Supervisors to have less say

The Madison County Board of Supervisors recently adopted a new county employee personnel policy, which one local official says will remove the board’s role in hiring and firing upper-level employees.

The new policy – which County Administrator Lisa Robertson presented to the board at its regularly scheduled June 9 meeting – includes both revisions to the county’s existing employee guidelines and introduces new rules not previously on the books.

The majority of the supervisors seemed pleased with the policy Robertson said she had been working on with the county’s department heads for close to a year, and voted to approve it. However, Supervisors Vice Chairman James Arrington raised concerns about the policy, proposed the board postpone its approval and then voted against its adoption when a fellow member suggested the supervisors accept the policy as is.

The supervisors vice chairman said he believed the county’s previous policy provided for the board to have a greater role in the hiring and firing of employees. The most recently approved policy allows for a county department head to review applications and interview potential employees and then, prior to making an offer to a candidate, “review the process and results” with the county administrator.

“I’m not comfortable delegating all of that responsibility,” he said.

At the meeting, Arrington brought up a situation that occurred last year when the county had a “major personnel shift” at the Madison County Animal Shelter.

(Late last summer, “the county administration reorganized the management and operation of its animal control and animal shelter services,” according to a guest column written by Robertson that was published in The Eagle in August 2008. The “reorganization” resulted in the elimination of former Madison County Animal Shelter Manager Carole Heller’s position.)

Arrington said he received calls from the public regarding the change at the shelter and that his response was that he didn’t know anything about it.
“Their response then was, ‘What did we elect you for?’” Arrington said.

“I believe the public expects the board to exert more influence over that process than is included in this policy,” he said.

In the past, the board of supervisors had been more involved with the hiring of its employees, Supervisors Chairman Eddie Dean said at the meeting.
“I remember when the board hired everybody, even part-time [employees]. I’m not sure that’s the route we need to go,” Dean said at the meeting. However, the supervisors chairman and the county administrator both said they felt it was fair for the supervisors to have input into the selection of department heads.

“I wouldn’t anticipate that final decision would be mine and there would be no board input,” Robertson said of the employment of department head positions.
Despite this past hiring behavior, the county’s previous personnel policy did not include specific guidelines regarding the hiring of county employees, Robertson said at the meeting.
“There aren’t comparable provisions [of the selection process] in the [previous] policy,” she said at the meeting. “The selection process was one of the gaping holes in that portion of the policy.”

Years ago, a consultant recommended that the county transition away from the board members’ participation in the hiring and firing of most of its employees, Robertson said during the meeting. Officials’ outlined hiring guidelines in the policy so that the process is applied “fairly” and “uniformly,” the county administrator said.

Although Arrington suggested officials approve the policy noting it would only apply to lower-level employees, Robertson urged officials to approve the policy as is, since it includes other policies – regarding vacation, compensation, proper use of computers and various other work related guidelines – that apply to all employees.

She offered instead to later draft an additional policy that would refer to a different set of guidelines for the hiring of upper-level employees that could include a requirement that either some or all candidates for those positions are interviewed or approved by the board of supervisors.
This compromise pleased most board members, except Arrington, who voted against the adoption of the policy.

During the meeting, Arrington also raised concerns about guidelines which allow department heads to change the job titles and duties of employees’ they oversee as well as what he said was a lack of diversity among the county’s current staff.

“A major problem with our workforce today is our diversity,” Arrington said, adding that a statement that the county is an “equal opportunity employer” has been in its personnel policy for years and “hasn’t yielded a whole hell of a lot of a result.”

When asked by Robertson whether he was suggesting the county implement an affirmative action plan, Arrington said county officials “may need to explore it.”

“There are some departments with no minority employees. I’m concerned about that,” he said.

Copies of the county’s new personnel policy may be viewed at the county’s 302 Thrift Road office during its normal hours 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Monday-Friday.