Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Service Report topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Civil Service Commission reports 2025 spending roughly half of budget; commissioners ask about evaluation contracting
Summary
Pat Mastroni, vice chair of the Macomb County Civil Service Commission, presented the 2025 annual report showing an adopted budget of $120,800 and expenditures of $59,004.41 (about 49.2%). The largest recurring expense was contractual services for psychological evaluations; commissioners asked whether those services are competitively bid.
Pat Mastroni, vice chair of the Macomb County Civil Service Commission, presented the commission’s 2025 annual report to the Board of Commissioners on March 26.
Mastroni told commissioners the adopted budget line for 2025 was $120,800 and that the commission spent $59,004.41, about 49.21% of that budget. He highlighted contractual services as the largest line item and noted psychological evaluations were a primary use of those funds (the report lists $86,300 budgeted for evaluations and $39,000 used). Mastroni said salaries and wages had a small line ($4,200) with $3,385 spent and described turnover and hiring trends for deputies, correctional deputies and dispatchers visible in the commission’s charts.
During the Q&A, commissioners asked whether evaluation services are bid competitively. Mastroni said the commission currently contracts with an evaluator identified in the discussion as Harold Love and that he believed the arrangement dated from a prior contract; he did not provide a schedule for regular rebidding and said the sheriff’s office might have more detailed numbers on applicant trends.
Why it matters: The civil service commission oversees hiring, examinations and disciplinary grievance processes tied to the Macomb County Sheriff’s Office. Spending and contracting choices for examinations and psychological evaluations bear on hiring capacity and personnel costs.
What was asked: Commissioners sought clarity on the contracting process for evaluations and on hiring/application trends; Mastroni pointed to posted bar charts and said more detailed applicant‑level explanations would come from the sheriff’s office.
What remains unclear in the public transcript: The presentation quoted several numeric line items and percentages directly from the report; where wording or percentages in the audio sounded garbled, this article reproduces the figures read aloud and notes when respondents said they could provide further detail in writing or via the sheriff’s office.
The board received the report and recorded a motion to receive and file (motion passed 13–0).
