Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Coordination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Davis County staff and commissioners weigh options for CJCC coordinator role
Summary
County leaders debated keeping a Criminal Justice Coordinating Council coordinator in‑house by reallocating existing staff time versus hiring a separate part‑time hire, highlighting workload, required criminal‑justice experience, and unclear long‑term funding.
County commissioners and staff spent a substantial portion of their Oct. 2 meeting debating how best to staff the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) coordinator function, weighing an in‑house reassignment of existing personnel against hiring a dedicated part‑time coordinator.
Chris (Human Resources) explained the prior model: a part‑time coordinator position up to 24 hours per week had existed before, but the workload may not yet justify a full 24‑hour appointment. He said the role covers agendas, scheduling, minutes, policy work and broader system coordination.
Staff proposed repurposing some existing time from a legal‑technician position (Melanie Flores was named in the discussion) that currently spends about 25% of its time on health/risk crossover work to support the coordination function. On the risk side, staff said that function has been supported informally — “up to 25% maybe that position helped carry” — but there was no formal budgetary transfer recorded.
Several commissioners argued for an in‑house solution that relies on commission staff to handle calendaring and some scheduling tasks while distributing higher‑expertise responsibilities across departments. “Keep this in house and see how this goes,” one commissioner said, emphasizing a team approach before pursuing an external hire.
Nut graf: Commissioners and staff favored testing an in‑house model that draws on existing county employees rather than immediately funding a new dedicated hire, but they flagged three constraints: the need for some criminal‑justice expertise, uncertainty about whether the workload justifies a recurring position, and the absence of a formal budget transfer for time currently devoted to coordination.
Budget considerations were debated: staff and commissioners suggested rough cost figures for a part‑time role (one speaker referenced “about 20,000”; another used $8,000 as an illustrative figure), but presenters emphasized these were preliminary estimates. Staff recommended reviewing job descriptions, examining classification and funding, and monitoring whether grant funding or other revenue could eventually support a fuller role.
Ending: The transcript records discussion and direction to explore options further; no hiring decision or motion was made during the meeting.
