Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners seek counsel after per-diem payments discrepancy; cite Social Welfare Act 280 ambiguity
Summary
The board ordered legal review after discovering two DHHS-appointed members received higher per-diems than county policy provides; Commissioner Fisher quoted Social Welfare Act 280 and DHHS said it lacks authority to set member pay, leaving the matter unresolved pending counsel review.
County Administrator Patrick Whiteford told commissioners staff uncovered inconsistent per-diem payments: two members of the DHHS board, appointed by DHHS rather than the Board of Commissioners, had been paid $65 despite a long-standing $25 county per-diem. Attempts to find Board authorization for the increase were unsuccessful.
Commissioner Kohn Fisher cited wording from Social Welfare Act 280 of 1939, noting ambiguity: “Members of the board shall be reimbursed for necessary travel and other expenses, and shall be paid such amount as shall be fixed by the board of commissioners or board of county auditors.” DHHS representative Mary (via Zoom) told the committee that DHHS does not have authority to set or increase the fees paid to members; the minutes record that the board requested counsel to review Act 280 and Policy #360 to clarify which boards and members the county must pay and at what rates.
Commissioner Baldwin briefly moved to amend Policy #360 to raise per-diem ranges but withdrew the motion after discussion. Administrator Whiteford and commissioners tabled any payments to DHHS until counsel provides clarification; the clerk was directed to provide a response by the Feb. 18 meeting regarding a DHHS member's request to be paid under the existing policy or the higher amount.
