Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hiring Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Berkeley County commission and sheriff's office debate how to document deputy hiring selections ahead of June test
Summary
Commissioners, legal counsel and the sheriff's office discussed the process for documenting vacancy requests and candidate selections — whether to continue paper letters with three certified names per vacancy, switch to electronic documentation, and how to apply the statute’s requirement that the sheriff receive three names per vacancy.
At a lengthy discussion May 20, the Berkeley County Deputy Sheriff Civil Service Commission, legal counsel and sheriff's office representatives debated how the commission will document and process selections for deputy vacancies after the June 13 test.
The group reviewed the commission’s current practice and statutory obligations: the sheriff provides a written request to fill a vacancy, the commission certifies the top three eligible names from the list and the sheriff selects one candidate for each vacancy. Commissioners and Chief Thomas Young discussed whether the certification and selection should be done and documented one vacancy at a time at a special meeting, whether the sheriff should present a separate letter per vacancy, and whether selections should be recorded on paper or via an electronic spreadsheet and recorded media. Chief Young said the sheriff’s office would not issue a conditional offer at the moment of selection during the meeting and that background checks must precede formal conditional offers.
Legal counsel (Mr. Henry) participated in the discussion; commissioners asked him to draft clearer language for the commission’s rules to reflect the procedure and to address when the appointment authority effectively moves from the commission to the sheriff. Commissioners also discussed the possibility of calling a special meeting to finalize any rule changes (Article 2 and Section 9) affecting how three names per vacancy are certified and how to handle the rare case when fewer than three names remain on an eligible list (the statute requires a new test if fewer than three names remain).
Participants expressed a preference for retaining a rigorous on‑the‑record practice (the prior paper-based, timestamped process) while exploring electronic methods that create an auditable record. Commissioners asked staff to coordinate a follow-up and to draft a simple cover form (or spreadsheet) that records each vacancy and the chosen name to be attached to the certified list. The commission agreed to continue refining the procedure over the next month so the process is operational after test results are available.
