BROWNSTOWN — The Jackson County Council recently tackled the first in a two-step process to help with the retention of present county employees and hiring new ones by increasing pay levels.
“For 2024 after our budget hearings, we did have a surplus,” Councilman Brady Riley said Wednesday morning during the council’s regular meeting at the courthouse.
After hearing from department heads during a special meeting Nov. 9 about the issue and knowing some of these positions are underpaid, the council has begun looking at what it can do to affect the most amount of people, Riley said.
“So we got together and came up with a solution of being able to give a general increase for a majority of the hourly employees within the courthouse as well as a majority of the first deputies,” he said.
Riley said those positions were identified as not having received any additional attention when in comes to pay in many years.
Poynter
Riley
Over the years, county employees have generally received a cost of living raise annually. Some departments, such as the sheriff’s and highway departments, and Jackson County Emergency Medical Services have received additional raises at times.
A cost of living raise of 4% across the board and a special 8.5% raise for county police officers was included in the 2024 budget.
The council voted 5-0 to move forward with a plan to address the pay of some courthouse employees.
Council President Brian Thompson then put a committee together that includes Riley, Councilwoman Amanda Lowery and Councilman Jake Brown to address the second part of the process before budget hearings in the summer of 2024.
Thompson said the plan is to implement the second part of the process, which will include a deeper look at all county employees, at that time.
In a related matter, county Auditor Staci Eglen read a letter to the council from Jackson Circuit Court Judge Richard W. Poynter.
Poynter wrote he was setting salaries for his four staff members and removing them from an hourly rate effective Jan. 1, 2024.
He said he was setting their salaries as follows: Officer Manager/Bailiff Shelina Stuckwisch, $58,370; Court Reporter Lori Fisher, $56,593; and court reporters Janet Nehrt and Jenna Wessel, each $52,000.
Poynter wrote the salaries to be paid would come from the money allocated by the Jackson County Council for the 2024 budget year for funds to pay for those four staff members and a probate clerk, which is a vacant position at this time.
Thompson said the council had the choice of accepting Poynter’s requirements or instructing the auditor to pay employees of the court under the salary ordinance to be approved before the end of the year.
Councilman Brett Turner said he felt Eglen should continue to pay the court employees as she has been at this time.
“We are doing everything in our power to make it right,” Turner said.
The council voted 5-0 to not implement Poynter’s instructions.
On Thursday, Poynter told The Tribune he plans to issue a mandate requiring the council to comply with his order.
He said he just recently lost one of his court reporters, who had been with the office for almost 10 years, because she received a $6,500 raise for taking another job in the county auditor’s office.
“I was about to lose my bailiff/office manager, who has worked with me for almost 17 years and for the county for almost 20 years, because she had a job offer in the private sector where she would make at least $10,000 more,” he said.
Poynter said he also tried to hire a former employee of the county clerk’s office, but she turned down the job when her employer offered her a $13,000 raise to stay.
“We are competing with the private sector to be able to hire and retain qualified people,” he said. “The county council refuses to accept the reality that we must be able to compete with the private sector in hiring and retaining qualified employees. Court reporters are important positions and are not easy to fill with qualified people.
“Hence why in the federal courts, court reporters make more than $88,000 a year,” he said. “According to the Office of the General Counsel of the Indiana Supreme Court, I have the authority to set salaries for all employees in my office if I don’t exceed the total budget allocated. I decided that I was not going to watch my employees walk out the door if I could adjust their pay to get them to stay. The plan I produced, while not the perfect answer, will keep my employees as well as save the taxpayers over $22,500.”
After Wednesday’s meeting, Riley told The Tribune that Poynter’s plan would not save the county money because the salaries for staff in Jackson Superior Court I and Jackson Superior Court II also would have to be adjusted up because they have the same titles and job as Poynter’s staff.
“It’s not fair for the county council to single out one office and raise their rates,” he said. “Also on top of that, our bailiff would be making considerably more than the salary range we have found through our studies (in other counties). The highest bailiff we found was $48,000, and we are going to be paying $11,000 more than they even make. Where the county council really has an issue, we are outside the range of similar positions from county to county.”
Riley also said Poynter’s proposal was kind of out of the blue because he was not present at council budget meetings earlier this year.
Poynter said he wants all county employees to get the raises they deserve.
“I simply have no control over the county council regarding their decisions what to pay law enforcement or any other department,” he said. “I cannot allow the county council’s refusal to address long-term problems to stop a judge’s ability to fix the problems in the court system.
“I have designed a plan to retain dedicated employees and raise the salary positions for court reporters to a level to be able to recruit other competent employees in the future by making us competitive with the private sector,” he said. “The county council has made their decision to lose qualified county employees to the private sector. I refuse to allow that to happen if I can stop it.”
Riley said the council views Poynter’s decision to file a mandate as unreasonable.
“Despite efforts, there has been a lack of collaboration with the council to establish a solution that addresses wage concerns not only within circuit court but across other courts, as well,” he said. “The council has conducted a comparative analysis, reviewing salary ordinances from 15-plus counties, to compare against our current compensation structures.
“The council does not align with Judge Poynter’s mandate due to concerns about excessive compensation relative to other counties,” he said. “Such proposed compensation exceeds the wages of any elected official and exceeds that of a sheriff’s deputy with five years of service.”
Additionally, Riley said there are reservations about the effectiveness of Poynter’s plan, which involves reducing staffing and increasing the current workload for his staff.
“This approach lacks a guarantee of long-term success and may potentially result in future costs for the county’s taxpayers,” Riley said. “Despite these concerns, the county council remains open to collaborating with Judge Poynter to find a mutually agreeable solution, although Judge Poynter refuses to compromise at this time.”