Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Magistrates press for joint meeting, debate Planning & Zoning interlocal agreement amid administrator pay dispute
Summary
Simpson County magistrates debated three options for a new Planning & Zoning interlocal agreement and agreed to a special joint meeting with the city and the Planning & Zoning Commission after concerns the city’s proposal was unacceptable and questions about the P&Z administrator’s work status and pay arose.
Judge/Executive Mason Barnes and several magistrates on March 18 pressed for a special joint meeting with the city and the Planning & Zoning Commission after disagreements over a proposed interlocal agreement and questions about the Planning & Zoning administrator’s status.
West Magistrate Jeffrey Burr offered a third option that would put day-to-day supervision and most hiring decisions with the Planning & Zoning Board while reserving only hiring/firing actions and board-term decisions to the elected bodies. North Magistrate Scott Poston and others said an interlocal clause referencing a third party had never been acted on. Judge Barnes said he “cannot agree with what the city proposed and believes the court would be making a huge mistake,” and emphasized that magistrates should speak directly with Planning & Zoning employees before assigning new duties to the board.
County Attorney Sam Phillips told the court the county could not permit the city to recoup pay by deducting other obligations the city owes the county; Treasurer Nicole Law said withholding county budgeted funds was not feasible. Judge Barnes said he would not sign timecards for an employee who is not performing duties at courthouse locations and called administrative leave without pay “the simplest, cleanest, easiest” interim step while the parties sort the dispute.
A board member in the audience told magistrates they had not been consulted about taking on direct supervision, a reply that prompted magistrates to reiterate the need to meet the board and staff before finalizing any arrangement. The fiscal court agreed to set a special called meeting with the city and the Planning & Zoning Commission to resolve outstanding questions and to clarify responsibilities, pay and the administrator’s workplace status.
No formal change to the interlocal agreement or a personnel action was recorded at the March 18 meeting; the court’s next procedural step is the joint meeting the magistrates agreed to schedule.
