GUNTERSVILLE — In a narrow decision, the Marshall County Personnel Board voted Monday to draft a resolution asking the county’s state legislative delegation not to make any changes to Act No. 82-206, which formed the board in 1982. This comes a day before the Marshall County Commission is scheduled to vote on its own resolution asking to amend the act.
During Monday's work session, County Attorney Clint Maze fielded questions from the board and public as he explained the Commission's proposed changes. These included reinstating two-year term limits for all board members and increasing the monthly compensation from $200 to $350, which the Commission can only increase, not decrease.
The “most significant change,” Maze said, dealt with the Personnel Board’s hiring and applicant screening process.
Currently, applications for open positions go through the personnel administrator, who determines which candidates are qualified. The administrator then ranks the qualified applications based on how well they adhere to the posted job requirements. The top three are then sent to the appointing authority for final determination. If none of the top three are acceptable, the appointing authority can ask for the next three applications, and so on, until the position is filled.
The Commission’s proposed changes would allow the appointing authority to see and consider all applications for a position, even those deemed unqualified. The personnel administrator would still rank the applications, but any disqualifications must include a written explanation.
“The reason I put that in there is because some of the job descriptions permit for either a certain [academic] degree or equivalent experience, things of that nature. So, there’s some discretionary things that there’s room for reasonable minds to differ on that,” Maze said. “My thought there would just be a greater transparency in the number of applicants and getting the appointing authority the opportunity to hire any qualified applicant rather than the three top applicants as determined by the personnel administrator.”
Members of the board and the near-capacity crowd in the Commission chambers raised concerns about the proposed measure, which they said would strip the board of its oversight role and open the hiring process to corruption and favoritism.
Board chair Charles Wisenant asked why the hiring authorities needed to see the disqualified applications and argued that only those meeting the minimum requirements should be sent.
Maze agreed that only qualified applicants should be hired but again argued for allowing the hiring party to have ultimate discretion. Some things look “different on paper” than in actual practice, and in such cases, Maze said the elected official tasked with overseeing the position should be the one to decide.
After more people voiced objections, Maze and the board were forced to address “the elephant in the room.”
Though never mentioned by name during the meeting, many argued that the recent hiring of Tanya Giroir as an accountant clerk for the Commission despite being disqualified by the personnel administrator for allegedly lying on her application was the impetus for the Commission’s amendment request and a prime example of why they were against the change.
Giroir was offered the position full-time after working as a temporary employee. Personnel administrator Christi Kelly uncovered discrepancies in her work history reported on her application when it was requested that she be hired at a higher starting salary. Kelley determined the application to be fraudulent and disqualified Giroir from being hired for the position and any others with the county in the future.
However, in a subsequent Commission meeting, the Commission passed a resolution accepting Giroir as a full-time employee despite not having board approval, arguing that the discrepancy was minor and not a misrepresentation of “a material fact.”
However, Kelley reiterated her disapproval on Monday, saying that Giroir was now working for the Commission “illegally.” She also referenced another applicant who was not hired for allegedly misrepresenting their work experience.
“There was no problem with this process,” Kelley said. “...As somebody once wisely told me, it’s not a problem until it’s a problem. The problem came when I decided, based on the facts that I had in front of me, that someone had committed fraud or had misrepresented themselves on an application… Don’t think any decision like that is easy because I know what the repercussions of that is. But in my heart, when I looked at that, it was blatant in both cases.”
Kelley then warned against the proposed changes to the hiring process.
“This county should want to hire people who are the most qualified, not the least qualified because I know them, it’s a political favor, they’re my friend’s daughter; whatever it is should not factor into it. If you open this up, that is exactly what you will get. If you give them every one [application], that is exactly what you will get.”
Kelley also claimed a county commissioner told her he could hire whomever he wanted and that she needed to disqualify all the applicants and repost the job so he could try again to hire the person he wanted regardless of the board’s position. She added that other qualified applicants were not interviewed for the job since the commissioner already knew who he wanted to hire. These revelations were met with shouts of “He needs to be replaced” and “Say his name” from the crowd.
District 3 Commissioner Lee Sims responded, “Every one of them was interviewed…They were all interviewed. You’re accusing me I didn’t interview them.”
“I didn’t say your name,” Kelley said.
“You were pointing right at me and said, ‘You didn’t interview them.’ They were interviewed,” Sims replied.
Wisenant asked if the Commission would be open to a compromise: send appointing authorities all of the qualified applications, not just the top three, but not send the disqualified ones. Maze said he didn’t know how the Commission would respond, but it might be something he “could sell.”
During the regular meeting, board vice chair Penni Windsor proposed drafting the resolution not to change the act. She said the board passed a similar one in 2011.
“We never seem to have these issues until somebody doesn’t get what they want,” she said. “... We can talk about transparency and all that, but the truth doesn’t need to be shouted; it just needs to be said at the right moment. There is nothing wrong with this act. This act has withstood the test of time.”
Windsor continued, “Sometimes easy is not always the best way. I don’t understand why anyone would want less accountability and less oversight. I don’t know why that’s a bad thing, and I don’t know why anyone would vote for that.”
Windsor held up a folder full of news clippings reporting on past county leaders being arrested for corruption.
“We’ve proven Marshall County can’t always do the right thing,” she said, adding that the personnel board should stand up for the county employees and the act itself.
Board member David Watts opposed Windsor’s resolution proposal, saying he’d rather first let the board and Commission meet to discuss and iron out their differences. He put that in the form of a motion, which was then approved by the board, with Windsor dissenting.
The Commission will meet Wednesday to vote on approving its requested amendments to the Personnel Board Act. If passed, the resolution will go to the county’s state delegation, which includes State Sen. Wes Kitchens (R-Arab) and State Reps. Brock Colvin (R-Albertville) and Jeanna Ross (R-Arab), to consider.
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.
