Commissioner Meeting Notes – July 19, 2023,  6-8 pm.“Interesting” meeting and very contentious at times.    The AUDIO 

Note: Commissioner Sanders was elected by the voters over the local GOP’s preferred candidate. The animosity and lack of support by the GOP faithful have been quite evident at meetings.  This continued lack of respect may help prompt voters from both parties, to take a harder look at precinct elections in order to have more of a direct impact on the quality of representation. Brown County Republican Party (GOP) – Organization and Governance

Summary of the key issue – New full-time commissioner assistant.  This topic was “introduced”  at the July 5, 2023  commissioner meeting. Commissioner Pittman did not disclose that it was decided that a new full-time position was needed and a consultant was used to provide advice regarding the job description. Wolpert stated he knew nothing about it.  It was also not disclosed that the request for approval and funding for the position would be made at the county council’s  July 17 meeting by Commissioners Pittman and Wolpert. Commissioner Sanders was not included in the decision-making process.  When 2 of the 3 commissioners make a decision in the absence of a public meeting, it may represent a violation of open meeting laws and result in vacating the decision.

 Commissioners Assistant Position.  Commissioner Pittman (elected) and  Commissioner Wolpert (appointed) at Monday’s council meeting, pleaded with the council to immediately approve and fund a full-time commissioner assistant position at a grade 14 (42K).  Commissioner Pittman said he/they had been working on the job description for a month and had had contractor support. The argument from the commissioners appeared desperate indicating a vital need.  Link to the July 17 council meeting notes and audio

• • Note the council’s policy regarding a new air upgraded position is for the need to be identified before the end of June at a council meeting.

They would not take no for an answer nor compromise on the grade.  They believed they would be lucky to find anyone that would do the work at that pay grade although several employees have expressed interest in applying.  The discussion lasted for about 90 minutes and the council voted 4 to 3 to approve. The legality of the vote by Councilman Rudd who attended via Zoom, was questioned at last night’s meeting by Sanders, and the county attorney was asked to provide an opinion.

The Commissioners never had a vote on adding the position and I expected this to occur during last night’s meeting. Given the Pittman/Wolpert argument made at the council meeting, I asked Sanders if a vote was going to be added to the agenda and I told him I would accept the position on a volunteer basis at no pay.  After the discussion at the council meeting, I was curious to learn more about why the position was suddenly needed,  the operations of the commissioner’s office, the workload, and the distribution of the workload among the commissioners. I was also curious to learn more about the culture and working conditions within the building.  At a special meeting of county employees and elected officials on July 19, many significant issues were discussed which makes me interested in learning more about county operations and supporting improvements.  I will be posting my notes on this meeting today or tomorrow.

Note that a volunteer basis provides more flexibility for both parties as opposed to a paid position.  In fact, posting the need and opportunity may lead to even more volunteers that are interested in learning more about and improving the quality of government services.

Sanders questioned the decision “not to have” a vote and mentioned that someone might offer to do it at no pay on a volunteer basis.  Wolpert immediately replied that this would not happen.  I then re-stated my offer to the commissioners to accept the position at no pay on a volunteer basis and asked the county attorney what might be needed.  Pittman stated the commissioners did not have to vote on adding the position, and Wolpert said it was a done deal and “gone over a million times.”

As a precedent, Pittman referenced the work by the council on the restructuring and approval of the HR director position and the part-time commissioner assistant position with no vote by  the commissioners at a public meeting.  The fact that the commissioners now want a change indicates the problem with a lack of transparency and public input.  The agreement also included a supervisory role of a council rep and auditor over a position that is a commissioner’s responsibility that cannot be delegated.  What is the harm of the commissioners discussing this type of action (new position) at their meeting and going on record with their acceptance via a vote?

The new position is posted on the county website. A county employee questioned the detail in the job description and was dismissed. https://www.browncounty-in.gov/Jobs.aspx

I requested that the county attorney provide a written opinion on this issue, e.g.,  that  No vote was required. It may not be legally required but what would be the harm of defending the argument at the commissioner’s meeting?  Especially, when Pittman/Wolpert did not mention at their July 5 meeting that they made the decision (not in a public meeting)  and intended to request the council to approve. This may be in violation of open meeting laws – they decided on a course of action outside of a public meeting.  The audio discussion starts at the 1:14 mark

The meeting was “contentious ” at times.  Allegations have also been made that the new position has been pre-selected which may lead to a formal complaint and investigation depending on the person selected for the position.  The “fast-track” process for this position by the commissioners without the opportunity for public discussion, can undermine the legitimacy of the position and the person selected.

Part 2 – Other items.

Overlook and Shelter.  Commissioners approved transferring the overlook from the county to Parks and Rec with the caveat the Parks and Rec board would accept the transfer.

Salt Creek Trail. A committee has been formed – $2 million in grant money may be available and will require county matching funds.  This only will cover the construction of the trail from the Red Barn to the YMCA. DOES NOT INCLUDE land acquisition which falls under the State/DNR.  Salt Creek Trail and Bridges – For The Record

.

.