Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve employment contract for court coordinator
Summary
The Cumberland County Board of Commissioners approved an employment contract for Kimberly Bain as court coordinator, after questions about duties tied to a $75,000 compensation figure and assurances that the role will be supervised by the senior resident superior court judge.
Get email alerts on the Personnel Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Cumberland County Board of Commissioners on Nov. 3 approved an employment agreement for Kimberly Bain to serve as court coordinator, following staff explanation and brief commissioner questioning.
County Attorney Rick Moorefield told the board the employment agreement had been discussed in an earlier closed session and that the contract’s duties are set out in the document attached to the agenda. Moorefield said the position is intended to "enhance the speedy disposition of cases involving drug offenses, domestic violence, and other offenses involving threats to public safety" and that the employee "shall be subject to administrative supervision of the senior resident superior court judge," with the county not exercising control over the method of work.
Commissioner Adams pressed for detail on compensation and duties, asking, "It just says she oversees services rendered. For $75,000, what kind of services..." He said he wanted transparency and that the county should confirm the duties and legal sufficiency before final signatures are added. Moorefield pointed to section 5 of the agreement for the scope of services and said the contract would be reviewed for legal sufficiency.
Vice Chairwoman Sheryl Jones moved to approve the employment contract; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The chair indicated he will look for the required signatures and legal sufficiency review before the county manager signs the agreement.
Why it matters: The board framed the contract as corrective of a prior invalid personal‑service contract and as a means to provide court support intended to reduce case backlogs. The board required that final signatures and a legal sufficiency review be obtained before execution.

