Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Personnel Biometric topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County employee terminated after refusing to use biometric time clock

Garfield County Board of Commissioners · March 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Garfield County Chairman Kelly Witt told employee Carrie Murnion she was terminated after Murnion declined to use the county's new fingerprint time‑clock system. The termination followed Murnion's written objection and her refusal to enter biometric data; she declined an offer of closed‑session discussion.

Carrie Murnion was informed on Jan. 29, 2026 that she was terminated from her county position after refusing to use Garfield County's new biometric fingerprint time‑clock. Chairman Kelly Witt offered a closed session to discuss the personnel matter; Murnion declined and the board recorded the termination.

The action occurred during the commissioners' regular meeting. Witt said the county had received Murnion's written objection to using biometric data but that the biometric time‑clock policy had been decided for countywide implementation. According to the meeting record, Witt told Murnion that "if that is the case she can no longer be employed here so she is terminated." Murnion declined the offer of closed session when it was offered.

The meeting minutes do not record a formal, separate motion or a recorded vote to terminate, nor do they record an appeal or follow-up directive. The minutes state only that Witt informed Murnion she was terminated after refusing to use the fingerprint system.

The termination was announced alongside other agenda business; the minutes list the next regular meeting date as Feb. 4, 2026. The record does not include any written county policy text, personnel rule citations or statements from human resources clarifying accommodation options, alternative timekeeping arrangements, or whether the termination will be subject to an internal grievance or appeal process.

County officials at the meeting offered no additional detail on whether the biometric system is already in widespread use or on alternatives for employees who object to biometric timekeeping. The minutes note that the clerk took minutes and that the commissioners had previously posted the agenda 48 hours before the meeting.