Council approves salary ordinance amid disagreements over raises and transparency

Local News X The Brown County Council spent much of its Monday, May 18 meeting locked in a lengthy and sometimes tense discussion over county employee pay before ultimately approving an amendment to the county salary ordinance in a split vote after months of discussion and repeated delays. The debate centered around amendments to the county’s 2026 salary ordinance tied to the county’s new Factor Evaluation System (FES), a compensation structure developed through Waggoner, Irwin, Scheele & Associates (WIS) intended to standardize county employee pay based on job descriptions, responsibilities and comparisons with surrounding counties. While council members generally agreed that the county needed to modernize its compensation system, disagreements resurfaced over how raises had been implemented, which employees received adjustments and whether enough information had been provided to council members before voting. Council member Jim Kemp voiced the strongest opposition, repeatedly questioning how many county employees had received pay increases, what departments they worked in and how those decisions had been made. “I’m not going to vote to approve the salary ordinance,” Kemp said. “Because I do not have the information that I need, where I’ve got a clear understanding of what’s in that salary ordinance, and I will not vote on something as large as $8 million worth of labor cost, not understanding what’s in it.” Kemp repeatedly pressed for specifics, saying he wanted a simple breakdown identifying which employees stayed at 2025 pay levels and which employees received raises under the new system. “What employees did you guys give raises to? Who are they? How many? In what departments?” Kemp asked during the exchange. Council President Darren Byrd defended the process and argued the council had already spent months reviewing the salary ordinance amendments, including line-by-line discussions during work sessions. “The amendments in the salary have been discussed for months,” Byrd said. “We went over line by line all the changes that had been made as an amendment to the salary ordinance, and it was agreed to be understood by all, accepted by all, and ready to move forward with it.” Byrd explained that when the county adopted the FES system, officials discovered some employees were significantly underpaid compared to surrounding counties, while others were already above target salary recommendations. He said a full implementation of the compensation plan would have cost approximately $850,000, which the county could not afford, prompting officials to implement only part of the recommended increases. “We do not have the money to do that,” Byrd said. “So, what we did was a partial increase for people who were below that line while leaving the people above that line in place.” According to Byrd, employees who were already above recommended salary targets did not receive raises, while workers below the recommended levels were moved closer to appropriate compensation. “We brought everybody below that line up to the total of $270,000, which would have been the equivalent of a 3 percent across-the-board COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) increase,” he said. Council members Judy Swift-Powdrill and Scott Rudd both said they still wanted clarification from WIS representatives regarding several employee position changes and salary classifications before moving forward. Swift-Powdrill said she still had concerns regarding how several employee positions had been adjusted and whether those adjustments followed the intended evaluation system. As the discussion continued, tensions escalated between Kemp and Byrd. Kemp accused fellow council members of avoiding direct answers to his questions and said he felt he was being ignored. “You are deflecting and you are gaslighting me right now,” Kemp said during one exchange. Byrd rejected that characterization and argued the requested information had already been provided in spreadsheets prepared by Auditor Julia Reeves. “There’s no deflecting,” Byrd said. “I cannot summarize it for you because it’s seven pages.” Kemp continued pressing for what he described as a simpler explanation of who received increases and how many employees were impacted. The discussion stretched on for more than 30 minutes before Council member Patrick Nielander urged the council to stop revisiting the issue and move toward a decision. “I would like to speak unless there are only certain people that can speak,” Nielander said before expressing frustration with the continued back-and-forth. “We beat this to death.” Nielander said he did not know what more information Auditor Reeves could provide after weeks of meetings and documentation. “I’m satisfied whether Jim is or isn’t,” Nielander said. “Jim’s not the boss. There’s seven of us. We all make up our own mind.” Nielander then made the motion to vote on the salary ordinance amendment that night rather than delay the issue again. Public comment also entered the discussion when Brown County resident Pam Gould praised the council’s effort to modernize employee pay but suggested officials could use artificial intelligence to simplify payroll information and provide faster summaries. “As a taxpayer, I am very pleased with the amount of diligence that has gone into this,” Gould said. “It sounds like you have collected a tremendous amount of data, and you’re simply lacking the summarizing to make proper data analysis.” Gould suggested county officials consider using “AI and ChatGPT” to summarize large amounts of payroll data rather than manually reviewing spreadsheets. Council members also discussed how the salary ordinance ties directly into planning for the county’s 2027 budget, with labor costs representing one of the county’s largest expenses. Members said future budget discussions would rely heavily on understanding the salary structure moving forward. Council members tentatively discussed scheduling a June 9 work session with WIS representatives to answer lingering questions regarding classifications, pay grades and implementation of the FES system. Following the lengthy discussion, the salary ordinance amendment ultimately passed on a 4-3 vote. Swift-Powdrill, Rudd and Kemp voted against the amendment, while Nielander, Joel Kirby, Gary Huett and Byrd voted in favor. Featured Local Savings