County adds new part time position

After further consideration, the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors reversed course and proceeded with the addition of a new position.
Two people submitted public comments regarding the position. Knute Hallquist of Stanton was not in favor.
“Spending must be reined in! Finding someone for the positions described would not be easy and anyone would need extensive training to be of any use, making the auditor even busier. The pay proposed for the 30-hour positions are outrageous, to say nothing about the benefits. The auditor’s office was previously rewarded extra compensation for elections a few years ago. Now is not the time to be increasing the county budget, and we also consider any interest on investments to still be taxpayer money,” advised Hallquist.
Tripp Narup of Villisca also submitted a written comment that he was not in favor of the addition.
“I recently had a chance to speak to Kristin Wagoner, Page County Auditor. I asked her many questions about her workload, her staff level, and her duties. It appears to me that she has the same number of staff (three people) and the same duties as our auditor, yet she is not paying staff for overtime and has only had to cancel a vacation when a special election had to be held at the last minute. I don’t think Montgomery County needs to hire more staff to solve our current problems. I would suggest that Ms. Ozuna needs to work more efficiently and to develop better working relations with the other departments that feed necessary information to the auditor’s office. Perhaps a visit to the Page County Auditor would give her some ideas,” Narup said.
Under old business was discussion of a resolution to create a part-time budget, finance, and human resource clerk position for one-year contingency which reads:
The Montgomery County Board of Supervisors holds the authority under Iowa Code 331.903 to determine the number of deputies, assistance clerks, and other employees necessary for county operations and to create such positions by resolution in the board minutes, and further holds the authority under Iowa Code 331.904, in parentheses, 4, to establish the compensation for such positions.
As Montgomery County has identified an increasing need for centralized oversight of countywide budgeting, financial administration, personnel systems, policy compliance, and HR support of departments, the board finds that a combined budget, finance, and human resource clerk position will enhance internal coordination, ensure compliance with federal and state requirements, strengthen fiscal planning, and support employee-related functions consistent with the county policies referenced in the county’s employee handbook communications.
The resolution creates a position of part-time budget, finance, and human resource clerk to serve as a temporary Montgomery County employee not to exceed one year from the start date of employment. The board shall review the position after six months and again prior to the end of the one-year period to determine whether the position should transition to a permanent position based on operational needs, performance, and budget considerations, and to serve as a part-time county employee not to exceed 30 hours per week for one year from the start date of employment.
The position shall perform duties including but not limited to assist the development, coordination, and monitoring of countywide annual budget, assist financial reporting, forecasting, revenue expenditures, analysis, accruals, oversee banking relationships, debt obligations, and audit support, assist the administration of human resource policies, payroll operations, and employee records, to assist in collaboration with the elected officials and department heads regarding personnel needs and financial procedures, assist in ensuring adherence to applicable state and federal HR financial and employee regulations and to additional duties as assigned by the board.
Compensation for this position shall be established by the board pursuant to Iowa Code 331.904 in parentheses four and adopted by separate board action. The position shall report directly to the board of supervisors and work in condition with the auditor’s office and other county departments as necessary. The board authorizes the county auditor or designee to post the position in accordance with county hiring procedures referenced in communications regarding the county employee handbook. And to accept applications, coordinate interviews, and present a recommended candidate for board approval. The resolution shall become effective upon its adoption.
The supervisors then opened up for discussion. Supervisors Chair Charla Shmid discussed her thoughts on adding the position.
“After recent discussion here in the boardroom, I left and did some discernment, and I talked to my vice chair, Bryant Amos, and I suggested we just add this position for one year, try it out, and see if it will work,” explained Schmid. “We don’t know if that will actually be the fix that we need, but I know that there needs to be help with the treasurer and the auditor. It’s not just for the auditor. Things flow through the auditor’s office. If we don’t get things, if our county isn’t running smoothly, then we will be the last board, and we will be accountable as a board. I thought this was a good compromise. Let’s try it and see how it works. It says six months, but as a board, I think it’d be important to review the need in the first three months, see how it’s going, and then three months after that.”
Supervisor Alex Burton asked what the benchmarks were to determine if the position was needed or not. Schmid said she had nothing specific at this time, and asked for Burton’s help in defining those benchmarks for an upcoming review. With the position being considered as a clerk, the compensation would change, The clerk position was potentially, with insurance, at a salary of around $80,000 total cost on the high end, but would be dependent on hours, and less without insurance.
Supervisor Mike Olson also commented his appreciation on the public’s taking notice.
“I just want to thank everybody that’s made comments, including donna Robinson, Jan Norris, Tripp Narupp, and Bill Honeyman. They commented and or wrote in a letter and showed that they’re taking an active part in county proceedings and that they show interest,” Olson commented.
Supervisor Mark Peterson commented that the county was reportedly in a bad position from an audit standpoint, but he wasn’t sure he agreed.
After hearing more than once that we’re in a position that might lead us to get in a bad position with the state as far as auditing procedures and all go. Looking at last year’s audit, I’ve read the findings two or three times, and I couldn’t see anything in there. I mean, you’ve got your segregation of duties and the things that any small governmental body is going to deal with,” stated Peterson. “ I called the state auditor’s office, and I did manage to talk to the CPA deputy, his name is on the documents that we got. I told him I’m seeing there’s things that we need to adjust, but do we have major concerns? Are we headed down a road similar to what another unnamed county in Iowa has already gotten to? And he said no. He said there’s things that can be corrected, but I guess my whole point of this is we’re not in an emergency situation. I’m glad to hear that we aren’t in a bad situation.”
Supervisor Bryant Amos said looking at the resolution, there were some things that he liked that were stated regarding the position.
“This position answers to the boards, and the board can change the priorities as needed, where help is needed. As far as the state audit, I don’t want to wait until we are in an emergency. I want to see what we can do to help clean it up now, and hopefully this is the answer. I hope it’s going to be a help for many offices, because this is not just about the auditor’s office, and I’m hoping this is going to help,” Amos said.
Burton, while still not in favor, agreed that there were things in place that he preferred.
“I would add to that that I appreciate that we’re looking at potentially creating this as a position that’s temporary for one year. That definitely feels much better overall. I would also say that the feedback that we’ve gotten has been not in favor of doing this, and we received, as a board, two or three different comments, but I’ve received a lot of others directly as well. Unfortunately, I don’t think I can vote in favor of it, but I appreciate that we’re working towards a compromise there in terms of making it clearly a temporary position to be revisited,” Burton advised.
The temporary position was passed by a 3-2 vote, with Peterson and Burton voting no.