identify damage or safety issues, be moved forward in the policy and emphasized (so it would not be buried in the document).
The board also discussed the provision allowing friends and family to ride in county vehicles when the employee is traveling on county business (for example, attending a conference). Attorney Greer said the county’s insurance covers non‑employees in county vehicles in those circumstances. Commissioners asked about stopping at home or making personal detours while on county business; Greer said the policy could include mileage or distance parameters and relied on the county manager and commissioners to determine appropriateness in edge cases.
The board discussed GPS/location data on vehicles and whether those records are subject to open records requests; Greer said it “depends” on the request and that privacy protections and practical questions about whether a record already exists must be analyzed on a case‑by‑case basis.
Commissioner Buck and others said the obvious emergency examples — such as an employee using a county vehicle to pick up a sick child — should be explicitly covered as appropriate instances. Several commissioners recommended returning a revised policy with the requested edits (bolding the walk‑around, clarifying family rides, and adding clear authority for the county manager/board to review questionable uses) for formal approval at a later meeting.
No formal motion to adopt the fleet policy was approved at this meeting; the board agreed to finalize the language and bring the policy back for a vote.
