Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Magistrates press for documentation after series of raises, promotions in jail and sheriff departments
Summary
Multiple magistrates raised procedural concerns about retroactive or unreviewed raises labeled as 'promotions' for sheriff and jail employees, requesting clearer documentation, definitions for promotions vs. performance raises, and an annual review of jail policies.
Several Franklin County magistrates used the Sept. 24 meeting to press county staff and the sheriff's office for clearer documentation on recent pay adjustments and promotions.
Squire Wissman and other members told the court they have repeatedly asked for paperwork explaining the basis for raises and promotions, and said several listed salary changes appeared on the payroll before the court had an opportunity to review supporting materials. One magistrate said he would not vote to approve items on future bills without the documentation required by the county’s administrative code and the jail policy manual.
County Attorney Max explained the distinction in county practice between promotions (which may be executed by the sheriff/jailer for position changes) and performance raises (which require fiscal court approval). Magistrates requested a list of current positions and incumbents, definitions used for promotions in the jail/sheriff manuals, and a process to ensure raises that should come to court are presented in advance.
The court approved several personnel actions on the docket — hires and salary adjustments for a payroll clerk and a part-time building inspector — while members asked staff to provide the requested documentation and proposed an annual review of the jail’s policies and procedures manual to ensure internal consistency.
