Personnel Committee OKs Raise Request Process & Parental Leave Benefit
Although it was an extremely short 7-minute meeting, the August 10 Personnel Committee meeting(s) have drawn much scrutiny, after Committee Chair JP Tyler Pearson (D, Dist. 7) adjourned and then reconvened the meeting for less than 30 seconds to push through the employee maternity/paternal leave Ordinance he has promoted for the last six months.
On the agenda were two ordinances: Ordinance 21-22 that standardizes the process departments use to request raises, and Ordinance 21-11, Pearson’s ordinance introducing a new maternity/parental leave benefit for County employees.
Four members of the Personnel Committee voted to approve Ordinance 21-22, and when a motion to table Ordinance 21-11 did not receive a second, that Ordinance failed. However, three members of the Committee reconvened to unanimously reverse that action and send Ordinance 21-11 to the full Court for consideration.
Ordinance 21-22, Raise Requests Process
JP Kris Kendrick (R, Dist. 9), the Ordinance’s sponsor, asked County Attorney Phil Murphy to read new language in Section 3, explaining
This Ordinance was tabled last month to have the Counselor look at an amendment … considering each Department to have a separate ordinance that comes before the Court. It’s something I thought was a good idea….
Basically, there was a lot of confusion, there was a lot of discussion on how we do raise requests. Different departments — we’re doing them a little differently, and this is a way to standardize it. That way, everybody knows “here’s what the Quorum Court wants to see in a raise request, here’s how you do it” … That way, there’s no question and everybody knows exactly what’s expected….
I think it’s a good idea to require them (different departments) in separate ordinances. Sometimes — as we see here [Ordinance 21-16] — we have multiple departments that are coming forth, and lumping them all together … it hinders discussion. Especially if there’s disagreement or a lot of debate on one of them, it could hold back the entire ordinance …
When Pearson asked for discussion and got no response, JP John Pickett (D, Dist. 11) called the question. However, Pearson ignored him and said “I’m going to hold that just one minute just to make sure there’s no discussion….”
He then asked if other JPs in attendance had comments, then specifically asked, “Is Justice Knight with us (on the phone)?” (Knight did not attend this meeting.)
JP Sam Strain (R, Dist. 4) — not a Committee member — spoke from the audience in support of the Ordinance.
Pearson asked for comments from the public and then said, “Hearing none, I call the question.” The Committee voice voted unanimously to advance Ordinance 21-22 to the full Court.
Ordinance 21-11, New Maternity/Parental Leave Benefit
Pearson explained this “fairly new rendition” of what began as a maternity leave Ordinance he has promoted since March:
What this does … is wipes off the table the use of the catastrophic leave bank (CLB) and just creates a separate parental leave policy. It will be an addition to the County Personnel Manual and will supply eligible employees with two weeks of paid maternity leave … to support the recovery from childbirth.
This will be medical maternity leave and then one week of paid parental leave for non-medical reasons — these will be employees who become parents through birth or adoption. So this will include fathers and other parents of newly adopted children.
Motion to Table Ordinance 21-11
Pearson asked for discussion and then said, “Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to advance this to the whole Court.” However, Kendrick moved to “table this until we can hear from Justice Knight — he’s one of the sponsors.”
As Pearson asked for a second, Kendrick, looking at Pickett, explained “… because Justice Knight is really the one that pushed this idea forward. It’s drastically different from what we discussed .. As he’s one of the sponsors, I’d really just like to hear from him on that…”
After several moments no second was provided, and Pearson asked again for a motion to advance to the full Court “at the Committee’s pleasure.”
After more than 30 seconds again passed in silence, Pearson himself moved to advance the Ordinance but, again, no one seconded his motion. He affirmed that “Ordinance 21-11 .. dies for a lack of a second.”
Meeting Adjourned?
Kendrick then moved to adjourn the meeting, and Pearson responded, “Motion made, we’re adjourned.” *
Kendrick got up to leave the room.
Pearson and Pickett began talking (inaudible), then Pearson asked Murphy if the Committee could “reconvene,” and Murphy responded that a quorum (three JPs) was still present.
Pearson reconvened the meeting and immediately asked Pickett, “Would you like to make a motion?”
Pickett responded, “To advance the amended proposed Ordinance 21-11 to the full Court for its consideration next week,” and before he could finish speaking, was quickly seconded by JP Jerry Boyer (R, Dist. 12).
The three Committee members still present (Boyer, Pickett, and Pearson) unanimously voice voted, and Pearson indicated that Ordinance 21-11 would advance to the full Court for consideration.
* NOTE: The official audio file of the meeting (from the Faulkner County website) stops at this point.
The video from Faulkner County’s YouTube channel (below) abruptly cuts from this point of the meeting to several moments later, with Pearson asking Pickett if he’d like to make a motion. The video then stops again, so we are unable to determine how many times the Personnel Committee meeting was officially adjourned on August 10.
Videos edited from original video on Faulkner County’s YouTube channel.)
Visit Faulkner County Reports on YouTube for more videos and video excerpts from this and other County meetings.
