Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays final vote on personnel‑policy change; meal‑allowance clarification fails for lack of motion
Summary
HR proposed revisions to the county's nepotism/personal‑relationship policy were advanced only to a second reading because remote members could not vote; a separate change to clarify the $60 daily meal allowance failed for lack of motion and was sent back to staff.
The Steuben County Council received two personnel‑policy proposals on April 14, 2026 and took mixed action. HR Administrator Erin Schiffli presented Ordinance No. 1067, which would amend Section 2.16 of the county Personnel Policies Handbook to require employees to notify management and HR of dating relationships or new household relationships to reduce conflicts of interest and favoritism. Councilwoman Ruth Beer moved to approve the ordinance as presented but then amended her motion to advance it only to a second (2nd) reading — not the third and final reading — because several council members were participating via Teams and were unable to vote; the amendment passed 4–1. The council scheduled Ordinance No. 1067 for a third and final reading on May 12, 2026.
Schiffli and Auditor Kelli Johnson also presented Ordinance No. 1069, which sought to clarify that the existing $60 daily meal allowance requires itemized receipts, excludes alcohol and would remove the prior provision limiting tips to 15%. The Auditor’s Office said the change would streamline administration without changing the total daily allowance. No council member made a motion on Ordinance No. 1069; the request therefore failed for lack of action and staff were directed to revise and resubmit the proposal.
The minutes record that Councilwoman Renee Carper, who had been participating by Teams, dropped from the call at 10:10 a.m. following the highway presentation. The board’s decision to withhold final passage of Ordinance No. 1067 was explicitly tied to the inability of members attending remotely to vote; council members asked HR and the Auditor’s Office to refine language and return with materials for the May 12 meeting.
Next steps: Ordinance No. 1067 will return May 12 for a third reading; Ordinance No. 1069 will be revised and resubmitted by HR and the Auditor.
