The Dickinson County Board of Supervisors rescinded a wages motion from its Dec. 23 meeting and approved a revised pay package at a special meeting on Jan. 2.

An unnamed board member opened the discussion by apologizing for how the prior motion was handled and moved to rescind it, saying the issue "needed more discussion." The chair acknowledged the rescission and the board proceeded to consider new motions on elected, non‑elected and supervisor pay.

After debate about precedent, recruitment and morale, the board adopted a motion to set a 3.5% pay increase for elected officials while keeping supervisors at 0% and awarding a $1,000 stipend to the board chair. That motion was seconded and carried in roll‑call voting. The board then rescinded last week’s 3% increase for non‑elected employees and approved a new motion giving non‑elected employees a 3.5% increase, aligning their raise with the elected officials’ package.

Board members who opposed or voiced reservations cited concerns about precedent and the small financial gain for supervisors. One member observed that percentage raises can widen pay disparities over time and urged the board to explore range‑based pay structures and consult department heads before changing compensation rules.

A member of the public, Mister Kelloggs, urged the board to seek consensus with employees and suggested establishing a committee or a bargaining structure so staff have input on wage decisions. "A wise person will change their mind; a fool never will," Kelloggs said, praising the board for transparency and urging further work on employee voice.

The board completed the meeting with a motion to adjourn and recorded ayes from members present.

What the board did: rescinded the Dec. 23 wages motion; approved 3.5% raises for elected and non‑elected employees; left supervisors at 0% in the adopted package; approved a $1,000 stipend for the board chair. The meeting closed after public comment and an adjournment vote.

Next steps: The board did not record additional implementation details during the meeting; staff were not given a formal direction in the transcript to prepare ordinance language or an effective date. Funding sources and precise effective dates were not specified in the record.