Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prosecutor recommends written policy after complaint over deputy retirement gifts
Summary
Washington County Prosecuting Attorney flagged a complaint about $625 in retirement gifts for a deputy and recommended the board adopt a consistent written policy and spending tiers; he cited Idaho statutory authority for awarding retiring deputies a firearm and badge but urged documentation to justify public spending.
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prosecuting Attorney True Pearce raised a citizen complaint about retirement gifts and told the board the county lacks a clear policy governing retiree awards.
Pearce cited "Idaho Section 31 830" (as stated in the meeting record) explaining the legislature authorizes a sheriff to recommend awarding a retiring deputy his handgun and badge under limited circumstances. He said other gifts paid with county funds must be justified as serving a public purpose and noted a de minimis threshold often treated as about $50 for permissive spending.
"When you start approaching dollar amounts that are in that like $625.00 range," Pearce said, "you start getting into a much grayer, harder to defend legal area when you start spending taxpayer money to give gifts to people." He recommended the board adopt a written policy with consistent tiers tied to years of service and decide whether some awards should come from departmental budgets or a county-wide policy.
Clerk Donna White reported that other counties tie awards to years of service (for example, an open house with refreshments for under 15 years and plaques for longer service). Sheriff Matt Thomas said plaques have typically been paid from his office budget and defended the practice in cases of long service by deputies.
Commissioners agreed to develop a policy so awards are consistent and budgeted, not ad hoc. Pearce said he would seek guidance from the attorney general's office if necessary and draft a recommended policy for the board to consider.
The board did not direct clawing back prior awards and indicated support for establishing clear rules going forward.
