Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over compensation policy language after HB307 accelerates constitutional-officer questions
Summary
Sheriff's office and CAO objected to a compensation-policy clause that would give the director of human resources veto authority over public-safety reclassifications; trustees and HR director said civil service process and the countywide policy guided changes, noting House Bill 307's recent passage.
A heated exchange over the county compensation policy occupied much of the subcommittee meeting as elected officials, the sheriff's office and HR staff debated language governing reclassifications and appointed positions.
Alicia Lindsey, CAO for the Sheriff's Office, objected to a final bullet in the policy's restrictions section that she said would allow the director of human resources—or the mayor's administration—to exercise oversight over positions that the sheriff contends are under his constitutional authority. "The sheriff is the only elected official that's responsible for public safety," she said, arguing the director should not have veto authority over the sheriff's positions.
Gerald Thornton, director of human resources, said the compensation policy is a countywide document and that the civil service merit board and elected-official consultations informed the red-line language. Trustee Regina Newman clarified that elected officials did not vote against the sheriff's requests in the stakeholder session but that the civil service body had the final red-line input.
Commissioners asked the county attorney to review the compensation policy for legality before it returns to committee; Marcy Ingram from the county attorney's office said the office had not completed a legality review but would do so when the resolution is formalized.
