Dickinson County commissioners debate compensation plan as residents raise transparency and open-meetings concerns

The Dickinson County Commission discussed a proposed countywide compensation plan and related concerns at its Dec. 26 meeting, with residents urging transparency and two commissioners divided over the pace and scale of proposed raises.

The discussion centered on a compensation study by the Arnold Group and a subsequent plan that, commissioners said, was revised to reduce cost by $231,000 from an earlier draft. County administrator Janelle said the $231,000 reduction “came from the number of employees that are no longer employed here that were in that original spreadsheet” and from adjustments tied to employees’ years of service.

The dispute drew multiple public comments. Diane Miller, a resident, criticized meeting procedures and the routine reading of public-comment rules, saying, “It's rather demeaning to have to read those every week.” Barb Barrett told the commission that recent errors had shaken public trust: “Trust in this board by your citizen taxpayers has been shaken by the significance and resulting consequences of these mistakes that were made.”

Commissioners described competing priorities. Commissioner Ron said he supports higher pay to retain staff and noted the difficulty of attracting workers, urging the board to look after county employees’ livelihoods. “Don't go work for the counties, girls, you can't afford it,” Ron said, describing difficulties replacing and retaining skilled workers in a tight labor market. Commissioner Glenn said he favors supporting employees but expressed concern about equity and the size of some individual increases described in the proposal; he asked for a revised proposal without what he characterized as “raises of that proportion.”

Commission discussion included procedural questions about whether pay-plan discussions belonged in executive session. A commissioner cited the Kansas Open Meetings law in saying that “discussions of consolidation of departments or overall salary structure are not proper topics for executive session” and that the commission should address those items in open session.

A motion to untable the compensation plan (so the commission could take it up) was made during the meeting but failed from a lack of a second. The chair said the motion died for lack of a second, and no formal vote on the plan’s merits was taken. Commissioner Glenn and other commissioners indicated they expect the Arnold Group to return to answer methodological questions; commissioners discussed inviting the consultant to a Jan. 2 work session to respond to questions about methodology and the distribution of increases.

Residents at the meeting also raised broader fiscal concerns, including mill-levy changes and rising assessed values. One resident, Greg Wilson, said county budgets and property taxes have roughly doubled over the past decade and urged tighter spending. Other residents urged caution in approving large pay increases given increases in property tax bills.

The commission did not adopt the compensation plan on Dec. 26; commissioners signaled they will seek more detailed explanations from the consultant and additional options that address pay compression and equity before any formal action.

Less-urgent details: the commission met with two of its three members present, accepted public comment, and heard repeated requests from residents for improved posting of agendas and backup materials on the county website. The county administrator noted she self-reported one complaint to the Kansas Attorney General’s office related to Open Meetings Act (sunshine law) obligations; the office confirmed receipt and explained its review process.

The commission’s next steps on compensation include considering a revised proposal with clarified methodology and inviting the Arnold Group to answer questions at an upcoming meeting or work session.