Anson County commissioners limit pay for assistant elections director amid state review

The Anson County Board of Commissioners voted at a special called meeting to limit county pay for an assistant elections director to the budgeted salary of $43,387.50 while the State Board of Elections continues a review of the county’s elections office.

The action followed an update — delivered in open session — that the local elections director is under review by the State Board of Elections and that deputies and an assistant had been placed to keep the office operational. An attorney speaking to the board said an appeals process for the director is ongoing and declined to discuss personnel details publicly.

The board added the elections update to the agenda after a commissioner noted public interest, including more than 1,100 views of the prior meeting’s video. The county manager echoed the attorney’s summary, telling commissioners the director is suspended, an assistant director has been appointed, and staff remain in place to run the office during the state process.

Commissioner Ellerby moved to restrict county payments to the assistant director to the budgeted amount of $43,387.50 “and nothing more,” and Commissioner Gatewood seconded the motion. During discussion, commissioners debated whether an appointment letter from the State Board of Elections existed and whether the county had authority to cap pay while the state review and any appeals were unresolved. The transcript shows disagreement about dates and attachments in emailed correspondence from local and state boards, with references to April 17, April 23 and April 27 in the materials circulated to commissioners.

One commissioner opposed the motion on statutory grounds, citing General Statutes 163-37A and 163-35 and expressing concern the county’s action could be reversed by the state; an attorney told the board that legal counsel would handle the matter going forward. The transcript does not record a roll-call tally for the final pay motion; the board chair noted respect for the majority vote when the matter concluded.

The board also voted to enter a closed session earlier in the meeting to consult with counsel, and returned afterward to conduct the assistant-pay motion. The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn.

The board did not publicly identify the individuals appointed at the elections office during the meeting; commissioners requested copies of appointment letters and further clarification from state and local elections officials. The county said it would circulate the correspondence referenced during the meeting to commissioners for review.

What’s next: Commissioners asked staff and counsel to follow up with the state Board of Elections and to provide documentation of any appointment letters or state actions; the transcript indicates legal counsel will continue to advise the board on next steps.