YouTube transcript
Video ID: fyPM_DmzN_k
Language: en
Captions: auto-generated

[0:00] Not yet. No, it is. Thank you, Paul.
[0:04] Uh, certification of open meetings law
[0:06] requirement. Cara, are we certified as
[0:08] far as open meetings law?
[0:10] >> Yes, we are.
[0:11] >> Awesome. Thank you very much. Um, we
[0:13] have available for print. We have a 17
[0:17] item agenda. Is there a motion on
[0:19] adoption of the 17 item agenda?
[0:22] >> I will move to approve.
[0:24] >> Motion by Bridget.
[0:26] >> I will second that motion.
[0:27] >> Second by Andy.
[0:29] Is there any discussion on the agenda?
[0:34] Seeing none, we shall proceed to vote.
[0:37] All those in favor of adopting the
[0:39] agenda as printed, please signify by
[0:41] saying yes.
[0:42] >> Yes.
[0:42] >> Yes.
[0:43] >> Those in opposition, no.
[0:46] Motion passes. The agenda is adopted.
[0:50] With that, we'd like to proceed to item
[0:51] number four of the agenda, the approval
[0:54] of the minutes from the previous meeting
[0:56] on August 13th.
[0:59] Is there a motion on the minutes from
[1:01] the August 13th meeting?
[1:05] >> I'll make the motion to approve those
[1:07] minutes um as written. I didn't see no
[1:10] mistakes that I could catch.
[1:14] >> Motion by Supervisor Todd.
[1:18] >> I'll second that.
[1:19] >> Second by Supervisor Turner. Is there
[1:22] any discussion?
[1:26] Seeing none, we shall proceed to vote.
[1:29] All in favor of approving the minutes of
[1:32] the August 13 meeting, please signify by
[1:35] saying I.
[1:36] >> I.
[1:37] >> Those in opposition, no.
[1:40] Minutes are approved of the August 13th
[1:42] meeting. Um, number five on the agenda
[1:46] is a close session item. Um, at this
[1:50] time the negotiator for the Wisconsin
[1:54] Professional Police Association is not
[1:56] available either by computer or in
[2:01] person. So, we will pass on the close
[2:04] session item and we will continue down
[2:07] to the public comment period, item
[2:09] number seven.
[2:11] With that, uh, members of the public
[2:14] will have a 15minute block of time to
[2:16] comment on today's agenda items. Members
[2:19] may be present in person or call in to
[2:22] make such comments. To comment by
[2:24] telephone, please call 715-5381894.
[2:31] Public comment may be extended or
[2:33] curtailed at the discretion of the
[2:34] committee board chair and after
[2:36] advisement by the committee or the
[2:38] board. So right now it's 109
[2:42] with a 15 minute uh uh 1:34
[2:49] the time will be over.
[2:53] Discussion actions uh next number nine
[2:57] discussion regarding the resignation of
[2:59] veteran service officer Joe Quinbus
[3:02] effective September 11th. Lisa if you
[3:05] could please update us on that.
[3:07] >> Yes. So Joe Clacabus, our current um
[3:10] veteran service officer, um submitted
[3:12] his Oh, I'm sorry.
[3:18] >> Okay. Um so Joe Quacus, our current
[3:21] veteran service officer, submitted his
[3:24] resignation and um he has accepted a
[3:27] position um as a veteran constitu
[3:30] constituent
[3:33] con consituate
[3:34] >> constituent I'm sorry for Mrs. Balden.
[3:37] constituent liaison to the state of
[3:39] Wisconsin for Senator Tammy Baldwin and
[3:41] we wish him the very best in his new
[3:43] position.
[3:47] >> Any questions or discussion about that,
[3:52] >> Mr. Chair?
[3:53] >> Yes.
[3:54] >> I would just like to say that um
[3:57] in the time I've been on the board and
[3:59] known Joe, I think it is a loss for our
[4:02] county, but a gain for his new position.
[4:05] and I too wish him all the best.
[4:10] >> Any additional comments?
[4:13] With that, let's wish Joe uh good luck
[4:16] with working at a statewide or excuse
[4:18] me, senatorwide uh position and look
[4:22] forward to uh benefits that we have from
[4:25] his placement.
[4:28] With that, we'll continue to number 10.
[4:31] Discussion and possible action regarding
[4:33] the appointment of Wade Bessel as
[4:35] interim veteran service officer
[4:38] effective September 14th, 2026.
[4:41] >> Okay. So, if I can speak correctly this
[4:43] time, get it out. Um, so yes, um, we are
[4:47] looking, the county administrator is
[4:49] recommending Wade Bishel, who's been our
[4:51] veteran benefit specialist since
[4:53] September of 2023 into the interim
[4:56] position as the veteran service officer.
[4:59] Um, we are just looking for approval of
[5:01] that. Um, with that, I did want to let
[5:04] you know that he is also recommended by
[5:06] our current veteran service officer,
[5:08] Joe. Um Joe is advising that he meets
[5:11] the requirements to perform the duties
[5:13] of the CVSO including accreditation
[5:15] through the Department of Veteran
[5:16] Affairs Office of General Counsel and um
[5:20] status as a veteran in the state of
[5:22] Wisconsin, fulfillment of continuing
[5:24] education as required by the Department
[5:26] of Veteran Administration and the
[5:28] Wisconsin Department of Veteran
[5:30] Administration.
[5:34] Any questions about that?
[5:35] >> Chair.
[5:37] >> Yes. Um, I would like to also add that
[5:39] um, Wade um, respectfully came into my
[5:42] office and gave me a lot of background
[5:43] on what he does and what he's done and
[5:45] how much passion he's had with his job
[5:48] and I was impressed. So, I would
[5:50] definitely look forward to seeing this
[5:52] assignment or reassignment happen.
[5:55] >> And Supervisor Turner.
[5:57] >> Yeah, I would like to make a motion to
[6:01] appoint Wade Besslitch. Did I say that
[6:04] right? I hope I did. as
[6:07] >> as the interim veteran service officer.
[6:10] I'll second that, Mr. Chair.
[6:12] >> So, we have a motion by Supervisor
[6:14] Turner and a second by Supervisor
[6:16] Severson to appoint Wade Besselitz as
[6:20] the interim veteran service officer
[6:22] effective September 14th, 2026. Is there
[6:26] any discussion on the motion?
[6:30] Seeing none, we shall proceed to vote.
[6:32] All those in favor of the appointment of
[6:35] Wade Besselitz as interim veteran
[6:37] service officer, please signify by
[6:40] saying I.
[6:41] >> I. I.
[6:42] >> Those in opposition, no.
[6:45] Motion passes.
[6:48] We motion to pos to appoint Wade Bullets
[6:51] as interim veteran service officer.
[6:56] With the conclusion of that motion,
[6:58] let's continue to number 11. discussion
[7:00] and possible action regarding the new
[7:03] medical examiner job description
[7:06] and whom would it be best to address the
[7:09] coroners?
[7:09] >> Yep. So, I have that. Um, thank you.
[7:12] >> And so, in um the packets, a an example
[7:16] of the job description was provided um
[7:18] for everyone to review. Um, today um
[7:21] Becky's advised me that she's just
[7:23] seeking approval for the essential
[7:24] functions of the position as well as the
[7:26] requirements. She is doing a little
[7:29] additional research on placement for
[7:31] wage and FLSA status and then would be
[7:34] bringing that forward to executive
[7:36] finance at a future meeting for approval
[7:39] of where that placement would be.
[7:44] >> Are there any questions on the new
[7:46] medical examiner job description?
[7:49] >> Yeah, I got a question. Supervisor Todd.
[7:52] Um question is is we discussed it a
[7:54] while ago and I know um Becky's not here
[7:56] right now but the idea of sharing this
[7:58] with like Jackson County or so there was
[8:01] discussion on that. I'm not sure where
[8:03] that went. I know we have till January
[8:05] to make all this stuff happen because it
[8:08] ain't till April because we we've
[8:09] changed it. So I think there's a a push
[8:11] of what we need to do here when it comes
[8:13] to how we want to proceed with moving
[8:16] forward with that. Richard Anderson had
[8:18] the same concern that we had discussed
[8:20] the fact that if we could work with
[8:23] Jackson County to basically share each
[8:25] halftime medical examiner that'd be
[8:28] beneficial. I have no uh information
[8:32] that we have contacted or discussed or
[8:35] had any action on it as of now. So right
[8:38] now I do not believe anything has
[8:40] occurred as far as contact with Jackson
[8:43] County.
[8:45] So again, I wasn't directly involved. My
[8:48] understanding speaking with Becky today
[8:49] is she was doing additional research and
[8:51] that why that's why she wasn't prepared
[8:53] to put it on the agenda today as far as
[8:56] the grade placement and this FLSA
[8:58] status. Um and was mainly looking for
[9:01] approval just of those duties so that we
[9:03] could start getting it posted because it
[9:05] does take a while to be able to post
[9:07] that and get someone into that type of
[9:09] position. Um,
[9:12] >> unfortunately I don't have any more
[9:14] information to share with you at this
[9:15] time about
[9:15] >> and that's quite all right. Um, go ahead
[9:19] Miss Supervisor Turner.
[9:21] >> Um, I will say that in looking through
[9:23] this it it does very closely in a
[9:27] generalized way follow the job
[9:31] description that we had initially looked
[9:33] at um, which was maybe it's been a year
[9:37] now, something like that. Um,
[9:41] so I would make a motion to uh move this
[9:46] move this forward um
[9:49] once once we receive the FLSA and the
[9:53] grade and whatnot. So, but I think what
[9:57] we have currently looks good.
[10:00] >> There was a motion by Supervisor Turner.
[10:03] Is there a second to this motion?
[10:10] Is there a second to this motion?
[10:15] I'll second the motion.
[10:19] >> Is there any discussion on the motion?
[10:21] >> Mr. Chair,
[10:22] >> supervisor Sever,
[10:23] >> I'd like to see one more thing in there.
[10:25] When it does say under the training
[10:27] experience and other requirements,
[10:30] it shows that it's only you need an
[10:32] associate degree in medical, health,
[10:36] science, criminal justice or related
[10:38] field. I'm thinking there should be
[10:41] something since the word experience is
[10:43] there. There should be related
[10:45] experience
[10:47] of I don't know some how many years or
[10:51] something
[10:52] >> occupational experience in the medical
[10:55] examiner
[10:55] >> in in in a related in the related field
[10:58] some some other wording there.
[11:00] >> Yeah. Or at least say occupational
[11:03] experience preferred something
[11:07] >> to designate we're looking for an
[11:08] experience. kind of weed out those that
[11:10] would have absolutely no
[11:13] >> idea of what's going on with that.
[11:16] >> Would you like to put that as a an
[11:18] amendment?
[11:19] >> Would have to be supervisor put that in
[11:22] as an amendment. So, how would you like
[11:24] the amendment stated?
[11:26] >> Um,
[11:27] associates degree in medical, health,
[11:29] science, criminal justice or related
[11:32] field
[11:34] and or experience. I I don't almost want
[11:39] some some so many years of experience.
[11:42] >> And you might use a two-year, you know,
[11:44] as a suggestion, you know, then you can
[11:46] use the term years and it works.
[11:48] >> Okay. And [laughter] then and then uh
[11:52] and or at least two years of related
[11:55] experience.
[11:57] >> Cara, did you get that all or do we need
[11:59] to repeat it?
[12:00] >> Is that so related experience or
[12:04] experience in related
[12:09] related field.
[12:12] >> Yes. I just wanted you to restate it so
[12:14] we know what the amendment is because
[12:15] now we have to have somebody second the
[12:17] amendment. Is there a second for the
[12:19] amendment?
[12:19] >> I would second that.
[12:21] >> Seconded by Supervisor Turner. Is there
[12:25] any discussion on the amendment, which
[12:27] is what we're voting on from Supervisor
[12:29] Severson, that we add in qualifications
[12:32] for the medical examiner.
[12:37] Seeing none, we shall proceed to vote on
[12:39] the amendment. All those in favor of the
[12:41] amendment, please signify by saying I.
[12:45] >> I.
[12:45] >> I.
[12:46] >> Those in opposition, no.
[12:49] Motion passes. We will approve the
[12:51] amendment. So now the main motion will
[12:54] read that we approve the medical
[12:57] examiner job description as printed with
[13:00] the addition of the amendment that they
[13:03] have two years
[13:07] is it and or or could you please repeat
[13:09] that car so I don't get it in error.
[13:14] >> Thank you very much. So that is the main
[13:17] motion in which we have. Is there
[13:18] additional discussion on the main
[13:20] motion? You did say andor, right?
[13:22] >> Okay. And or.
[13:23] >> Yeah, we we try to get that in. That's
[13:25] nice touch.
[13:28] >> Two years related field.
[13:33] >> Seeing no discussion, we shall proceed
[13:35] to vote. All those in favor of the
[13:38] motion as stated with the new medical
[13:42] examiner job description, please signify
[13:44] by saying I.
[13:45] >> I. I.
[13:46] >> Those in opposition, no.
[13:49] Motion passes. We will approve uh to
[13:53] continue the new medical examiner job
[13:55] description and entertain employees for
[13:58] that position.
[14:00] >> Can I ask a question?
[14:01] >> Yes.
[14:01] >> So, we had Bridget did the motion to I'm
[14:04] sorry, did who was the second on that?
[14:08] >> I seconded the motion. I apologize. I
[14:10] should have stated that. Whan seconded
[14:11] the motion.
[14:14] >> Just a question, Mr. Chair.
[14:16] >> Yes. Um,
[14:19] when are we looking at potentially
[14:22] filling this position? Do we know that,
[14:25] Lisa?
[14:27] >> 27. Yep. January 1st.
[14:29] >> Thank you.
[14:32] >> That's when it's
[14:34] >> that's when it starts, but we've got to
[14:36] recruit before that,
[14:38] >> right?
[14:38] >> I guess that
[14:41] was your question.
[14:42] >> You asked me to stuck with me talking.
[14:44] We'd like to get recruiting as soon as
[14:46] we can um finalize the job description.
[14:49] So, I I believe we'll need to bring it
[14:52] forward um to Exec Finance for the grade
[14:55] placement once Becky's done doing her
[14:57] research and can bring that forward.
[14:59] >> Okay. So, it could be as soon as a
[15:01] month, but it could be as late as a
[15:03] couple months.
[15:04] >> It could be a couple months. Yeah. Yep.
[15:07] Oh,
[15:07] >> and due to technical difficulty, I do
[15:10] have to repeat the main motion for
[15:13] recording purposes. Um, so the motion
[15:17] was to uh support the continuation of
[15:21] the new medical examiner job description
[15:24] and and include the amendment that we
[15:27] have them and or two years of ex
[15:30] occupational experience.
[15:42] And with conclusion of that motion and
[15:44] that agenda item number 11, we will
[15:47] continue to agenda item 12, discussion
[15:50] regarding the district attorney's office
[15:52] request to reclassify the victim witness
[15:56] coordinator position.
[15:58] And who would like to address this item?
[16:01] >> Okay. votes.
[16:02] >> So, with that, I did hand out um a
[16:05] little handout district um attorney's
[16:07] office that Becky had prepared. Um and
[16:10] so, she just wanted me to let everyone
[16:13] know that um this is part of the budget
[16:15] process and it's being evaluated through
[16:17] the wage study program. So, there's
[16:20] going to be an evaluation done on that.
[16:22] Um the job questionnaire should have
[16:24] been completed. It is submitted and
[16:26] under review right now. So, that
[16:28] recommendation will also be coming
[16:29] forward. But she also wanted to share um
[16:32] this information which is a summary. So
[16:34] it's um the victim witness coordinator
[16:36] is currently at a grade eight step eight
[16:39] that is and then it would be going to
[16:41] recommended going to a grade nine step
[16:43] six is the request um due to solely
[16:47] manages victim witness for adult and
[16:49] juvenile criminal cases expanded
[16:51] statutory responsibilities following
[16:54] implementation of Marcy's law supports a
[16:57] growing case load including 987 total
[17:00] cases and 542 new victim cases filed in
[17:04] 2025. Coordinates interpretation and
[17:07] translation services for victims who do
[17:09] not speak English. Position is partially
[17:12] reimbured by the Wisconsin Department of
[17:14] Justice. The bottom line aligns
[17:16] compensation with increased workload,
[17:18] mandated victim rights responsibilities,
[17:20] and the specialized demands of a
[17:22] oneperson program.
[17:24] And then the next page is also um just a
[17:28] print out of all of the different
[17:29] reclassifications that have come forward
[17:31] requests. Again, um wanting to um review
[17:36] this in coordination with the wage study
[17:38] that is happening right now.
[17:46] >> Do you need a motion?
[17:48] >> Uh Mr. Chair, there on the agenda
[17:50] there's no action.
[17:51] >> You can't have any action. It's only
[17:53] discuss discussion and discuss.
[17:54] >> So, basically what we're doing is making
[17:57] it open for discussion, but we cannot
[17:59] have a motion to deal with uh the victim
[18:02] witness coordinator advancement. So, if
[18:05] there's something you'd like to discuss
[18:06] or a question you'd like to ask, that's
[18:07] what this for, but not for a motion.
[18:12] Is there questions from anyone?
[18:14] >> Mr. Chair,
[18:16] >> Supervisor Todd.
[18:17] >> Um, how I understand this, and Lisa,
[18:19] maybe you can help me out with this. Um,
[18:20] this was actually brought forward
[18:22] somewhere in June or July, but it was
[18:24] missed. How does it work when it comes
[18:27] to the step program that we have? Um, I
[18:31] got two different directions that I was
[18:33] told and how it works. one
[18:35] in the payroll side of their budget. Um,
[18:38] if they have the money in that budget
[18:41] and if something like this comes up,
[18:43] they as the director of that department,
[18:46] they can raise that step up as long as
[18:49] they have the money that was budgeted in
[18:50] that department. That that was my um
[18:53] first question. Or does it go to the
[18:54] point where no, it's always got no
[18:56] matter if it's a step up or not, even
[18:58] though they have it in their line item
[19:00] as employees, they still got to go
[19:01] through personnel bargaining. So, so,
[19:04] um, my understanding is is if it is a
[19:07] change to grade, so going from a grade
[19:09] eight to a grade nine on our wage scale,
[19:11] that would be a reclassification request
[19:13] because it's changing the grade. Um, a
[19:16] step increase can be done if it can be
[19:18] accommodated within the budget. So, that
[19:21] would be going like we have step 16
[19:23] steps currently in our wage scale. Um,
[19:25] and I did provide a copy of the wage
[19:27] scale and that might even be helpful to
[19:29] take a look at that. Um, you'll see all
[19:31] the different grades listed out with the
[19:33] positions that are within that grade.
[19:35] How they're categorized in that grade is
[19:37] they're taking a look at education.
[19:40] They're looking at complexity positions,
[19:42] things of that nature, decision making,
[19:45] how they're placing people into their
[19:47] different grades, but the steps is more
[19:49] of years of experience maybe in the
[19:52] field. Um, or we do a step increase
[19:54] every year if the board approves it. So,
[19:56] the steps are different than a grade
[19:59] change. Yeah.
[20:03] >> So with that said, if there is a
[20:07] situation where we have to approve it,
[20:09] where does it go to exec finance and
[20:11] then go to the board if that is steps
[20:14] need to be improve, you know, no matter
[20:16] what if it's
[20:16] >> or like grade change classification
[20:19] >> or step change whatever the process is,
[20:22] >> right? So if it's a step increase um
[20:25] generally that can be done within the
[20:27] department and then um usually that is
[20:30] brought forward to PB for approval on
[20:32] that. It wouldn't have to go through
[20:34] exec finance or anything else because it
[20:36] doesn't impact the budget. Okay.
[20:38] >> Um if it's a grade change that's
[20:40] considered a reclassification. So then
[20:42] that does go through more committee
[20:44] approval for that type of a change or
[20:47] many times people group it up and then
[20:49] it goes through the annual budget
[20:50] process and then it's brought forward.
[20:52] And so I think that's where um this year
[20:56] with the the wage study. Becky still
[21:00] wanted to kind of respect um that
[21:03] department heads may want to push
[21:04] someone through for a reclassification.
[21:07] So, she's still opened it up to get that
[21:08] feedback, but she's trying to coordinate
[21:10] it with that wage study and then
[21:12] bringing those forward through that
[21:14] budget process.
[21:16] >> Did I answer your question or
[21:17] >> you did you did one more question. Being
[21:19] that this was missed in June or July, is
[21:21] that still something to where we should
[21:23] have maybe seen this earlier or
[21:26] >> I'm just trying to, you know, evaluate,
[21:28] okay, if it was missed and now we're
[21:31] looking at the end of the year compared
[21:33] to if we looked at the first of the or
[21:35] when it was sent down and requested.
[21:38] >> Sure.
[21:39] >> Could have that have changed where we're
[21:40] at right now?
[21:42] >> Um, you know, I'm not exactly sure of
[21:44] all the circumstances.
[21:46] >> Um,
[21:47] >> I like it. I believe Becky brought
[21:48] reclassifications forward earlier,
[21:51] right? A whole list of them. Are you
[21:53] saying this specific position was missed
[21:55] at that time?
[21:56] >> No.
[21:56] >> Or all of the reclassifications coming
[21:59] forward?
[21:59] >> Yeah. I don't think Becky brought them
[22:00] back bring them brought them forward in
[22:03] June, July time frame. I could be wrong.
[22:06] >> Go.
[22:07] >> Can I get a clarification too? Is it
[22:09] because I don't remember
[22:12] >> when a reclass happens? Does it happen
[22:15] right then and there or does it take
[22:17] effect the first of the year? So, it's
[22:19] in the next budget.
[22:20] >> You know, I would have to look at that a
[22:22] little bit closer because we think it
[22:25] class you can do it at any time, but it
[22:27] doesn't take effect until
[22:29] >> it comes year,
[22:31] >> right?
[22:32] >> Is it the budget year or is it the when
[22:35] it's passed?
[22:37] >> So, we went we went
[22:38] >> that's that'd be kind of my half of my
[22:40] question. So, prior to Becky coming, it
[22:43] was a once a year request that could
[22:44] come in for a reclassification. So,
[22:47] basically changing someone to a
[22:48] different grade. Um,
[22:52] I cannot exactly I'm not exactly sure,
[22:54] but my understanding is that when she
[22:57] came in, she's doing it through the
[22:59] budget process. Now, that was changed.
[23:01] So, those reclass requests came in and
[23:03] then that would flow through the budget
[23:05] process to be effective as of Jan
[23:08] January 1st through the budget cycle.
[23:10] That's my understanding. I would have to
[23:12] [clears throat] go back and look at that
[23:14] because again I haven't been directly
[23:15] involved in a lot of those things now
[23:17] that Becky is here. So I want to make
[23:19] sure I'm giving you good information
[23:21] >> but and I thought there was approval for
[23:23] that too that now reclasses would go
[23:25] through the budget process
[23:28] >> beginning. That's kind of what I was
[23:30] thinking it was but I wasn't positive.
[23:32] Yeah.
[23:33] >> Okay. and Cara. I would like the minutes
[23:37] of the committee meeting uh personnel
[23:40] and bargaining to reflect that at 119,
[23:43] Scott Leonard
[23:47] left the discussion and it was at the
[23:50] beginning of the discussion of item
[23:52] number 12
[23:54] and he has not returned as of yet. I'll
[23:56] keep track of when he does return so we
[23:58] can include that in the minutes also.
[24:00] >> And also, Mr. Chair, your public comment
[24:02] is done.
[24:03] >> Was it 1:34?
[24:05] >> It was actually 124 if you had
[24:07] >> 124. I was 10 minutes [laughter] off.
[24:08] Hey, nice job, Paul. Thanks for
[24:10] correcting me. Apologize for that. I was
[24:12] trying to give the public plenty of
[24:13] time. [laughter]
[24:14] >> Good teamwork.
[24:16] >> Nice job, Paul. Thank you.
[24:18] >> Awesome.
[24:19] Uh with the conclusion of item number 12
[24:23] on the agenda, we will proceed to item
[24:25] 13, discussion and possible action
[24:27] regarding the reclassification of the
[24:30] finance manager position to finance
[24:32] director, including a change in paygrade
[24:36] and job title effective 2027.
[24:40] Um Lisa, is there something you want to
[24:43] start out with that on that? I would
[24:44] just start out by um just advising
[24:47] everyone that um Becky did provide some
[24:50] information in the packet. It was the me
[24:52] memorandum [clears throat] that went out
[24:53] to personnel bargaining committee um and
[24:57] it was looking for the reaffirmation of
[24:59] support for transition for finance
[25:01] manager to finance director um in 2027.
[25:06] Um along with that letter there is
[25:09] additional information that was
[25:10] provided. Um I handed that out so
[25:13] everyone should have a packet here and
[25:16] then um we have additional information
[25:18] to share about the importance of that
[25:20] position. Um so
[25:25] so um Pam our finance manager is here
[25:29] today to talk about the additional
[25:31] handouts that were in that packet too.
[25:33] So Pam, do you mind
[25:35] >> would you want me to read the letter at
[25:37] all or do you need anything read?
[25:38] >> We sure can. Uh the letter is uh to
[25:41] personnel bargaining committee from
[25:43] Rebecca September 7th reaffirmation of
[25:47] the support for transition from finance
[25:49] manager to finance director. Uh vote of
[25:52] confidence is requested. Personnel and
[25:54] bargaining committee. I'm bringing this
[25:56] matter forward to the newly constituted
[25:58] personal and bargaining committee to
[25:59] request its reaffirmation of support for
[26:03] transitioning the current finance
[26:05] manager position to a finance director
[26:08] position as part of the 2027 budget
[26:11] process. Before the 2026 committee
[26:15] appointments, the prior personnel
[26:17] bargain committee voted unanimously to
[26:19] support reclassifying the position to
[26:22] finance director in 2027.
[26:25] That commitment was included in Pam
[26:27] Hansen's offer letter, which stated that
[26:30] the transition remained subject to the
[26:32] county's budget process and final
[26:34] approval by the county board. The offer
[26:38] letter also recognized the importance of
[26:40] developing the role to strengthen the
[26:42] county's long-term financial leadership
[26:44] and organizational process. The proposed
[26:47] transition is expected to have no net
[26:49] impact on the 2027 budget. The county
[26:54] plans to discontinue its contracted
[26:56] services with government solutions and
[26:59] redirect those budgeted funds to support
[27:02] the finance director position.
[27:04] Establishing a finance director position
[27:07] will provide the county with stronger
[27:09] in-house financial oversight,
[27:11] continuity, and expertise. It will also
[27:14] strengthen budget development, financial
[27:16] reporting, audit preparation, and
[27:19] follow-through, and the county's ongoing
[27:22] Tyler Technologies implementation.
[27:25] Over time, this added internal capacity
[27:28] is expected to reduce reliance on
[27:30] outside services, identify efficiencies,
[27:34] and improve audit outcomes, and produce
[27:37] long-term cost savings. It is
[27:39] respectfully requested that the personal
[27:41] bargaining committee vote to reaffirm
[27:44] its confidence and support for
[27:47] transitioning the finance manager
[27:48] position to finance director through the
[27:51] 2027 budget process. Sincerely, Rebecca
[27:55] Gluen.
[28:07] >> Thank you. The additional information
[28:09] that um uh was provided,
[28:13] a couple things. First thing I wanted
[28:15] you to see kind of where we are at with
[28:16] the 2026 expense. I know the letter did
[28:21] refer to government solutions um
[28:24] expense.
[28:25] However, there is additional expense. I
[28:27] know a variety of committees have been
[28:29] given uh the audit cost for previous
[28:33] years and those dollars for Trenmpa
[28:35] County. However, I wanted to be
[28:37] completely transparent and have you see
[28:38] where we're at in 2026 as well. And I'll
[28:41] remind you that the 2026 expense is the
[28:43] audit of the 2025 year in total. And
[28:48] there's bills in because there's bills
[28:50] to yet come in. Um, but this is our
[28:53] amounts paid to Baker Tilly through July
[28:56] 31st which for the county totals
[28:58] $184,319.36.
[29:02] Um, what part of it was paid by the
[29:04] highway which was 25,9725
[29:08] um with the actual expense to the county
[29:11] so far at 158,34711.
[29:15] I'll remind you that the 2026 budget was
[29:18] 134,510.
[29:20] So even at this point without all the
[29:22] bills in um we are already in excess of
[29:25] 23,83686
[29:27] in excess of budget and there's still
[29:30] bills to come in. Um
[29:33] there's a couple lines on here I'll
[29:34] point out um that definitely should
[29:36] easily be eliminated. the highway
[29:38] department financial statements and the
[29:40] accounting assistance which total nearly
[29:42] $100,000 that most of it with a finance
[29:45] director in place could be and should be
[29:48] mitigated.
[29:50] Um the other thing I gave you and it was
[29:52] referred to in the letter about in
[29:54] Rebecca's letter about the audit. I
[29:56] believe the auditors are coming in
[29:58] September potentially to the county
[30:00] board meeting and they were at exact
[30:02] finance um last month, but there are
[30:04] some audit findings from 2025.
[30:08] And finding two and three are new
[30:11] findings for the county and um views of
[30:15] responsible officials, which I did not
[30:17] draft this, somebody else here at the
[30:18] county did. Um but it also refers to
[30:21] your finance department adding staff and
[30:24] with the capacity to review and approve
[30:26] um things and identify discrepancies. So
[30:29] those are the things the finance
[30:31] director um
[30:33] would and should add. Um I know Mr. Todd
[30:38] did refer in the last board meeting that
[30:41] um you have good staff here, which you
[30:43] indeed do. Um,
[30:47] but hiring somebody with uh some
[30:49] experience and um the education and the
[30:52] and a level of experience can definitely
[30:55] give some additional guidance to the
[30:57] great staff you already have here to um
[31:00] hopefully achieve what was in the memo
[31:02] from Rebecca. So, thank you. questions
[31:06] about the numbers
[31:10] >> and question. Uh, Supervisor Leonard.
[31:13] >> Um, Pam, if you could tell me what um
[31:18] >> Mike,
[31:19] >> sorry. Um, Pam, if you could tell me
[31:22] what uh what was the amount that
[31:25] Government Solutions was charging us?
[31:29] I can't quote you off the top of my head
[31:32] per hour, but I did look back and in
[31:35] 2024 their total expense to the county
[31:40] was 25,989.
[31:42] In 2025, it was 24,000
[31:46] and then through April of 26 it was
[31:48] 15,000.
[31:50] We have used them a little bit um for
[31:52] transition learning curve things like
[31:54] that um since I started in May um but
[31:59] not to this degree.
[32:00] >> And then also what is the um
[32:04] what is the raise that we're looking or
[32:06] I'm sorry how do I I guess
[32:09] >> cost difference? Yes. Between your
[32:11] position and the director's position.
[32:14] >> Yeah. I believe what um Rebecca put in
[32:17] the memo and what I'm aware of firsthand
[32:19] with regards to market rates um your
[32:23] memo said that the intent was to
[32:25] discontinuous contracted services with
[32:27] government solution and redirect those
[32:29] budgeted funds to support the finance
[32:31] director position. So that would be
[32:33] approximately the 25,000 that um we've
[32:36] paid government solutions in the past.
[32:39] >> Thank you.
[32:44] and supervisor Stevenson
[32:46] >> probably have kind of a two two side is
[32:50] the finance manager position in the wage
[32:53] study right now
[32:57] because it is on it's on our sheet it's
[33:00] a grade 14
[33:04] yes I did fill out a position
[33:06] description questionnaire for
[33:07] >> McGrath okay
[33:10] and then my second half of my question
[33:12] is I'd like to see a job description for
[33:15] a finance director before I put okay it
[33:21] is part of the development with the wage
[33:23] study right now with the submitted so um
[33:28] I can make note of that and make sure
[33:30] that does come forward
[33:33] >> so you're looking for a specific job
[33:35] description for the position of finance
[33:39] director
[33:39] >> I' I'd actually like to see the manager
[33:41] one too because I I haven't seen your
[33:44] your job description. But
[33:47] >> we can certainly get that out too.
[33:49] >> Get both of those out to us.
[33:51] >> They've been written.
[33:53] >> We're all I think we're all new on
[33:55] personel. So
[33:56] >> be worth looking at too for myself.
[33:59] >> The old job description then that was
[34:00] from the old committee.
[34:02] >> Yeah. I do have one copy if you would
[34:03] like me to share it with him or if
[34:05] >> No, you make copies and get it to all of
[34:07] us.
[34:07] >> Oh, it's just I've got it. Yeah. Okay.
[34:10] >> I can get that out. Yep. I'll get it out
[34:12] to all of the committee members.
[34:14] >> That That's
[34:16] >> Now, when I was hired, I was It's
[34:18] essentially the same job description
[34:20] with just the title that fit your wage
[34:24] study at the time is what I was or fit
[34:26] your
[34:28] um pay schedule at the time. So, that
[34:31] the job description is there. It's just
[34:33] what title do you call it is what I was
[34:35] told prior to accepting the position.
[34:38] But,
[34:38] >> okay.
[34:42] additional questions or comments. Uh,
[34:45] supervisor,
[34:46] >> I just have one comment and I'm pretty
[34:49] sure for most people it is not a secret
[34:53] that I hold back, but I truly believe in
[34:58] this finance director's position with
[35:02] the recent increases in auditing firms
[35:06] costs and
[35:09] and the work that they have to go
[35:11] through when they can't necessarily find
[35:14] what they're looking for and their
[35:17] conclusions and then they want more
[35:19] information and whatever. A lot of those
[35:22] fees could be mitigated by a finance
[35:25] director knowing when obviously the
[35:28] auditors are coming and preparing as
[35:30] best they can to have all the materials
[35:32] ready for them. I know within the
[35:36] village of Trumpo when we hired somebody
[35:41] with significant skill as far as
[35:44] finances,
[35:46] it made a world of difference in what
[35:51] monies and budgets were on or off and
[35:55] everything fell in line. And it is
[35:58] actually
[36:01] offset
[36:02] the the wages and everything that we
[36:05] save would be fully offset by having a a
[36:10] more concise run finance department. So
[36:13] I think we owe it to our taxpayers to to
[36:16] very seriously consider this.
[36:20] Thank you.
[36:21] >> Additional comments, questions from
[36:24] anybody from the board? Supervisor
[36:26] Leonard.
[36:27] >> Um maybe you can help me out with this
[36:29] too on this. Bridget, the administrator
[36:31] position. I don't know what the job
[36:33] description was. There was she also um
[36:38] directed to help with finances as well
[36:42] or budget or any of that as well or was
[36:46] she not? I don't know.
[36:47] >> You'll have to check with the experience
[36:49] around you there between the two of
[36:50] those two. I can speak to that at the
[36:53] time that and personnel bargaining and
[36:57] there was a separate committee that was
[36:58] formed to seek and hire that person. Um,
[37:05] however, in that process, once we had
[37:09] determined
[37:10] the person we felt that could bring the
[37:13] county forward and help us,
[37:17] we kind of sat back and we said, well,
[37:19] what duties do we want like specifically
[37:22] in the job description? Because
[37:23] obviously there is financial oversight
[37:26] in that job description for the
[37:28] administrator.
[37:30] But at that time we had come to the
[37:33] conclusion that
[37:36] we know a lot about this person but we
[37:38] don't know everything. What are they
[37:39] really good at? What are they not so
[37:42] good at? What what avenues because we
[37:45] thought well do we need to hire an
[37:46] administrative assistant for them? Well
[37:49] everything was so new to the supervisors
[37:51] that we didn't know. So we said, you
[37:53] know, why don't we let this person come
[37:55] in,
[37:57] get grounded, figure out what their role
[38:01] was, what the county needed, because we
[38:04] didn't even know what the county was
[38:06] missing. It was operating and
[38:08] functioning, but there was no
[38:12] kind of umbrella looking out.
[38:14] [clears throat]
[38:15] You know, we had we had a clerk. Paul
[38:18] did a super job, but Paul isn't going to
[38:22] be there forever either. So, we kind of
[38:24] left it to say, "Okay, let's let this
[38:28] administrator find out what the needs
[38:31] are, what her specific needs are, and
[38:34] create that portion of it."
[38:37] >> Okay.
[38:38] >> So,
[38:40] Paul, anything to add, Miss Supervisor
[38:42] Severson? Oh, that that was a good good
[38:44] explanation right there. That
[38:47] >> chair. Okay.
[38:48] >> Yes, Supervisor Todd.
[38:50] >> I do want to make sure we stress the
[38:52] idea of
[38:54] a lot of this reason
[38:56] is um Tyler being implemented and how it
[38:59] was implemented to and where we're at
[39:01] right now. Um to Paul, you did do a
[39:03] great job, but I I honestly I think Mary
[39:05] would do an awesome job, but or does an
[39:08] awesome job when it comes to that. Um
[39:10] the idea where I'm getting at is Tyler
[39:12] was implemented um uh the best that um
[39:16] that they could do in that department at
[39:18] the time when it comes to what they knew
[39:20] and how they did it. Um the training
[39:22] wasn't there. So the situation that
[39:24] we're in in a financial grounds of
[39:28] everything is um the new implementation
[39:30] of the new Tyler system caused a lot of
[39:33] that. I mean, I think if we moved
[39:35] forward um when it comes to um how Paul
[39:37] did it, you know, um you know, right
[39:40] now, maybe we'd be in the same spot
[39:41] where everything was audited and
[39:43] everything was fine. So, all this extra
[39:45] cash, government solutions came on. I
[39:47] don't think government did we use
[39:48] government solutions, Paul, before um um
[39:52] two years ago. So, we never did. So,
[39:53] that that 50 or $25,000 was never there
[39:56] in the first place. Um so this
[39:59] implementation of the Tyler system is
[40:01] causing a lot of um a lot of our issues
[40:03] right now. A lot of training that need
[40:05] to be done. Um a lot of the
[40:07] miscommunication when it comes to um uh
[40:10] if you touch it you enter it. Um that
[40:12] was that was totally misunderstood as
[40:15] okay now next you know okay Mary goes
[40:18] Tyler preached this. Okay. Hey you touch
[40:21] it you enter it. Well, wait a minute.
[40:22] Um, the treasur's office touches it, but
[40:25] normally the report went from the
[40:26] treasur's office to the to the um to the
[40:30] clerk and now the clerk ain't got to
[40:31] touch it because Tyler told him Mitch if
[40:32] you touch it. So, there's a lot of
[40:34] miscommunication before we had our the
[40:36] new employee come in. So, that's a lot
[40:40] of the where we're at right now, too.
[40:43] So, one, job descriptions. Okay, so
[40:45] we're going to look at, okay, it's going
[40:47] to be approximately $25,000 to um give
[40:50] this employee um that raise to get to
[40:52] the director, but one, we don't know the
[40:54] directors. We don't even know the job
[40:57] description. Two, now now we have a
[40:59] financial director. What does that job
[41:01] description entail? Do we need to hire a
[41:03] finance manager? Do we need to hire a
[41:05] financial analyst to take over where the
[41:08] um finance um director comes in place?
[41:10] So there's more costs, another $70
[41:12] $100,000. So there's so much unknown
[41:16] here and we're always reflecting back to
[41:19] wage study, wage study, wage study. We
[41:22] don't know. So I understand um the last
[41:26] board um what they did, but to determine
[41:29] um what we should be doing from the last
[41:32] board is not fair to us as a committee
[41:35] or us as a whole. 17 of our of our um uh
[41:39] supervisors. Um it went to five
[41:42] individuals on um on that personnel
[41:44] bargaining and and you guys have
[41:46] everybody knows there's 11 more that
[41:48] were out there that didn't know anything
[41:49] about it because it never went to that
[41:51] point. So it went from personnel
[41:52] bargaining to say yes this is the um
[41:54] letter that we're given out but then it
[41:56] didn't go to exec finance and then it
[41:58] didn't go to full board. Why didn't it?
[42:00] I mean that is the big question that I
[42:01] want to ask. So that way we can get all
[42:04] the support of hey this is something we
[42:06] want to do. Um so it's the whole idea of
[42:10] um is it fair? We're asking a lot of our
[42:12] employ our employees here in our county
[42:15] to step up and pay more. I mean we got
[42:18] to because of a 23% increase. Um but
[42:22] then we're going to um possibly look at
[42:23] giving somebody $25,000 raise. I mean we
[42:27] got to look at that when it comes to the
[42:29] full county and um the taxpayers. So,
[42:32] um, where we stand right now, we don't
[42:34] even know where we stand when it comes
[42:36] to, um, all the information that's put
[42:38] out there. We don't know where the
[42:40] financial director stands. How can we
[42:42] sit here and make a decision off of what
[42:44] we don't know? And that's where I kind
[42:46] of rest my case.
[42:48] >> Supervisor Severson,
[42:49] >> another kind of comment is, you know, we
[42:51] started the the Tyler and the what's it
[42:54] called? UKG.
[42:56] We started that way back in October. Pam
[42:58] didn't come until May. We had I should
[43:01] have counted the months. Six, seven,
[43:03] eight months.
[43:03] >> You might be off. I was today, so my
[43:05] math is [laughter] really good, but you
[43:06] might be off.
[43:07] >> We had a bunch of months that uh we
[43:10] didn't have a coordinator at all for
[43:13] figuring out all that Tyler stuff. So,
[43:17] yeah, I I I'm not against a finance
[43:19] director position,
[43:22] but I don't know if we're up to there
[43:24] yet because we've got so much stuff to
[43:27] get together
[43:29] to to figure out where we are. And I
[43:32] don't want to put the whole burden on
[43:34] Pam. And this this would be the other
[43:36] thing, too, because we get the the uh
[43:39] job description.
[43:42] We're being asked to just put her in
[43:44] that Would the public want us to
[43:47] advertise and do interviews and and I'd
[43:51] hate to say and Pam doesn't get it. You
[43:53] know, this this is a big question to I
[43:56] think that we got to ask.
[43:58] So, I I hate to say this, but I think
[44:01] I'd like to table this uh
[44:07] reclassification. I'm saying table.
[44:09] First, I had it in my mind I was going
[44:11] to suspend, but I'm not going to. I I
[44:13] learned at the county board what suspend
[44:15] means. So I'm going to make a motion
[44:18] that we table this subject.
[44:20] >> We would need a main motion first
[44:22] >> as far as for the reclassification.
[44:25] >> Did I make a motion before we started
[44:26] discussion?
[44:27] >> We had no it was a report that was given
[44:31] when you guys started under discussion
[44:34] >> and it was discussing a report which Pam
[44:37] was delivering. We have no main motion
[44:40] as far as to the item 13 discussion
[44:43] possible action regarding
[44:44] reclassification of the finance manager
[44:46] position to finance director including a
[44:48] change in pay grade and job title. So we
[44:51] cannot table a report.
[44:53] >> Okay. So someone is there anybody that
[44:56] would like to move a motion a main
[44:59] motion or uh is there additional
[45:02] discussion that they would like to have
[45:04] as far as item 13 with the discussion
[45:07] possible action on reclassification.
[45:15] Is there a motion?
[45:18] I I would
[45:20] >> Supervisor Turner
[45:21] >> I would like to make a motion in regards
[45:23] to gathering some more information about
[45:28] not only seeing those job descriptions
[45:31] which Lisa said that she would do and
[45:34] revisit this at the next personnel
[45:37] bargaining meeting
[45:40] >> with more chair I would I would second
[45:42] that
[45:42] >> it's been promptly moved and seconded
[45:44] that we do investigation into the
[45:47] reclassification of the finance manager
[45:49] position and finance director to be
[45:51] reported at the next personal bargaining
[45:55] meeting. Is that what the main motion
[45:56] should stay? Checking with the maker.
[46:00] Is there discussion on that main motion?
[46:06] Seeing no discussion, all those in favor
[46:09] of the main motion that we do an
[46:11] investigation as far as to changing the
[46:14] reclassification of finance manager
[46:16] position to finance director, please
[46:18] signify by saying I.
[46:20] >> I.
[46:22] >> Those in opposition,
[46:24] >> no.
[46:25] >> Motion passes. We will investigate the
[46:29] transfer regarding reclassification of
[46:32] finance manager position to finance
[46:34] director
[46:36] and thank you for waiting for us. We
[46:38] apologize we haded a challenge today as
[46:40] far as some personal matters that
[46:42] developed. So, as far as the uh
[46:45] individuals from the Wisconsin
[46:47] Professional Police Association, with
[46:49] conclusion of item 13, we'd like with
[46:51] flexibility to to head on to that issue
[46:55] with the Wisconsin Professional Police
[46:56] Association. To do that, we need someone
[46:59] to move uh into close session, please.
[47:02] >> Mr. Chair.
[47:03] >> Yes. I would like to make a motion that
[47:06] we go into close session to consider
[47:09] employ per Wisconsin statute 19.85 5
[47:13] parentheses 1 C considering employment
[47:17] promotion compensation or performance
[47:19] evaluation data of any public employee
[47:22] over which the governmental body has
[47:24] jurisdiction or exercises responsibility
[47:28] and also Wisconsin statute 1985
[47:31] parentheses 1E deliberating or
[47:35] negotiating the purchasing of public
[47:37] properties the invest investing of
[47:39] public funds or conducting other
[47:41] specified public business whenever
[47:44] competitive or bargaining reasons
[47:46] require a closed session.
[47:49] >> So, it's been a motion to move to close
[47:51] session. Is there a second?
[47:52] >> Mr. Chair, I will second that.
[47:54] >> It's been promptly moved and seconded to
[47:55] move to close session. All those in
[47:57] favor, please.
[47:58] >> Roll call.
[47:59] >> Roll call.
[47:59] >> Excuse me. We'll have
[48:03] roll call vote. Uh, starting with
[48:06] Supervisor Todd.
[48:07] >> Todd, yes.
[48:09] >> Turner, yes. Leonard, yes.
[48:13] >> Severson, yes.
[48:14] >> Whan, yes. The motion passes. We will
[48:18] convene in close session. A lot more
[48:20] because we'll be through our budgeting
[48:21] process. Apologize for not being able to
[48:24] accommodate it today. But I did think we
[48:26] moved pretty well as far as on the
[48:28] contract. And if you have anything that
[48:31] comes up between now and then, um, if
[48:33] you can give us some forewarning, we can
[48:35] do some solutions, solve some
[48:37] challenges.
[48:38] >> I'm sorry, miss. What time? 10:00 on
[48:40] October the 8th, 10:00 a.m. in the
[48:44] morning in the county boardroom here.
[48:46] That's our regular meeting time. So, we
[48:48] should be locked in for this facility.
[48:49] >> Okay. And and so is that going to be
[48:53] just bargaining or is that like today
[48:56] where
[48:57] >> it'll be like today? Okay.
[48:59] >> Where we'll have a preliminary agenda
[49:01] which will probably be about a half
[49:03] hour. If you guys want to go first at
[49:05] 10:00, you know, we can do that.
[49:07] Normally that's what we schedule is you
[49:08] guys first right at 10:00 so you guys
[49:10] can schedule and not take up more of
[49:12] your time and that's what we'll try to
[49:15] schedule again and that's what would
[49:17] have happened if it would have been a
[49:18] normal day
[49:24] so you don't have to get up really early
[49:26] unless you're driving quite a ways Kyle
[49:27] >> just an hour
[49:29] >> no I guess I feel like we could
[49:33] [clears throat]
[49:34] accomplish more if we had marketing
[49:35] sessions that were allowed that we could
[49:38] I mean a typical bargaining session
[49:41] no offense but is we present ideas we
[49:44] caucus on those ideas we come back with
[49:47] counter offers and we do that until we
[49:49] get to
[49:51] a resolution and this is this will be
[49:54] the third one and we have really only
[49:56] shared a proposal and counter so I would
[49:59] just for
[50:00] >> I don't think we have too far to go
[50:02] because we can only go so far and
[50:04] remember
[50:05] >> okay
[50:05] >> stuck with our insurance.
[50:07] >> If it had to be done by Monday, we would
[50:09] do it that way.
[50:10] >> Yeah. Well, and I mean, and and we're
[50:12] open to mediation if it gets to that
[50:13] point, too. Just
[50:14] >> Yeah. We're not really going to stretch
[50:16] it out.
[50:16] >> You and I, we're close enough on this
[50:18] that we can get this done.
[50:19] >> Okay.
[50:19] >> We're just trying to make sure we do it
[50:21] in a financially acceptable reason for
[50:23] the county.
[50:24] >> Okay. Nope. Understood. I just wanted to
[50:26] know if there's a way we can
[50:28] >> Yes.
[50:29] >> Susan's has a suggestion. What if we
[50:31] schedule you for 11 o'clock and then we
[50:34] just block a couple hours to hammer this
[50:37] out as we need to?
[50:39] >> I would I would prefer that, but you
[50:41] know that'd be fine. We're going to meet
[50:43] at 10:00. You show up at 11. We have our
[50:47] prelims done. We've got that part taken
[50:49] care of. You guys get here.
[50:52] >> Yep. And if we're hungry, we'll be a
[50:54] little hangry. So, you'll get less
[50:56] money, but it'll be more effective.
[50:57] >> It's going to be good to give them a
[50:59] defined block. You bet.
[51:01] >> A good idea.
[51:02] >> That is Susan. Thanks.
[51:03] >> Good job, Susan.
[51:05] >> Anything to straighten us out because
[51:06] we're all rookies. [clears throat]
[51:11] >> So, our meetings at 10 still collective
[51:14] for the our group.
[51:16] >> They'll show up at 11 and we'll do a
[51:18] good deal.
[51:20] >> Okay.
[51:21] >> Thank you, Kyle. Appreciate your time.
[51:23] >> Thanks, guys.
[51:24] >> Thanks, guys.
[51:29] Thank you.
[51:30] >> Thank you.
[51:34] >> And that's completed. We will continue
[51:36] with
[51:39] >> 14 14.
[51:41] >> Item 14, discussion regarding the review
[51:43] of the expected 2027 ETF health
[51:47] insurance premium increase. We all sat
[51:49] through the noon meeting. Is there
[51:52] anything additional summarizing we need
[51:54] to do for that?
[51:59] I do not believe so adjusted. That's
[52:01] what it is.
[52:03] >> And that is fine. We're beating a dead
[52:05] horse and not getting any movement. Um
[52:07] so we'll continue on to item 15, the
[52:12] human resources department update.
[52:18] >> So not a lot to share. Um the turnover
[52:21] report was provided in the packet. Are
[52:23] there any questions um concerns about
[52:26] any of the um positions that are open
[52:29] filled or what is pending?
[52:35] [snorts]
[52:36] >> I think um after our health and human
[52:39] services meeting
[52:42] last month and we will be having another
[52:44] one this coming Monday. I he's been
[52:47] working as are have you Lisa diligently
[52:50] on getting those positions filled. So I
[52:54] wouldn't anticipate that they're gonna
[52:56] what's left is going to be open for
[52:57] long. At least that's my hope. So
[53:00] >> and I do want to commend for the
[53:02] positions that we filled with some of
[53:04] the bright shining faces that we're glad
[53:07] to see coming in and staying. That's the
[53:09] other thing that I appreciate as far as
[53:12] we've had uh new hires that have been
[53:14] here three or four months and they're
[53:16] still here and we've uh you guys have
[53:19] been very successful for that. We
[53:20] commend you on that.
[53:21] >> Well, thank you. I just want to mention
[53:23] like I look at our team HR as a whole
[53:25] team. We couldn't do it with one person.
[53:28] We back each other up and it goes from
[53:30] care on the front end, posting
[53:32] positions, staying on things, following
[53:34] up. Um you know, always we're always
[53:36] trying to communicate with departments.
[53:38] Shell's on the back end really selling
[53:40] our great benefits, why it's good to be
[53:42] here. And so we're hoping we can be more
[53:44] visible reaching out to people if we can
[53:46] create a few efficiencies in our
[53:48] department and start, you know, being
[53:50] more interactive with employees. So, but
[53:52] anyway, I appreciate our whole team. So,
[53:55] thank you.
[53:58] >> Thank you.
[53:59] And with that, we've set the date for
[54:02] October's meeting, and it'll be October
[54:06] the 8th at 10:00 a.m. in the county
[54:09] boardroom.
[54:10] There's no objections, we'll proceed to
[54:13] adjourn the meeting. Any objections? If
[54:15] none, this meeting is adjourned at 3:33
[54:20] on September 9th. Thank you, everybody.