Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County attorney-office staffer warns council proposed courtesy-time change would cut pay and hamper work
Summary
A long-time employee from the county attorney’s office told the council that a proposed amendment to the courtesy-time policy (communication 2026-283) increasing annual accrual to 160 hours while removing carryforward and manager discretion would reduce effective pay, disrupt casework continuity and lacks a grandfather clause; the speaker requested to appear before the personnel committee.
A longtime staff member of the Butte-Silver Bow County Attorney’s Office warned commissioners during public comment June 3 that a proposed amendment to the county’s courtesy-time policy would amount to a pay cut and undermine departmental capacity.
The commenter, addressed in the record as Mr. Kle, said the change—described to the council as increasing annual courtesy-time accrual from 120 to 160 hours while removing department-head authority to allow carryover—would not keep pace with actual workloads. “If you’re not going to allow us to carry it forward, we just can’t get the work done,” the speaker said, describing increased caseloads tied to treatment courts, a misdemeanor probation program and higher prosecution of child sexual-offender cases.
He listed three central concerns: 1) 160 hours is insufficient if carryforward is eliminated; 2) removing department-head discretion prevents managers from balancing workloads and staffing needs; and 3) without a grandfather clause, long-serving employees would lose accrued benefits that reflect years of service, lowering their effective hourly compensation. “If I’m going to lose that time because I’m going to do the work ... I’m just getting paid at much less hourly wage,” he said.
The speaker asked to appear before the personnel committee to present his concerns; the communication he referenced has already been referred to the personnel committee, he said.
The council recorded the comment in the public-comment period but took no immediate action; the item remains in the personnel committee’s process for further consideration.
