NEWTON COUNTY — At the latest Newton County Board of Commissioners meeting, one agenda topic was worrisome for several county employees, who attended the meeting to petition the board to proceed with caution.

The March 18 meeting agenda topic that caused confusion was No. 16, which was a proposed resolution to edit the county’s employee handbook by deleting section 1118. This section outlines emergency closure pay for essential employees. 

Ultimately, the board agreed to table the agenda item for a minimum of 60 days.

What is section 1118 of the county handbook?

Section 1118 of the county handbook is titled “Essential Personnel Compensation During Emergency Closures” and is located in chapter 11, which outlines attendance and leave policies. According to the handbook posted on the county’s website, this section has not been revised since March 2018.

The handbook defines essential personnel as “employees who work in Public Safety or where 24-hour personnel are essential to the Department’s operation.”

The policy ensures that when the county is closed – for winter weather, for example – the essential workers who still have to report to work are compensated for the additional work. 

“Essential personnel required to work on an official emergency closing day, whether normally scheduled or at the request of the applicable Supervisor, will receive full pay for their regularly scheduled work hours, plus closure pay for the actual number of hours worked at the employee’s regular rate of pay,” the handbook states.

Citizens; commissioners deliberate 

Multiple of Newton County’s citizens spoke during the citizen comments portion of the meeting, asking the board to reconsider removing the policy.

“Public safety comes in during hurricanes, ice storms, all these different events and that is a way to fairly compensate them for coming in,” said Paul View, a Mansfield resident. “I think that’s a fair policy. I don’t know why it was brought to the board to delete it, but I urge y'all to look at it wisely and before y’all vote it down, I think it’s a good policy.”

Another commenter was Donald Bowie, who said he has spent 25 years working in Newton County Fire Services. 

Bowie said that this policy would affect five county departments – Sheriff’s office, 911, public works, emergency management (EMA) and Fire Services – and urged the board to communicate with all five department heads before proceeding.

“My request is for the board to table this for 90 days, let us educate y'all on why this policy is needed and what we need to do to keep this policy,” Bowie said. 

Bowie also referenced “four events” that he and other public workers have not received closure pay for yet. Though Bowie did not explicitly state when the dates he referenced were, regular county operations have been paused due to weather events on multiple occasions this year already.

“To me, I can't understand why they're not following the policy to pay us for the four days, or four shifts, that we worked,” Bowie said. “I feel like we’re owed 48 hours according to the policy... So I feel like 12 hours per shift for 48 hours for the four days is fair for us to get paid.”

However, the board appeared to have intentions that may not have been clear to someone reading the standalone agenda item. 

“The policy, as is drafted, I will say, has created a lot of confusion and a lot of inconsistent application,” said County Attorney Patrick Jaugstetter. “And the effort here is not to take anything away from anybody. It is to ensure that it is clear and consistent in how county employees are treated during times in which the county is closed, whether it be for weather or any other emergency. The best way, I think determined by staff, was to start from scratch and eliminate section 1118.”

District 1 Commissioner Stan Edwards spearheaded the board’s conversation, clarifying that his intention in bringing forth this discussion was not to remove all policies for compensating emergency personnel. Edwards pointed out that he did not know what closure pay is as it is not defined in the policy. 

Edwards’ goal, it seemed, would be to revitalize the policy to guarantee closure pay as well as explicitly define it. 

“What incentive does my fire, roads department and deputies have to skate across icy roads to make it to work if others don't?” Edwards posed. 

The District 1 commissioner said that the board needed to take at least 60 days to “iron things out.”

“We’re talking about departments where the morale is not at an all-time high at the moment anyway,” Edwards said. “I will make a motion to table for a period of 60 days – at least 60 days – so that we can work out something, a plan that I believe was the original intent of this document: To compensate those that come in when others don't.”

However, the policy itself and reasons to change it seemed to be murky to even the commissioners.

“I may be wrong, but I thought that there was already a policy in place for those that are non-essential workers that states if it’s closed and you're non-essential there isn't any pay, but if you are an essential worker and you have to actually perform a job duty, there is compensation for that,” said District 2 Commissioner Demond Mason. 

Human Resources Director Amanda Shoemaker added that some issues may lie in employees such as herself or the county manager who may not be considered essential in the capacity that the fire or police but still work when the county is closed, and they receive no additional compensation.

“There is a misconception,” said James Brown, interim county manager. “So you have a closure pay when the county facilities or buildings are closed. So all essential personnel that have to continue the work to keep the county functioning, they are receiving closure pay. That means time that they have actually worked, plus the closure pay rate, which is double time. There is a emergency closure that falls up under closure pay. All we’re trying to do is eliminate that part because it’s already addressed in the closure pay. That’s the only difference.”

It seemed that all four – Edwards, Mason, Shoemaker and Brown – entered the discussion with different understandings of what the board aims to fix by removing the policy.

“Now we need 60 days so I can unconfuse myself,” Edwards joked. 

District 5 Commissioner LeAnne Long posed another hypothetical, inquiring as to if and why an employee must go unpaid if they are non-essential but the county decided to close.

“If I am the receptionist for the county…we have an emergency with some snow, you guys close the county, my paycheck is not docked for that day?” Long said, with Shoemaker affirming.

The board did not develop a clear replacement policy plan, nor did they identify one specific goal to address in updating the policy. Rather, in the next few months, the county will identify issues, talk with department heads and form a more concrete plan. 

But fear that the commissioners intended to do away with extra compensation for emergency personnel did seem to have dissipated by the end of the meeting, as Long’s comments were met with clapping and cheating from the audience. Though the commissioners may have all had different reasons they found the current policy problematic, they were in agreement that essential personnel deserve additional pay for working under county closures.

“..Instead of just taking the policy out, let’s have a replacement policy ready to go in at the same time.” Long said.