Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Anson commissioners split over remote work as hybrid schedule trial draws mixed reviews
Summary
County presenters reported a largely successful hybrid/flexible work trial; commissioners supported flex scheduling but several opposed scheduled remote work and asked staff to return with clearer, enforceable parameters before changing the personnel ordinance.
County employees Wendell Small and Lula Jackson reported results from a trial hybrid/flexible schedule intended to improve work‑life balance and operational efficiency. They asked the board to amend Article 5 of the county personnel ordinance to allow alternative work options, including compressed work weeks, flex hours and, subject to limits, remote work.
Commissioners generally praised the trial’s lack of citizen complaints and officials noted that some departments (finance, HR) successfully worked remotely during recent winter storms to keep payroll and services running. At the same time, several commissioners made clear they oppose scheduled remote work. “I just I cannot support remote working remotely,” one commissioner said, stressing that the county provides offices and that scheduling remote work—outside of emergencies, illness, or manager‑approved exceptions—should not be routine. Commissioners asked for: clear definitions of allowable remote work; supervisory metrics and reporting to detect abuse; a process requiring department head and county‑manager approval for any scheduled remote arrangements; and clarification of impacts on employees who cannot perform duties remotely.
County manager and HR reported that the manager already approves scheduled remote days and that only a small number of employees (an estimated 5–10 intermittently) have used remote days during the trial. HR said department heads can require productivity metrics and, where employees fail to meet scheduled duties, time is charged correctly in Paylocity. Several commissioners asked staff to return with a revised ordinance or policy that defines permissible remote scenarios (state of emergency, illness with doctor's note, or temporary scheduling for childcare/appointments), supervisory accountability measures, and whether to keep the rules in ordinance form (stricter legal protections) or as an administratively changeable policy.
Next steps: The board asked staff, HR and legal counsel to draft defined parameters and to return to the board with a refined proposal and recommended process (ordinance amendment vs. policy change) for further consideration.
