County officials clash over hiring and reclassification of financial manager

Rebecca provided an update that a financial-manager position had been posted, candidates interviewed and an offer extended pending acceptance.

Adi, a committee member, challenged the process, saying the full county board had previously directed the matter be considered in the 2027 budget and arguing the action amounted to creating a new position without board approval. "This whole hiring thing for this financial manager is illegal because we gave direction as a whole board... that this is not to be taken up until the year '27," Adi said, and later urged the committee to hold off until the full county board could vote on it.

Corporate counsel Susan Fisher responded that her review indicated the change was a reclassification of an existing position and that the role had been part of the 2026 budget. "My understanding is that this was a position that was a reclass... and that that employee was part of the 2026 budget," Susan said, adding that county policies and applicable statutes provide guidance when the change can be supported by departmental funding.

Rebecca, identified in the meeting as HR director, said the opening resulted from a lateral move within the department and followed the county’s base compensation and reclassification procedures. She described the personnel-bargaining committee’s role and said the department had planned and budgeted for the change. "This is common; positions are open and unused wage portions are discussed with personnel bargaining," Rebecca said.

Several members pressed for numbers and clarity on funding. One member said the budgeted amount had been $65,000 (or reported in the 70s by other members) and voiced concern that the position could cost about $90,000 or $100,000 in total, arguing that any increase should be shown to the full county board before hiring. Susan and Rebecca said the net increase was smaller than some members feared and described typical budget-year savings that offset midyear hires.

The committee did not record a final vote to approve or halt the hire during the portion of the meeting provided in the transcript. Multiple supervisors asked for fuller documentation and for the matter to be clarified with the county’s policies and state statutes before further action. Several members recommended bringing the matter to the full county board for a formal vote and wider disclosure.

The committee recorded extensive debate about authority, process and the difference between a reclass and a new position; corporate counsel and HR maintained the action followed existing policy, while at least one member described feeling sidelined by the timing and implementation.

The committee did not take a final hiring vote in the provided transcript and directed staff and counsel to supply additional documentation and clarifications at a future meeting.