Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate new job-evaluation steps for FY2026 budget; clerks and elected officials seek clarity
Summary
A proposed update to Policy 600 would require elected officials to present requests for new positions or reclassification to the Board of County Commissioners in a public meeting before HR review. Commissioners debated whether the rule creates needed transparency or an undue obstacle during busy midyear periods.
Kootenai County elected officials and the board debated revisions to Policy 600 — the job evaluation and classification procedure tied to the FY2026 budget cycle — at the March 19 special meeting.
Jennifer Watt, the county clerk, summarized an updated procedure that requires any request for a new position or an initial reclassification to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners at a public meeting before HR conducts a formal job-evaluation review. Watt said there are only two remaining HR meeting dates (April 3 and April 17) during which the board could review and approve personnel requests before HR will accept them for FY2026 budgeting.
Commissioner Leslie Duncan, who introduced the proposal as a transparency measure, said the board’s intention is to “show the community that you have this need” when elected officials ask for additional staff. Duncan and other commissioners said prior midyear position changes sometimes “dig into next year’s budget” and that public review would let the community see the same data the board receives.
Several elected officials objected to presenting requests before HR had conducted technical review. Assessor Bayla Kovacs said the timing and workload in some offices (notably the assessor’s office during tax season) make it difficult to prepare complete documentation before board review. Kovacs said she needs “the ability to go before, and work with HR on the fly” so her office can adapt during busy periods and, in some cases, avoid higher salary costs by filling a lower-graded position.
Commissioners and department leaders discussed compromise options. One suggestion was an exception allowing requests that are likely to reduce cost to proceed to HR first, while requests likely to increase budgeted costs would be presented to the board for transparency. The clerk agreed to draft amended policy language reflecting the board’s direction and to circulate it to elected officials for feedback before a final action at a future business meeting.
Ending
The board directed staff to prepare amended Policy 600 language for review; no final policy change was adopted at the March 19 meeting.
