GUNTERSVILLE — After multiple meetings and tense debate, the Marshall County Commission is moving forward with a resolution asking the state legislature to amend the Personnel Board Act of 1982.

County Attorney Clint Maze presented the proposed changes on Wednesday. They had been slightly altered from Monday’s Personnel Board meeting, during which several people, including board members, voiced strong opposition.

The changes include term limits for all Personnel Board members — after a controversial bill passed in 2022, only the Board member elected by county employees was limited to two terms — raising monthly compensation to $350 and modifying the hiring process.

The latter change raised the most concern among employees and members of the public. Currently, appointing authorities (those responsible for hiring and overseeing a given position)are provided with the top three applications for an open position. If those three are not fit, they can request more applications in batches of three until the job is filled. However, per the amendment, appointing authorities would receive all applications, including those deemed unqualified by the personnel administrator for not meeting minimum requirements.

Marshall County employees Alabama News
Marshall County employees Cindy Webb (left) and Lea Ann Graves voice their opposition to the proposed changes. (Daniel Taylor/1819 News)

Maze argued during Monday’s nearly three-hour meeting that this would provide better transparency and allow the appointing authorities to use their discretion in hiring their preferred applicant where there was a “gray area” regarding whether someone was unqualified.

After much debate, the version presented on Wednesday would allow appointing authorities to see a list of all applicants, even those unqualified, but only receive the complete applications from those considered at least minimally qualified. The list would include written explanations for why some applicants were unqualified.

Though not explicitly stated, a recent hiring controversy involving the Commission is believed by many to be the motivating force behind this change. Tanya Giroir was hired by the Commission without the approval of the Personnel Board after personnel administrator Christi Kelley disqualified her for allegedly lying on her application. Giroir was presented during Wednesday’s meeting on the Commission’s dais serving in her new position, which Kelley said she is doing “illegally.”

SEE: Marshall County Personnel Board objects to Commission's 'illegal' hire, drafts resolution asking lawmakers not to amend local act

Like on Monday, several public officials spoke against the amendment during Monday’s meeting. Marshall County Probate Judge Andrea Lecroy said she and the other appointing authorities were not notified of the amendment before they were drafted shortly before the Personnel Board meeting. While she initially favored some of the changes, she said she changed her mind after hearing from other county employees.

She said the issue seemed rushed and based on one situation, ostensibly referring to Giroir’s hire — and not what’s best for all employees. She also said it could open up the county to liability.

Judge Lecroy Alabama News
During a Wednesday County Commission meeting, Marshall County Probate Judge Andrea Lecroy expressed concern over the proposed changes to the Personnel Board Act. (Daniel Taylor/1819 News)

Revenue Commissioner Michael Johnson said the Board was established because trust in the county’s officials had been lost. He argued that this move would only deepen that distrust and open up the Act to further and more extensive changes in the future.

“An egg is an extremely solid object until it’s cracked,” he said. “...I’m concerned that the cracked egg will break.”

Maze said the Commission could add a line to the resolution requesting nothing be changed in the Act beyond what is being proposed. However, the state lawmakers are free to do as little, much or more as they see fit, regardless of any resolution.

Personnel Board vice chair Penni Windsor—the county employee’s elected representative on the Board—spoke again against the amendment, arguing it would reduce transparency and oversight. She said the Act has served the county well for decades and shouldn’t be changed now.

The Commission voted 4-1 to approve the resolution, which will now go to the county’s state delegation for consideration.

District 2 Commissioner Rick Watson was the dissenting vote. Looking visibly distressed, Watson publically apologized to the crowd after the measure passed.

Windsor told 1819 News she was disappointed in the outcome of the meeting, though not surprised.

“This is the same power grab the Commission and elected officials attempted in 2011. It was then, and is now, simply an attempt to gain more authority by changing and amending the legislation that controls the authority of the Personnel Board. The Marshall County Personnel Board provides transparency in county government by establishing a checks and balance system between the Commission who oversees funding, and the Personnel Board, who oversees employment practices,” she said. “The Board provides safeguards and oversight that protect taxpayers and provides accountability for tax dollars. Without these tools in place for oversight you provide a breeding ground for corruption. The Board and Commission both have a role to play. The Board is a separate entity empowered by the legislature to provide oversight within the county government system. Those in favor of the change and voting to amend the Act are seeking changes that provide less transparency.”

The Personnel Board had already passed its own resolution the Monday before the Commission meeting requesting the county’s state delegation not to make any changes to the Act. However, in light of Wednesday’s decision, Windsor said the Board may take legal action.

“The Personnel Board has called a special meeting to discuss proceeding with legal action against the Commission for their failure to follow the laws set forth by this same Act they just voted to amend," she said. "The timing seems a bit suspect. It was stated several times in the Commission meeting that they are only seeking to make a ‘small change.’ With all of the markups and modifications to the Act, they requested and presented, it appears it would be less wordy to have the ‘small change’ they are seeking. Simply say, ‘We want to do what we want when and how we want.’”

Proposed Amendments to Act 82-206

To connect with the story's author or comment, email daniel.taylor@1819news.com or find him on X and Facebook.

Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.