Carbondale Reporter

Jackson County Human Resource Subcommittee met August 27. 

Here is the minutes as provided by the committee:

Call to Order (5:00 pm)

Members Present:    Endres, Erbes and S. Bost

Also Present: John S. Rendleman, Liz Hunter, Julie Peterson, Dan Bost, Mike Carr, Dan Brenner, Robert Burns, Susie Kilquist, Mary Varner, Mike O'Leary, Sarah Patrick, Tracy Hagston, Jill Stokes, Michelle Tweedy, Greg Hubbs, John Marks

Approval of Minutes

I.      18-3614    July 30, 2018 Minutes

                         A motion was made by Endres, seconded by Erbes, to approve the July 30, 2018 minutes as presented. The motion carried by unanimous vote.

New Business

II.     18-3617    IMRF Early Retirement Incentive

                         S. Bost began by explaining how the IMRF Early Retirement Incentive (ERI) discussion came to the HR subcommittee and then opened the floor to everyone. Endres explained that she wants to figure out where the money for the ERI will come from and whether approving the ERI will increase property taxes. Hunter explained that Jackson County is a PTELL county and the plan of the board is to continue the trend of lowering the county's portion of property taxes. She went on to explain that the board will have up to six months after December 1 to decide where the money will come from and there are multiple sources of revenue that could be used. Hunter says that generally the IMRF levy is adjusted and the other county levy's are adjusted to allow the difference to be moved to the IMRF levy. Rendleman said that the cost can be amortized over the next five or ten years which would be about $300,000 each year over the next ten years. S. Bost thought there would be cost savings but he doesn't see one. Hunter disagreed, she said there is not enough information to determine what the exact cost savings would be. S. Bost said they are not certain what the cost savings would be and everyone agreed. He went on to say that this an extraordinary measure and suggested that the county come up with some criteria for determining whether to approve ERI in the future. Hunter asked Tweedy how many times ERI has been considered. Tweedy said it was done in 2002- 2003 and it was considered but not voted on in 2012. Rendleman pointed out that although the information provided does not show any savings in health insurance he believes that common sense says that there will be some savings. S. Bost pointed out that in the questions answered for Comparato it says that the employees that are eligible for ERI are not the ones that have the highest claims so there might not be any health insurance savings. Rendleman asked Tweedy to explain; those eligible for ERI are not the expensive claims this year. Rendleman reiterated that common sense tells him that 50 year olds cost more than 20 year olds. Endres pointed out that the information they have shows that there will be about $479,000 savings in the first year if the county moves forward with the ERI. D. Bost began a discussion of when employees can retire. S.Bost pointed out that 32 of the employees on the ERI list are already eligible to retire and the ERI just allows them to max out their retirement. He went on to say again that he would like to set some criteria for the county making this decision in the future, his first criteria would be is there a cost savings for the county. Endres said she sees a bit of savings at least in the first year. Kilquist pointed out that the savings will probably be there for more than the first year since any new staff won't have the benefits that long term employees have. S. Bost stated that he would like to see a long term plan for handling ERI in the future. Rendleman pointed out that if the board decides to not do ERI now they could consider it again in a couple of years and his concern with establishing criteria is that employees have a right to request the board to consider ERI. He went on to say that he presumes the criteria in the past has been to determine if it would save the county money. Tweedy was asked if this was considered in 2002, she stated that it was done as a cost saving measure at that time and when it was done in the 90's it was done for the Rehab & Care director. Burns pointed out that some of those who take ERI will be paying more into health insurance than they pay now, he agrees that common sense says younger staff will have less health claims and he pointed out that getting some of the accrued time off the books will help with the audit in the future. He also pointed out that those on the ERI list are employees who worked hard for the county and worked hard to get where they are at. Kilquist also pointed out that, for the Sheriff's Department, when they replace employees those people will be required to live in the county. She gave the example of a recent hire who moved to Jackson County when the go the job and bought a house adding to the taxes and economy of the county. The discussion concluded and Rendleman said the subcommittee could give a report to the full board at the September meeting where this item will be on the agenda. D. Bost and Hunter left at this time.

Old Business

III.     18-3615   Employee Exempt Status

                          The subcommittee reviewed the information provided by the State's Attorney's Office (SAO) regarding a few of County Board supervised staff exempt status. S. Bost asked Carr if there was an opinion on the remaining staff. Carr reported that it is the opinion of the SAO that the Accounting Coordinator and the Computing Services Manager fit the criteria for exempt employees and the Committee Coordinator and the Computing Services System Specialist do not fit the criteria for being exempt. The consensus of the subcommittee is to have the job descriptions revised in accordance with the SAO opinion.

IV.     18-3616    Affirmative Action Plan

                           Rendleman explained that the county needed an Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) so they could apply for grant funding. The county adopted the AAP that is before them but work needs to be done to tailor it to Jackson County. Carr suggested that the County hire Huffman to complete the AAP. He stated that the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer (EEOO) could not be Brenner because the State's Attorney's Office (SAO) represents the county and this could be a conflict if any issues arise. Additionally, he pointed out that the EEOO does not have to be a lawyer. Rendleman suggested listing the County Board Chair until the AAP is updated by outside counsel. He recommended that he subcommittee recommend to the full board that they engage counsel to complete an AAP for Jackson County.

Adjourn (5:51 pm)

Erbes moved and Endres seconded to adjourn, motion carried.

http://www.jacksoncounty-il.gov/Home/Components/MeetingsManager/MeetingMinutes/ShowPrimaryDocument/?minutesID=4722&isPub=True&includeTrash=False