Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employment Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Curry County pauses vote on five‑year finance/HR director contract after staff objections and public testimony
Summary
After public testimony from the county assessor and other residents criticizing terms and optics of a proposed five‑year finance/HR contract, commissioners agreed to delay action and revisit the proposal during the next budget cycle.
The Curry County Board of Commissioners agreed Dec. 19 to hold off on voting on a proposed five‑year employment contract for the county finance/HR position after multiple public commenters — including County Assessor Kylie Wagner — criticized the contract’s terms and optics.
Wagner, who identified herself as county assessor and tax collector, told the board the contract was "unacceptable," citing the county’s recent staffing losses and saying the county’s employees had been asked to make sacrifices while the proposed contract could cost taxpayers substantially if ended early. She estimated a hypothetical payout of about $181,753 if the county were obliged to pay out the final year with COLA and maximum vacation accrual.
Members of the Teamsters and other community speakers also criticized the contract’s training and travel allowances and said the county should prioritize funding for deputies and dispatchers. Michelle Martin and Rod Paulquist raised similar objections during public comment, calling the contract an inappropriate priority given current public‑safety concerns.
Finance director Kina defended her record at the meeting, saying she arrived with years of experience, inherited backlogs and accounting errors, and had worked to correct 26‑month‑old deposit issues and other fiscal problems. "We had $30,000,000 of bank adjustments," she said, describing the work to clean up the county’s fiscal records and bring the accounting current.
After discussion about the merits of retaining an experienced finance director to maintain fiscal stability and the optics of proceeding now, commissioners reached consensus to delay action. The board asked that the matter be revisited during the upcoming budget process and with the incoming commissioner engaged in the discussion.
Next steps: The finance‑contract question will be postponed until the budget season; commissioners said they want a fuller process, the incoming commissioner included in deliberations, and public transparency around funding sources before taking formal action.
