Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Committee rejects proposed PTO carryover cap after months‑long confusion over current policy
Loading...
Summary
County HR director asked the council committee to cap PTO carryover at 80 hours to limit long‑term liability; committee members, court counsel and auditors raised legal, equity and administrative concerns and voted to send the draft ordinance unfavorably to the full council.
Selena Carr, St. Joseph County HR director, told the Budget Administration Committee that a drafting error left the county with a policy that allowed employees to carry over up to their accrual cap indefinitely rather than being reduced to an 80‑hour carryover as intended. Carr said the change was meant to reduce the county’s financial exposure after past payouts that reached nearly $1,000,000 to employees leaving with large PTO balances.
Committee members pressed for clarity about how the policy would be enforced, who is exempted and how much the change would save. Council President Joseph Thomas and others noted multiple, inconsistent interpretations of the existing handbook language and urged a fix that matched the council’s original intent without surprising long‑tenured staff. Several members proposed phasing or alternate formulations (for example, a hard accrual cap rather than a straight 80‑hour rollover) to soften impacts on employees who earned large balances in prior years.
Attorney James Masters, speaking on behalf of the Probate Court judge, said the court’s employees are generally treated as exempt and that court‑appointed staff compensation language in statute can be interpreted to include paid‑time‑off benefits; he warned that the change could impair recruitment and retention for court detention and probation staff. Auditor John Murphy told members the county must value PTO for audit purposes and noted the aggregate liability runs into the millions; he and others recommended exploring graduated reductions rather than an abrupt forfeiture.
Carr said the proposal was not intended to force employees to forfeit earned time but to encourage its use; she said the draft limits carryover without adding FTEs or changing accrual rates. Council members repeatedly urged more precise carve‑outs, clearer drafting and an analysis of fiscal impact before taking final action.
After extended debate about exemptions, implementation, and court‑related statutory limits, the committee voted to send Bill 6‑26 unfavorably to the full council rather than advance the proposed ordinance in its present form. The committee indicated members want a rewritten draft that addresses court exemptions, phased implementation and a clearer administrative plan before reconsideration.
The committee did not adopt a final replacement policy; next steps identified included targeted legal review, written fiscal estimates from the auditor, and rewording to specify carve‑outs and timing.
