Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Personnel Bylaws topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Warren County prison inspectors debate giving warden authority to hire between meetings

Board of Inspectors of the Warren County Prison · May 26, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At the May 26 Board of Inspectors meeting, the sheriff and warden urged a bylaw change to let the warden hire staff without waiting for the board; the county solicitor said state law and insurance concerns limit that option. No formal change was adopted at the meeting.

At the May 26 meeting of the Board of Inspectors of the Warren County Prison, commissioners and law‑enforcement officials discussed a proposed change to the board’s bylaws that would let the warden hire correctional staff without waiting for the board’s approval.

Sheriff Scott Neiswonger argued the current process creates harmful delays and overtime costs when vacancies occur. He said the warden performs hiring tasks — “background checks, testing” — and “he should be able to hire without permission from the board.”

Commissioner Kenneth L. Klakamp responded that departments are allotted a specific number of positions and that hiring outside the Salary Board process risks exceeding the authorized complement. “If they have a vacancy they can interview and hire without the Salary Board as the union contract sets the rate. The Warden should be able to do the same,” Klakamp said while also noting timing and allotment concerns.

Warden Ryan Tipton added that, based on what he heard at a conference, other correctional facilities do not require the same board approval step and that he generally hires candidates who pass testing and screening.

Solicitor Nathaniel Schmidt cautioned against changing the bylaws in a way that conflicts with state law. He said he would not recommend the proposed procedure, warning that if the board later had to defend an incident involving a hire made without approval, “the insurance company can say no, we will not cover this claim as it was not approved by the board.”

District Attorney Cody Brown noted the board must still agree with the Salary Board on the authorized number of staff positions, underscoring a distinction between day‑to‑day hiring practices and approval of the overall complement.

The exchange was recorded under New Business; the transcript shows discussion but no formal motion to amend the bylaws was adopted during this meeting. The board left the matter under discussion for future consideration.