Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Detention Center Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheriff says state law makes him detention center administrator, disputes commissioners' inquiry
Summary
At the Rosebud County commissioners meeting March 10, a speaker who identified himself as the county sheriff and detention center administrator cited state statutes to say the sheriff holds responsibility for running the jail, disputed a recent letter alleging insubordination, and raised problems with HR job postings and missing contact information; the board approved the consent agenda and adjourned.
The sheriff and detention center administrator told the Rosebud County commissioners on March 10 that state law designates the sheriff as the detention center administrator and outlines duties to operate and maintain the jail.
"It is MCA 7-32-2204," the sheriff said, and he also referenced related code (quoted in the meeting as a 27-32-2234 citation) describing the powers and duties of a detention center administrator. "The way this is is I'm the detention center administrator," he said, adding that the statute appoints the sheriff to that role and charges the office with custody of inmates unless the facility is operated by a private party or another local government.
The sheriff told commissioners he has been accepting inmates from other counties and said intake numbers fluctuate, calling a required 20-inmate threshold impractical. "We've been meeting our requirements," he said, and he argued that the letter the board sent him last week "does not follow state law" and therefore does not justify an insubordination investigation.
He also raised operational concerns about human resources and public hiring notices. The sheriff said multiple attempts to coordinate with HR failed, that a job posting and applicant contact details were not posted on the county website in time, and that information he had included was removed when the posting went live. He said staff named in the discussion had limited availability and that a cost-of-living item had been omitted or altered in the posting.
Commissioners and participants briefly discussed timing and technical access issues related to the posting and contact information. The sheriff offered to meet with commissioners to review the concerns.
After public comment, the chair moved to routine business. The board had a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda, including claims and the February minutes; the chair called for the vote, a voice "Aye" was recorded, and the chair declared the motion carries. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Next steps: the sheriff offered to meet with commissioners if they wish to pursue a session on the matters he raised; no formal direction or follow-up assignment was recorded in the meeting minutes.
