The Vanderburgh County Council met in session this 7th day of October 2009 in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex. The meeting was called to order at 8:32 a.m. by County Council President Tom Shetler, Jr.

President Shetler: Good morning, it’s October 7. My clock says 8:30, the one back there says 8:32, but anyway, it’s time for the County Council meeting. I’d like to call it to order and ask for an attendance roll call please.

COUNCILMEMBER	PRESENT	ABSENT
Councilmember Sutton	X
Councilmember Bassemier	X
Councilmember Lloyd	X
Councilmember Goebel	X
Councilmember Raben	X
Councilmember Kiefer	X
President Shetler	X

President Shetler: There being all seven members present, we have a quorum. I’d like now to ask Councilman Goebel to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

President Shetler: Thank you. Next is a motion for approval of the minutes of several of our meetings that came through the budget process: August 18^th & 19^th, September 2^nd budget meeting, September 2^nd regular meeting, and September 9^th final budget minutes. I think we can make one motion to approve.

President Shetler: It’s been moved and seconded. Do I have any questions? Any comments? Any changes? We’ll have a roll call vote please.

Councilmember Raben: Good morning, thank you. First on the agenda under Clerk, Record Storage, in the amount of $30,000, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Raben: Oh, that’s correct. Excuse me. Susie, could you step forward?

Councilmember Raben: In your IV-D money, do you have, we budget like $15,000 every year, have you used it yet?

Councilmember Raben: Okay. Are you sure because through a few weeks ago, but you might have paid some bills. But you’re confident that there’s nothing –

Susan Kirk: We have some upcoming things that we’ve already got planned for some of that money, so you know, I can look into it next year, but we keep getting less all the time. The state keeps taking more of the money and we keep getting less, so it’s a little difficult sometimes to foresee what we can do next year because, like I said, we keep getting less money all the time.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, I guess maybe I’ve confused everybody here. I was not referring to the actual IV-D fund itself, but we do approve a line item in the budget every year for record storage, and that line has been depleted. Is that –

Susan Kirk: I always – our bills for the last three years have been right at $100,000. I always put that in my budget, and that’s what I request, and then I get less, and then we come back every year to finish out the year and get the money that we need.

Councilmember Kiefer: Yeah, Susie, somewhat new to this process with the Record Storage. I know at the budget hearing I discovered it’s much more complicated than I ever thought it was. I didn’t realize it was, you know, a retrieval system and all the different methodology that they use to store this. I always had envisioned it was just some warehouse somewhere, you know, they just trucked this stuff off to. Is this something that – are there other competitors that you can put this thing out for – I mean, I think you’ve probably already settled in for 2010, but I’m just saying, is this something that you really are limited to one vendor on this or is there such a specialized area that only one person does it?

Susan Kirk: No, I’m sure there’s probably someone else that could do it, it’s just that we save money because Kinder, who does our storage, they not only store, but they scan and they microfilm. Okay? So if you store it someplace, then you have to have it microfilmed and scanned and then you move – every time you move something, it costs more money. And I know Councilman Sutton had asked, oh, what, three years ago, about was the price going up at Kinder? And I gave everyone a spreadsheet showing that they have been extremely fair to us, extremely. They over and above – I just, I’m very satisfied and that takes a lot. I don’t satisfy that easy.

Councilmember Kiefer: Just out of curiosity for myself and probably for the viewing audience so they understand the magnitude of what you’re talking about, how much storage does this thing comprise of?

Susan Kirk: I don’t remember the exact cubic feet, but it is a great, big warehouse. It’s – oh, I don’t know, Tom, you’ve seen it. Have you got any idea?

President Shetler: I’d say probably at least 100, he’s got four buildings and about 100,000 square feet at least.

Susan Kirk: It’s a lot. Everything is bar coded, every file that goes out there is bar coded because, it’s amazing, how many times – I mean, we have them deliver twice a week, the files the judges need, attorneys need, someone is requesting, it’s – and we go by a bar code and –

Councilmember Kiefer: So they do 100,000 square feet, that’s not counting how tall the buildings are –

President Shetler: Well, that’s not our business, though, I mean, they’re doing it for most all the companies in town.

Councilmember Kiefer: Oh, okay, I thought maybe we had 100,000 square feet of storage.

Susan Kirk: I’m trying to think of a building that could – I mean, you really need to – you know, I’ve said this two or three times – you all really need to go out there and look at it. You really do, because it’s – I mean, I was pretty shocked when I took over as Clerk that we had that kind of storage. Now, I do want to tell the Council that since I’ve become the Clerk, we do destroy records and I don’t mean just a few. We have records probably every year the size of half of this room here, right here, that we destroy. It’s just that we’re destroying them but the caseload, unfortunately, our business is thriving, and even though we get rid of a roomful of files, we’re getting more than a roomful of files. We’re getting in more than we can get rid of because we have to go by the state retention schedule and for the most part, our records, we have to keep forever.

Susan Kirk: No. Computers, I think, were supposed to make it paperless. Now we have computers, paper, microfilm and scanning on disk. So we have –

President Shetler: This is probably only a small part of it but just kind of a question that – do they scan every record as it comes in, then?

President Shetler: So is it – like if a judge has a question about a specific case, for example, that would be somewhere on electronic file somewhere that they could – I assume that sometimes they need to actually touch the original documents?

President Shetler: And that’s why they have to retrieve those. But otherwise, if they need to just look up different points and go back on a certain part of the trial, then I guess they could just look it up electronically and pull that off, as well.

President Shetler: – case where they have to actually put their fingertips on that file and get the old one back, the original back into their possession.

Susan Kirk: Yes, the staff, when a case is filed, what they do, they put minutes into the computer and it will be, you know, appearance, bond served, what’s owed, but as far as the details of what actually took – obviously, that would take forever, the details of that case, no, you have to get the paper form. The scanning is basically the case file and then, of course, we have the minutes that documented, but the actual, like I said, if you really know, if you need to know what’s going on with a case, you’ve got to get the shuck or box, depending on the case, so that the judge or whomever can look at it and actually see, you know, they can read the police reports, any depositions, all that type stuff. That stuff is not on the computer.

President Shetler: Yeah, are you just saying that certain documents are scanned and not the entire file?

Susan Kirk: No, right. They don’t scan every piece of paper in a file, they don’t scan every piece of paper. They scan, there is a piece of paper that pretty well is a Reader’s Digest version of the case, that is, but, oh my gosh, no, we’d have like – I don’t even want to think about how much that would cost. And the scanning and microfilming, you can’t just do that anywhere, it has to be approved by the state. So it’s not like you just whiz it over to some company and have it done. They have to be approved by the state, there’s certain guidelines.

Councilmember Goebel: I’d like to take it back if we could, to the original question. On IV-D, you had appropriated 15,000 for record storage, has that fund been exhausted? That’s what’s kind of unclear here, because we were going to maybe reduce this and let you use that fund to help.

Susan Kirk: Off the top of my head, I’m not sure what it’s down to, I’m not sure. I’ll check with Tracy and I can email all of you and let you know what we have left in that account if it isn’t already in there to help pay for this.

Councilmember Goebel: Your thinking is that it’s almost exhausted now at this point?

Susan Kirk: I think that we’ve already taken that into consideration of using that plus we’re going to need the appropriation, but I will check with Tracy and I will get the exact dollar amount or email every one of you so that you will know exactly what that is. So if you want to wait and make your decision next month, you can do that.

Councilmember Goebel: Well, I think if there are funds available, maybe we could at least wait a portion –

Councilmember Goebel: – do you need a portion of it now to get through the month?

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I’ll move to amend my motion 1010-3603 be set in at $20,000.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next under Auditor 1020-1160-1020 in the amount of $4,831, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Lloyd: Mr. President, I know we had some discussion on this and you had indicated this is a critical position in the Bookkeeping area, maybe just reiterate some of that.

Bill Fluty: This actually, recently I’ve had an employee retire that’s been there 15 years and done payroll most of that time. It was a two week notice, so I had very little time to prepare. This is actually putting, she had a buyout and comp time and years of service, and that is a position that gets, I think she had 70 hours of comp time. It’s just the nature of the position, how the holidays fall, how the end of the year falls where we do payroll, moving the budget, open enrollment, W-2's and those things. So with that said, the buy-out took what was in that line item. There’s some transfers on the back that clean up the rest of it, this is actually to put money in that line item to hire somebody to come on board as quickly as possible to learn the process at year-end, which November, December, January and February is the busiest time for payroll and bookkeeping. Currently, we have six people in bookkeeping, which is doing all the county business, over 600 million flows through there, 30 million in payroll, deadlines, state, local, federal, PERF. We’ll have open enrollment in November, we’ll be touching everybody’s salary and we’ll be moving the budget over. The last time we cut a position, it was in bookkeeping, so it came from seven to six. I feel that we are at the correct number. We are down to four right now because we have one on Family Medical Leave, so they are actually taking, they’re doing the one that’s left through retirement and they also do the work of one who’s on Family Medical Leave. We had two earlier this year on Family Medical Leave. I don’t know if we call that an aging work force, but they’ve had some things going on this year that they’ve had to do, so they back up each other. And I think this is a critical position, so I’m trying to move somebody in there as quick as they can to see what happens through November, December, January and February where the transition period happens. Before there were tax caps and budget crunches we’ve been cutting staff. Three people have been cut in the last fifteen years, that’s surely over a million dollars in savings to the county, but the last position was cut in bookkeeping. So this is a request to fill that position. I don’t have a backup – I have kind of a backup, but I only have one person right now. Anything happens to that one, somehow I hope we can get through, but it’s going to be difficult. I think anytime you have a new coach you have a quarterback and a backup quarterback, and I think you have a –

Bill Fluty: Well, you may be in the same position I’m in then if things don’t go well.

Councilmember Goebel: We’d like to hire some new ones. No, they’re working hard.

Bill Fluty: So I believe this is a critical, key position that – and I wouldn’t be up here if I had a different plan or if I had some other way I think I could do this, I surely would. But I think this is the right thing for our office and the right thing for the county employees.

Councilmember Lloyd: One other point, I know, working with business clients on the payroll taxes, if you’re even late a day, it’s a five percent penalty from the federal government, so it’s not a position – I mean, you need a capable employee and you can’t just put an entry level person in there necessarily, I mean, you need someone that’s experienced in bookkeeping. So this is a replacement, it’s not a new employee, so, I mean, I think in this situation with the critical need here, I would be in favor of that.

President Shetler: Did I see a hand? The question I have then, Bill, real quickly, I’m sorry, the person that has left the office, approximately what were they getting paid?

Bill Fluty: They had been there fifteen years. I don’t have that in front of me, do you have that, Teri?

Teri Lukeman: I think she was making $36,382. That’s what was budgeted in 2009.

President Shetler: Okay, so around 36 and then a new one coming in would be making about 26...27?

President Shetler: So we’re looking at a savings of roughly $6,000 between a senior employee versus a new one on that?

Councilmember Goebel: I think we’ve got a little bit of an issue here, not necessarily with your position, Mr. Fluty, but just in general. Councilman Sutton brought it up at the last meeting, I think I brought it up before, in my mind, replacement and a hiring freeze maybe don’t exactly go together if there is a qualified or if there is a definite need for a replacement. To me, that’s not hiring new employees, that’s – and that doesn’t violate the hiring freeze. I don’t know, maybe I’m way off on that. But it’s awfully difficult for this group to know when department head A comes in and says he needs a replacement, or she needs a replacement, critical position, it’s hard for us to know unless we’re inside that office, how critical that position is and obviously, this is a critical position, and then when department head B comes forward and says that position in department A is not that critical, but my position in department B that I need a replacement for is very critical. So we’re going to be faced with this problem nonstop, and I don’t know how this group determines it with our connection because there’s always going to be that fight, I believe.

President Shetler: Somehow, I guess we’re going to become judge and jury on it and it’s difficult, but it’s...

Councilmember Kiefer: You know, Mike, kind of tagging on what you’re saying here, I pulled this resolution up just because every time I read it, I get a different sense of what it’s trying to say. And I do agree that, you know, the big issue is controlling the growth of the county workforce and payroll, because that’s what it says, whereas the Vanderburgh County Council believes that it’s necessary to control the growth of the county workforce and payroll. But then it goes on to say, not to hire any additional full-time. And either we need to amend this thing, I think to say, not to hire anybody, replacement or additional, or we need to rethink how we approach this because our resolution says, not to hire any additional full-time county employees except in the case of an emergency or extraordinary circumstance. And I tend to agree that your position here is probably an extraordinary circumstance because I don’t want to be in a position where we’re missing payroll, we’re missing a deadline and then we’re getting five percent fines, either. So it is challenging trying to follow this sheet here and I wonder if we shouldn’t revisit this thing to clarify what we’re trying to accomplish here a little bit more specifically.

Councilmember Goebel: I don’t think we’re growing county government when we hire replacements and evidently, there’s been merit for most of these positions to have been established over the years. What we’re doing now with not hiring replacements is, we’re reducing the workforce and I’m sure there’s room for that, but it’s awfully, once again, difficult for us to make that determination. I really don’t know how important your position is. I don’t know how important some of these other positions are from people coming up. We can ask around, we can try to determine, we can look at job descriptions, but in the end, it’s difficult for us to determine who really is important and who is not because all department heads are going to find their people very important.

Bill Fluty: Just for our office, there would be times, there are groups, different departments in our office that I might not be up here asking for one, if one retired tomorrow. But the deadlines and their scope of work is different, and very specific duties, not general to the office and maybe – billing is a year-long process, payroll is a daily process, so there’s a difference, what I’d be up here for. If something else in a different department, I wouldn’t be up here. I would only be up here for what I believe is the most critical, so that’s why I’m here.

Councilmember Raben: This is probably one of the few requests where, if the paper piles up, we’ll get it during the slow period, doesn’t work. I mean, to Bill’s point, each week is a new deadline, and believe me, in fact, I think we’ve probably argued quite a bit about this request and I think, you know, I think this is one that merits allowing him to replace this employee.

Bill Fluty: I believe this is a key position. I’m up here to just point out how I believe and it’s your decision to make that.

Councilmember Sutton: When this request came before us last week, I guess I was a little surprised with how silent it was on the floor. Nobody asked questions. Nobody had anything to say. I did ask some questions on the request and Bill did provide some answers for us on why he was making the request. But I’m looking down at the latter part of our agenda on item ten, where we’ve got, this is including the Auditor, you know, we’ve got three other departments that are requesting positions. I know I didn’t go down to Bill’s office and visit to see what his operation is like to see the critical need that he’s requesting here or whether it’s critical or not, and I don’t know if any of the other Councilmembers visited down to his office to determine whether this is something that needs to be filled. But I think when we discussed this whole hiring freeze back in July, at that time, I asked that there was some additional language that would be put into that resolution that was not included. And that language included some opportunities for us to, on a case by case basis, evaluate requests that would come before us. But this Council was very clear that it wanted to put on a hiring freeze, we wanted to control costs, that’s fine, that’s understandable, so here we are now, back in a subjective situation trying to merit, trying to weigh the merits of his request as opposed to a request we may have gotten last month, the requests we’re going to get the month after, and the request that we – the additional requests we have here today. How do we judge one being more favorable than the other, making the decision that this one should be approved, that one should not be approved? I think we just, we put ourselves in a position by beginning to say yes on one, no on another with nothing before us that justifies our position of really seeming to not really having a balanced process in relation to what we’ve already approved. What we said was, we were going to freeze on hiring, and if there were openings that occurred, that those were going to be frozen as well. And I’m not saying that his request, Bill’s request, is weaker or stronger, I’m just saying, based upon what we said, what is the justification now of changing the policy that we just approved no more than eight weeks ago?

Councilmember Kiefer: Councilman Sutton, I think the public, if we asked or did a poll, the public is in favor of reducing workforce if it can be done without reducing service, and you know, we have to be somewhat subjective and every vote we make, we’re being somewhat subjective. But, I mean, it’s imperative for the department heads to show us, you know, they’re in it day in and day out and they need to demonstrate to the Council that this is a critical position and hearing somebody say that, hey, we’re going to miss, we could possibly or potentially miss critical deadlines or we could be fined five percent if we’re late on something. To me, that somewhat demonstrates – I’m relying on the department head and what he’s telling us, but if it’s a situation where it’s not a critical deadline, you’ve got other employees that could possibly pick up the work like Councilman Raben said, you know, the work stacks up but maybe they can get it done at a later date, then I’m subjectively saying, okay, well, maybe they can get by, but if they can’t, and they came back for a second request like we told the Recorder, we told her and said, hey, if it’s not working out, come back to us.

Councilmember Sutton: But, you know, I don’t disagree with anything that you’re saying. What my point is, how do you make that assessment? Every single officeholder will tell you everyone in their department is important, is essential to the functions of their office. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren’t. How do we make that determination other than the officeholder coming before us and making a request, whether it’s a request we have there today or a request we may have down the road, we’re going to base a decision subjectively. And I’m just saying that there is some serious flaws in that mechanism in terms of how we’re doing that.

Councilmember Kiefer: Maybe it should be done like a tax phase in where the personnel committee scores each one of these and we’ve got to develop a scoring system then. I mean, I don’t know the answer.

President Shetler: Well, I think, the bottom line is here, it’s going to be somewhat subjective, but by the same token, I mean, I think we have used some objective measures. You know, for example, one of the requests that we had a few weeks back, we discussed the number of recordings that actually have been made five years ago and the staffing levels they had then, versus work, the staffing levels are today and the amount of recordings that they have today. So we made that kind of a comparison to where we are. We haven’t asked that specific question, I think, to Mr. Fluty in this case, but my guess is we have basically the same number of employees, he’s got about the same amount of work in front of him in the payroll department as he had five years ago. And yet, he’s already indicated that since that time, he has eliminated one person out of that office. So I think that there, yeah, as I mentioned earlier, we’re going to be judge and jury on all of this. It’s a matter of doing our homework, one; two, asking the right questions; and then three, just the presentation that they made and how they convince each one of us on the need for that additional employee. But I think them coming in one by one and explaining that and their needs is the only way that we can effectively do it. We could write new language, we can write new words into it, but bottom line is here, they’re going to have to come in and I think explain to us what is going to be needed in their office and what isn’t going to be needed. They’re going to have to plead their case. Yes, Councilman Bassemier?

Councilmember Bassemier: I guess Royce brought it up, did any of us talk to Mr. Fluty or go down to his office? I’d just like to say that Mr. Lloyd and I did meet with Bill last week after meeting, telling us how critical this position was and, Bill, I know, wouldn’t be asking for this position if he didn’t need it and I told him I would support it. But I just wanted to let Royce know that we did, Mr. Lloyd and I did go down and we did talk to Mr. Fluty after the meeting last week about his position.

Bill Fluty: I have to remind you all, this is new for the officeholders, too. Honestly, we don’t really grow our staff that often and I haven’t ever had that happen in the Auditor’s office. If it’s done, it’s normally done at budget time. But replacing somebody that leaves is – so this is new for all of us, too, so we don’t know what the steps are more than coming up here and just talking to you and giving out information, so it’s brand new for us.

Councilmember Sutton: So are we...I mean, if...as we’re talking about this...so next month we get a request, what’s going to be the process? Is it going to be any different than what we’re talking about right now?

President Shetler: Do you mean, we get a request from a different department or office or just –

Councilmember Sutton: Different department, maybe we’ve got one, maybe we’ve got six requests sitting here, are we going to handle it any different next month than we’re handling it right now and does the resolution speak to what we’re calling a hiring freeze?

President Shetler: I mean, I’m open if anyone wants to change the language in it. I think, ultimately, no matter how you change the language, change the wording in it, that my feeling is that we still want people to come before us and explain why, and there is going to be some that are going to get it and some that aren’t. And it’s a matter of us doing our homework and finding out ahead of time how we feel about it, asking good questions to penetrate into their plea to make sure that it is what they’re saying it is and from there, we have to make a decision and we will become the judge and the jury on it. And it’s part of what we get paid for and it’s our responsibility constitutionally, I guess. So that’s what it’s all about to be Councilmen and I think in these economic times, we just, we’re going to spend a little bit more time down here and that’s what’s going to be important for the taxpayers that we do that. So, Councilman Goebel?

President Shetler: I’m saying I’m willing to listen to any changes that anybody has in their resolution we put forward. But I don’t know that that’s really going to change the mechanics of what happens in this discourse that we have in front of the Council. Yes, Councilman Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: Well, Mr. Fluty, are you going to transfer someone in your office now to take over these duties or are you going to hire someone new?

Bill Fluty: I can’t transfer anybody into that position, there’s no money available in that position.

Bill Fluty: I could. Resumes will start to come in if you allow it. I haven’t started the process because I don’t really know what your decision is. We may find the best fit within our office for payroll, and then again, I may not. I can’t answer that question now. But we’ll get the best fit to do payroll.

Councilmember Goebel: No one doubts that this is an extremely important part of your office and things have got to be in, in a timely fashion and we don’t want to deny you, but if there’s someone in the office you can move over or something like that for the time being until we resolve our mechanism here, because I’m not comfortable with the way we handle this part. In these meetings, we’re going to have, for every position coming up, we’re going to be here a long time trying to decide which positions are truly important and which ones, maybe we can get by without, with a reduced staff. So I think it’s going to be difficult to say yes, in my mind, today with the voting or with the resolution that we have in place. That doesn’t mean your position is not important, because I truly believe it is.

Councilmember Kiefer: I also want to ask, Councilman Lloyd, with the Personnel Committee, you guys only review new hiring, not replacement hiring, right? Like this position here was not necessarily reviewed through the Personnel Committee.

Councilmember Lloyd: No, that’s a Council function. We just review existing and would rate new positions up or down, existing could be up or down, depending on changing responsibilities, but we have no effect on whether you add or subtract a person.

Councilmember Kiefer: Well, the only reason I’m asking, it’s not that I want to put any additional workload on you, because, I don’t know, I may be in your shoes next year, so as far as that goes, but I’m only suggesting that since this is so critical and to address Councilman Goebel’s point of view, you know, maybe these are positions that should be reviewed in the Personnel Committee, so that way there could be a determination and a study done on each replacement or each hire, period. And then we could get a recommendation from a committee that’s actually investigated this and given it some thorough consideration.

President Shetler: Well, really, we talked about that at one time and that is fine, but the only thing is, we may be just duplicating the efforts. We will go through that same debate in Personnel Committee, and then we will bring it back here and we will, because that’s only a recommendation, and then we will have to end up having to debate those same issues over again on the floor of Council. So rather than to do that twice, I felt that it’s probably better to go ahead and just do it the one time on Council floor. I mean, I don’t know how many people did, I talked to Bill at length to try to determine exactly what the needs were, if there were any alternatives, what we could do to switch people around, any of that kind of thing.

Councilmember Kiefer: I agree with you – I talked to Bill at length, too, but I didn’t get a chance to talk to Susie, I didn’t get a chance to talk to the Health Department, and I didn’t get a chance to talk to some of the others, whereas, if those positions were reviewed through Personnel, there might be some insight that was extracted and revealed that otherwise might not be revealed. But perhaps now is not the –

Councilmember Sutton: Before we, are we going to have an opportunity to talk about what your request, any changes to that language on the resolution? Because, I mean, if we just leave, we vote on this and leave this topic, you know, we’ve wasted a valuable moment. I did suggest some language back in July on this related to positions, essential positions, you know, if you’ve got an office where you’ve got four people, you lose one, that’s a pretty major hit, you know. And then also positions that were related to the financial underpinnings of the county and the essential functions putting them in a different classification, if you guys could remember that. Now I don’t remember the exact language that I used, maybe, Sandie, if you could pull up those minutes, but I asked for that to be included. Councilman Lloyd, do you recall that discussion?

President Shetler: I recall, and why don’t we go ahead and take a vote on this and we can deal with that question, I think, underneath old business and, like I said, I’m very open to new language and us dealing with relooking at the resolution we passed before, but we have a question here unless there’s any questions directly to the motion at hand, I call for a roll call then.

Councilmember Sutton: Just based on what I’ve already said and so that we’re not creating a totally subjective situation, I really must vote no on this.

Councilmember Goebel: I think you made a great argument, Mr. Fluty, and I think every department head that comes before us is going to have that same type of fight to fill positions in his office, but I think under the resolution, I’m still going to vote no.

Councilmember Raben: I’m going to vote yes and I’d like to make one brief comment as to why, and I would certainly like to follow suit with the nay votes, but I guess if there is one other person that’s able to run payroll, if that person is sick or something happens there, I think the employees are going to expect to get paid, so we are kind of in a box here. But I do vote yes.

Councilmember Kiefer: I’d like to comment on Councilman Sutton’s remarks. I agree, I think while we’re doing this subjectively and maybe that’s our only choice, I would like to have some more objective analysis. You know, I hate being put in a position where I’m making a decision that I’m not 100 percent comfortable knowing what the right outcome is, but believing that this is a critical position and that we could potentially miss deadlines, state required deadlines, potentially miss a payroll or something, I feel compelled that I have to vote yes, but I would like to get further analysis on how we can address these other votes in the future. So with that, I vote yes.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, next under Area Plan, at this time I would like to set this in at zero and ask that this come back on our agenda next month, and the reason with that is, is the Recorder’s office is wanting to help with this project and there is a plotter that is more suitable for her office that will also tie in with this request. And then the County Assessor would like to pick up the balance with Reassessment funds. So because its not been advertised in that manner, we have to zero it out today and deal with this request in November.

President Shetler: We have a motion and a second, all in favor, signify by saying aye.

Councilmember Raben: Next under Superintendent of County Buildings, Utilities in the amount of $50,000, I’ll move approval.

President Shetler: Any questions, comments? All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Councilmember Raben: 1360-2270 and 1360-3723 for a total request of 4,000, I’ll move approval.

President Shetler: It’s been moved and seconded. Do I have any questions or comments? All in favor signify by saying aye.

Councilmember Raben: Vanderburgh Superior Court, Office Machines, 1370-4220 in the amount of $6,500, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Raben: Trying to make back up time, I think. Yes, that’s zero. I’d like to amend my motion.

President Shetler: It’s been moved and seconded. Any questions or comments? All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, Circuit Court Supplemental in the amount of $17,028. Let me make sure...I’d like to make that in the form of a motion.

Councilmember Lloyd: This was money coming from the Circuit Court Supplemental fund. I mean, we had a good presentation from Judge Heldt last week.

President Shetler: Alright, any questions, comments? All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Councilmember Raben: Next under Local Emergency Planning Commission, Emergency Management in the amount of 3,000, I’ll move approval.

President Shetler: It’s been seconded. Any questions or comments? All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Councilmember Raben: Convention Center, again, Utilities in the amount of $25,000, I’ll move approval.

Councilmember Kiefer: Is there somebody here from the Convention Center? Yeah, because I had a question last week about utilities –

Councilmember Kiefer: Just out of curiosity, you know, the 25,000, that’s what you need to get through the rest of the year because utilities are so much higher than you anticipated?

Darren Stearns: Right, we had some funds that we did not encumber from last year, so that’s kind of what’s put us in this predicament. Otherwise, we would have it, and we’re depending on our budget that we have for next year, that’s why when we did the budget in 2009, you saw that the number jumped at a little bit for next year.

Councilmember Kiefer: Okay, do you guys work with the Civic Center in buying your gas?

President Shetler: Alright, any other questions or comments? All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, on transfers, does anybody object to lumping all the transfers into one motion? Does anybody want to single any out?

Councilmember Sutton: If we could single out the first one and lump in the rest of them.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, on transfers, I’ll move that we approve under Auditor, the transfer in the amount of $12,082.

Councilmember Sutton: You’ve got to multi-task, Mr. Kiefer, talk, listen and write.

Councilmember Raben: Next, Mr. President, I’ll move that all other transfers be approved as listed.

President Shetler: Its been seconded. Questions or comments? All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, under Auditor, I move that we amend salary line 1020-1160 Bookkeeper/Payroll Clerk. The employee is to be set in at a COMOT VI, Step 1, initiation salary at $30,179. I move that we amend salary line 1020-1971 Accrued Payments in the amount of $12,082 as previously transferred, and that’s for the buy-out for the former Bookkeeper/Payroll Clerk. Jail, move that we amend salary line 1051-1301 Civilian Overtime as previously approved. County Assessor, salary line 1090-1540 Deputy Assessor Personal Property/Data Analysis Tech as transfer previously approved. The current employee is a COMOT V, Step 2, with an annual salary of $31,503 and last, under County Assessor salary line 2490-1090-1972 Level II Certification as previously approved. These Level II’s were approved earlier in the year. And that’s it, and I’d like to make that in the form of a motion.

President Shetler: It’s been moved and seconded. Do I have any questions or comments? All in favor, signify by saying aye.

(Councilmembers Bassemier, Lloyd, Raben, Kiefer & Shetler voted in the affirmative)

President Shetler: Underneath old business, Councilman Sutton, do you want to take up that task on that hiring freeze resolution or...

Councilmember Sutton: Let me add one thing from kind of an old business, and I don’t know if Auditor Fluty has gotten away from us – oh, there is he. I thought maybe you had stepped out that way. Last week I did mention about an issue and I did want to express that I had some questions about a travel situation with Auditor Fluty, and he and I did get a chance to talk about that, and the way in which I may have asked the question and what I believe may have been, not necessarily the best way to use the travel policy. That was not necessarily the case. The employees that I had mentioned about on that Friday, taking off, they did use vacation time strictly, and that is fine under county personnel policy. And they did arrive back in what would still be considered a timely fashion. So there really was no excessive use of county funds on that trip. So I did want to make sure I got that on the record, since I did ask questions about that and there was some information maybe one way that that wasn’t the case, but he’s clarified that, and so I just wanted to make sure we got that on the record, and any apologies that I can offer to his office and his staff for any misunderstandings that may have been communicated there.

Councilmember Sutton: But on the other issue, Sandie, I don’t know if you had the suggested language that I had on the resolution that would include on the hiring freeze, the positions that affect the financial workings of the county and I – because I can’t remember the exact way I phrased that, so if you could maybe provide some – Sarah can pull up our archives and help us with that. I think it’s very appropriate with the way we put together the hiring freeze resolution about emergency personnel, but perhaps maybe we can have some inclusive language that addresses some of these other things. I’m not quite sure on the process, if we should include that in on this resolution. Perhaps, maybe, that’s something separate so it doesn’t cloud up the resolution any further than it already is, but maybe tighten up that language, we can make that distinction as well between what is a new hire and an existing position. I would, I guess, the sense that I believe from this Council is that we don’t want to take on any new hires, we’re very clear on that. But it’s the retention issue of existing staff that we need to clean up that language on that resolution. Councilman Kiefer, could you read that resolution for us? You’ve got it there with you.

Councilmember Kiefer: Well, apparently, the one I had was an earlier copy because Counselor Ahlers came over and gave me the corrected one that had all the signatures on it, so it does say, whereas the County Council believes that it is in the best interest of the county not to hire any full-time or part-time county employees except in the case of emergency or extraordinary circumstances, and then it goes, therefore be it resolved by the Vanderburgh County Council that no full-time or part-time employees shall be hired in any county office or department in 2009 except in the case of emergency or extraordinary circumstance. So the one that I cited earlier saying additional was incorrect as the counselor pointed out to me.

President Shetler: Let me do this first. Let me ask Mr. Ahlers to perhaps point out or to give us a brief description of what statutorily we, as Councilmen, are required to do and what our job responsibilities might be, particularly in this particular matter. And that might lay some groundwork here to establish just exactly what does need to be put into the language here.

Jeff Ahlers: Thank you, Mr. Shetler. I have, over the years, I think from time to time some of these issues have come up and I have sent you copies of the statute and I can email that to all of you again today. But by Indiana statute, I mean, County Council is vested with the authority to determine the number of county employees, the classification of county employees and the compensation of county employees, and that rests with County Council. So ultimately, regardless of what committee things go through, regardless of what officeholders say, the buck stops here by statute. So ultimately, that is your decision to make that determination. Now whether you say it’s subjective, objective or however you reach that decision, ultimately, it’s a vote of this body regardless of how you reach that determination as to the number, classification, and compensation of employees. We had, in the past, I know a number of years ago, and some of you were on Council then, had done a similar hiring freeze and what I understand the backdrop of this to be, is that and as I’m sure you’ve all read, that there is many municipalities and governmental entities that have, in fact, had to downsize. There’s a city up north – I don’t know if it’s Elkhart or South Bend, I read, I think they had to cut like fifty employees. And fortunately, you’re not in a position to have to do that. And, as I understand, when you passed this resolution, what you did want to do, though, was to say, any time there’s an open position, you want to evaluate whether or not the position gets filled. Now, whether there’s a delay in refilling the position, or however you want to do that, that you wanted to retain that control to evaluate these positions as they come open. I mean, as I read this resolution, what you’re basically saying is, and keep in mind, too, a resolution is not like an ordinanc: it’s not a law, it’s not binding. There’s nothing that says you guys can’t change it, but merely you wanted to have a written resolution to send to the officeholders, a manifestation of your intent to say, when these positions come open, don’t fill them, we want you to come before us and we’ll determine whether they get refilled now, in a month, three months, six months, whatever. And so what this resolution is essentially saying is, that no employees will be hired except in the case of emergency or extraordinary circumstances. And I guess that’s where we come into, whether or not you want further definition, I mean, I guess there’s good and bad in anything. As to what’s extraordinary and emergency, I mean, I guess leaving it where it is gives you that discretion to determine on a case by case basis what it is. If you think you need to have further guidelines, I mean, Council is certainly free to do that. But, --

Councilmember Kiefer: Does BKD in their study, do they do any kind of audit of various departments to see whether or not they’re understaffed or overstaffed? I mean, it might be interesting to see what an outside audit might show of each individual department and see if, you know, we might discover that they’re overstaffed or you might discover, no, they’re just perfect the way they are. But I sure would like to have some type – you know, all this begs the question, you know, maybe we need to do an audit of each department and see if they’re staffed appropriately. And maybe not rely totally on the input from the department head, have it done independently.

President Shetler: I actually did discuss this with BKD about four months or so ago when the economic situation appeared obvious that we were going to have to look at doing some things here to hold the line. And there are firms out there that do specialize in government type of accounting that could do –

President Shetler: – as well as they could, within their own means, but you’re talking about a pretty pricey deal. And I’m not so sure that by the time we’d netted everything out back and forth, that it would actually become a true savings for the taxpayers. So I was concerned about that.

Councilmember Kiefer: But when you add in all the other compensation that goes to an employee, PERF, retirement, all these things, they snowball, there’s a snowball effect that accumulates over many, many years. I’m not saying, you know, maybe – I’m not saying that we should do this, but it should at least be a discussion item.

President Shetler: I agree. Again, the feeling that I walked away with from them, it would be a fairly pricey deal and that, yes, if we were able to eliminate a number of employees over a period of time, it would save us some money, but in the short run, it could be more costly. And I’m talking about in terms of, you know, something of about a quarter of a million dollars or so to run it. Because you’d have to have a – some kind of benchmark, some kind of floor there to establish and they’d have to go in and actually audit each office to do that. That would be quite expensive, and then to review each and every time that they would come in to do it. You know, position and personnel that’s involved there, it’s not going to be an inexpensive venture. So I, myself, just categorically kind of rejected it based on the cost of it. And also there are things that are out there, whether it’s the Farm Bureau Co-Op, and other groups that are out there that have information that can tell you, you know, like, for example, the number of residents you have inside the city, outside the city, the number of Sheriff Deputies per age, how many road miles and different things like that. So we have in our own midst here information that we can grab hold of that might help us in some of the areas that may say to us that well, generally speaking, with this many crimes, you know, a Clerk’s office ought to be able to handle so many things at such and such, with so many people and stuff. So there are some guidelines that we can use by looking at other counties and around the state of Indiana. And I’ve used some of those resources myself on some of them. So that was one of the things that, you know, we have looked at with the Sheriff’s department and their manpower, for example. But, ultimately, no matter what we use, it still boils down to coming right back here, we’ve got to make the decision and it’s a tough decision.

Councilmember Kiefer: I agree, l mean, like Jeff said, you know, the buck stops here but it sure helps having good information to make a decision.

Councilmember Sutton: I did have a suggestion on some language. Does everybody have a copy of this here? The resolution? And hopefully we’re all working from the same page.

Councilmember Sutton: Okay, good. Your signature’s not on there, Kiefer, Councilman Kiefer, so I don’t think you can participate in this. Under that third paragraph where it says, whereas the County Council believes it is in the best interest of the county to not hire any full-time or part-time county employees except in the cases of emergency or extraordinary circumstances, decisions to retain existing employees will be evaluated by the County Council on a case by case basis – that’s my language there. And then on to the next addition I’d like to make is, priority consideration will be given to retain existing financial control or revenue generating positions.

President Shetler: I think, I personally have no problems, but is that a motion then?

President Shetler: Alright, I’ve got a motion on the floor. Do I have a second?

President Shetler: Got a second. Any questions about it? So do we need to – that was a motion to amend our existing resolution?

Jeff Ahlers: Yeah, well, I guess the question is, yeah, I mean, you can certainly do that. I guess the question is whether we want to get that in writing or you want to reread it in total to make sure everybody knows what it is.

Councilmember Sutton: I wrote it but I don’t think you can read what I’ve written.

President Shetler: Well, I was going to say, why don’t you clean that up and then get it to Mr. Ahlers? I think we all understand the intent, so why don’t we vote on the motion before us and then get that to Sandie or Mr. Ahlers or whoever and then they can get the formal language right.

Councilmember Raben: Well, or would you like to just create a new resolution with that language and just vote on it next month? I mean, insert it into the –

Councilmember Sutton: That would be – that would be fine. That would give us a chance to see a cleaned up copy.

Jeff Ahlers: If Mr. Sutton wants to send me that language, I can pull this up, incorporate it, send it back out to everybody and then if you guys want to discuss changes, additional stuff, whatever, and then you’ll have options or this one or something to vote on next time.

President Shetler: Next, underneath new business, Health Department request for a new employee. Thank you very much.

Gary Heck: Gary Heck, Health Department. I’m really not asking for a new employee. What we’re trying to do is, we have three vacancies right now and if we are allowed to do what we are requesting, we’re going to have three vacancies when we stop. But I have a vacancy in a finance officer and I would like to promote from within the Health Department to fill a higher priority need for the Health Department right now. And once that’s done, leave the vacancy from where the promotion takes place so we start out with three vacancies at the beginning and we’ll end up with three vacancies at the end, they just won’t be the same positions.

President Shetler: Are any of those vacancies that you have critical, particularly in delivering health services? I’m speaking specifically now of the flu shots and those services that we need to make sure that they get out to the public.

Gary Heck: They’re in the finance that’s critical because we have three grants that we’re expected to administer under the H1N1, which requires an individual to be able to oversee that, and that’s what this – if this position gets filled, that’s what this person would be doing.

President Shetler: Councilman Sutton, I’m kind of getting a feeling that they heard your language and they’re all going to be financially related now, here.

Gary Heck: This really is a critical position for the Health Department especially at this time. The grants that we have received are monies that flow from the federal government to the state and then on to every local health department and there is planning and preparation grants are the first two phases and then the third phase is the implementation. And we’re just now starting the flu season, we’ve been having our seasonal flu clinics all along. We’ve already conducted them at the Health Department. One special one and then we have daily folks walk in for their seasonal flu shots. And we just got our first shipment of the H1N1 and we’re going to have a clinic this Friday. It’s part of the Fall Festival and the schools were already out so you have the opportunity to have parents bring their kids to the Health Department and it just couldn’t have been a better timing from that standpoint. So these positions are critical and that’s what we’re actually – we don’t actually view it as violating the hiring freeze, we do look at it as shifting the vacancies. And I’d be happy to answer any specific questions to try to help you understand and support this request.

Councilmember Goebel: Actually, I will not ask because you just answered the question. You’re not going to bring on anyone new, you’re just going to move people around?

President Shetler: So we could actually repeal those other three positions? Or some time in the future do you expect to come back here to fill those?

Gary Heck: Certainly, I do. Every position we have in the Health Department is critical, but we’re trying to honor the Council’s request, which was don’t bring you requests to hire anybody new. I’m not asking to hire anybody new. I’m just asking to move our people around to fill a higher priority position that happens to be vacant.

Councilmember Sutton: So the net gain will be how much as a result of shifting and moving these positions up? I mean, we had a similar situation, I guess, last month, month before, --

Gary Heck: The Health Department has three vacancies right now and we’ll still have three vacancies when we’re done, they just won’t be the same positions.

Councilmember Sutton: Not in terms of number of positions, but the dollar amount, because sometimes as you move people around, someone may come in but they may not have, of course, the seniority that the previous person had so they come in at a lower rate of pay than the previous person that had the position. Have you had a chance to take a look at what the impact might be by shifting those around?

Gary Heck: There wouldn’t be any increase in any of those line items and the funds that are currently in place would, there’s adequate funds in place to handle those requests.

President Shetler: Well, okay, I think what Councilman Sutton may be driving towards is that when Mr. Elder retired and you took his place, there was some – was there some –

Gary Heck: There was no money left in the line item because of the – well, excuse me, there would have been an accrued buy-out –

President Shetler: Okay, so there is a considerable savings in that position alone.

President Shetler: And then the person that’s moving from wherever to your old position...

Gary Heck: I think it would be comparable because I don’t have – we still have to post it. I’m sort of in the same position that Mr. Fluty was in, in that I have somebody in mind within because I know my department pretty well, but the County Personnel asks you to post it and then conduct interviews within. So there could be two or three candidates, but the most senior or the one that would be there, would be, in essence, right at about the same because –

Gary Heck: There wouldn’t be in that position at all, I wouldn’t think, because they probably have been there – I’ve been at the Health Department five years. I believe they’ve been there longer than that.

President Shetler: The other three critical, or the other three positions that are vacant, you said they will remain vacant, how long will they remain vacant? But you expect to fill them sometime in the future?

Gary Heck: Well, one of them is a Public Health Nurse and the Board of Health has gone on record that they consider that position critical.

Gary Heck: But there is a – because of the transfer to accommodate the accumulated payment, that’s just part of doing business with the county, there’s just no other way around that particular one unless we came back and were to ask for an additional appropriation to try to fill it. The Deputy Registrar position will probably become critical in January, but I would at least like to wait to see instead of telling you right now that I know it will be. There was a state law that was changed that will require individuals to take a birth certificate to renew your driver’s license. And that hasn’t been on the books before and it’s a brand new requirement, and we believe that that will be a major increase eventually at the Health Department. It may not happen immediately, but some time that it will, and we intend to track that so that we can come back to you and say, this will make your decision a little bit easier, we’ve had an increase in requests 25 percent.

Gary Heck: It’s $10 for a birth certificate, $10 for a death certificate, but we also collect $1.75 for the Coroner’s education fund.

Gary Heck: Right, the Health department is not part of the General fund, so everything we do comes from the Health fund or through grants that are received and we do have several grant employees at the Health department as well.

Councilmember Raben: Back to the three vacant positions, Public Health Nurse, Deputy Registrar person, what’s the title or the name for the third one?

Gary Heck: Well, what we have or what I’m asking for is what we approached the Personnel Committee with previously as a way of saving money for the county. Since I’m still with the Health department, I don’t believe we continue to need the Chief Operating and Finance Officer, which was a PAT VI, and we requested to, in essence, reclassify that position back to an Office Manager Finance Officer, which was a PAT V. And that’s what we would intend or request to be able to fill the position with at this time. So there would be that savings just going from the difference in the classification.

Gary Heck: It’s – I’m not sure, 2,400 to 3,000. It depends on where you are on those classifications.

Gary Heck: Three. There’s the Public Health Nurse, the Deputy Registrar and then the 2130-1320 and it’s currently listed as the Chief Operating Finance Officer at a PAT VI, and I’m suggesting that when we fill it, we would like to fill it as the Office Manager Finance Officer at a PAT V level.

Councilmember Raben: Okay, and how many total employees are there in the Health department?

Gary Heck: There is approximately 68 full-time, equivalency with 45 or 46 that comes from the Health Fund, the 2130, and the rest comes from various grants.

Gary Heck: No, there’s 45 of that 68 come from the Health Department’s fund, the 2130 and then the balance, what’s that 20 something –

Gary Heck: Is going to come from various grant funds, and there are – several.

Councilmember Raben: What are we doing here today? Are we going to take motions on the request or are we going to table them until next month? What’s the thought process here?

Councilmember Kiefer: I think we ought to go ahead and move on taking action on this because my understanding is, this person, this position is going to be involved in securing grants to help with the H1N1 virus and I don’t want to be the one to say that hey, we ill-affected the community because we didn’t – and he’s not asking to for additional positions, just shifting employees around. I think we ought to do it.

Councilmember Raben: Well, let me tell you the problems with doing that or the problems that I see just on the surface is, number one, we don’t know – we don’t have anything as far as what the position’s base is, do we?

Councilmember Raben: Yeah, do we have job titles for everything? Do we have what the initiation salary is? Do we have all that –

Councilmember Lloyd: This was approved at the – yeah, this was approved at Job Study in August. We changed three of the classifications of the Health department in anticipation of Mr. Elder’s retirement. So we did shift around these positions, so that’s why he’s got a line through here, that was changed at Job Study. So it was re-rated and has (inaudible) salary.

President Shetler: I think we’re only approving – if we – depends on how the motion is written or stated, but I would assume that we’d only be approving an internal transfer to that position only and not for the other then three positions that would be vacated, that are vacated at the current time, that we are not approving those at the moment.

Gary Heck: I think in my request, I don’t know if you all have a copy of that in front of you, – oh, I’m sorry. I envisioned that it would actually involve two switches and that was from a position to the Office Manager Finance and, once again, until we go through the posting, I’m not sure who all would apply, but I know my department and I would envision that there is one person who will get that position. They’re in a critical position, too, and I would like to fill that position, so that those two positions, they’re both employees of the Health department, all of them are in the 2130 account, and at the end of the day I would say, this is the position that is now vacant until we can move forward because that two positions that have moved up would be the ones that we need at this point, they’re critical to the Health Department in order to be able to function. And then we would still have three vacancies, and –

President Shetler: You’re asking for two internal transfers, in essence, and there would still then be, at that third level down, a vacancy plus the other two –

Gary Heck: That’s correct. It will be a Nurse, a Deputy Registrar and a vacancy yet to be named from a two move, internal move within the Health department from existing personnel.

President Shetler: My own opinion, and I don’t mean to interrupt here, but my own opinion is, on the hiring freeze, that I do have somewhat of an issue here with – if you look around at private business and you see it all over town and all over the state and all over the country, middle management and upper management is where you’re really trying to thin the ranks the most. And so I think somewhere in that level, and the people out there like the Nurse and the Registrar that are really doing a lot of that grunt work, we can’t afford to lose, you know, a whole lot of those folks, but sometimes we can thin ourselves in the middle management area and upper management levels in order to be a lot more efficient. And that’s why I have a little bit of concern is that, at the end of the day, I want to just make sure that we’re able to save in that area. Now, moving a couple people up along the line, I don’t have as much problem with that, but I want to see something that is going to show some savings in that management level. Again, that’s my own personal opinion.

Gary Heck: And maybe I didn’t read that into the – I couldn’t tell from the distinction from the resolution that it meant management versus –

President Shetler: No, it didn’t and I’m pointing out where I’m coming from today is not as opposed, and that’s why I said we could put all the words we want in that resolution. You know, bottom line is, when it comes back here, it’s going to depend on how each one of us really do feel about saving the taxpayers.

Gary Heck: And I guess I also need to tell you that managers within the Health Department are still doers. They don’t give a letter to someone to have it typed, they produce it themself. Now there are some circumstances where we do have a Clerk Typist who is responsible for issuing permits and some things like that. But the management positions and the finance that I’m talking about, they all do all of their own work. They fax their own papers, they call and get the quotes, they’re the ones that are personally responsible for making sure that the money that the Health Department is entrusted with is spent wisely and that we get all the savings. And that’s what I’m trying to do here is to get the best people in the right positions where we need them.

Councilmember Kiefer: I was going to say, perhaps Dr. Nicholson might make some comment. I’d like to get some input since he’s the chief medical officer on whether this, you know, the criticalness of this.

Councilmember Lloyd: I was going to indicate, yesterday, I spoke to Dr. Nicholson. He’s here, that he thought this was an important move. Their workload is increasing.

Dr. Ray Nicholson: We are at a crisis with this H1N1. We meet every day, some days we meet the entire day over this issue. I look at the Nurse position as very, very important. We are really short-handed. If we’re going to pull off and give all the immunizations that we need, we’re going to have to hire extra nurses. A full-time nurse in that position that’s vacant would actually be cheaper than renting a part-time nurse, the more expensive it gets. So I feel very strongly that that nurse’s position needs to be filled. As far as the others are concerned, I agree with Gary that the middle management do their own work and they’re very productive. I feel bad every time I walk in their offices because they’re sitting there just working away and I feel like I’m interrupting every time I walk in. I never catch them doing anything else other than work. And they’re very productive in the work they do, they keep a hand on the finances that we’re doing right now is very, very important. Every time we meet it’s a command structure, and the finance officer has one of the biggest reports of what we’re doing in trying to keep in line all the expenses that we have. So I feel it’s very important.

Councilmember Kiefer: Why have you not come before with the request to fill the Nurse’s position then? I’m concerned that there is people out there that won’t be getting vaccinated because we have that vacant nursing position.

President Shetler: Basically, they had to do a buy-out on their retirement stuff, so they used up the amount of money that was in that account. So they don’t have the monies to do that at this point in time. They could ask for an additional appropriation but –

Gary Heck: I don’t know that state law would even allow us to put money back in that salary ordinance this year.

Councilmember Kiefer: I’m just concerned, I mean, talk about critical need. Out of all the departments that we have, I mean, I would think, you know, how many people would this nurse vaccinate in a single day’s time?

Gary Heck: Well, if you look at 25 vaccinations an hour times eight in a normal workday, but was that 200?

Councilmember Kiefer: If we were ever to spend money, this is wisely spent money for the community.

Dr. Ray Nicholson: That’s right. I think that it’s important to understand that there is a number of vaccinations that have to take place if you didn’t have the flu that the other department, that is one of the busiest departments in the area, it’s just constantly giving vaccinations. Two nurses give these all day long, five days a week. If they are pulled off to give other vaccinations, then we’re going to fall short of being able to carry on our mission as it exists, our daily mission. And right now we’re going to have a walk-in clinic so that extra people will be coming in. We have a person right now assigned, that comes down and controls the traffic. The traffic is backed up in the hallway with people waiting to be vaccinated. That’s happened every day this week. And we’re getting our first shipment this Friday, I can’t imagine what the lines are going to be like. We’re going to have to have traffic control and empty the parking lots and so forth in order to accommodate the people and we’ve only got 1,000 doses. We were supposed to have gotten 20,000 doses and we only got 1,700. So as you point out, when the vaccine rolls in, we are really going to be affected with a very heavy logistic problem.

Councilmember Bassemier: Do we know – how are we going to vote on it? Are we going to vote on this today?

Councilmember Raben: And again, we’re only approving one person and this person is called a Public Health Nurse?

President Shetler: No, the request is to actually fill the finance office manager position and then the vacancy that would be created from that person moving up to that and filling that vacancy, that’s where there’s – there’s actually two positions as internal transfers that are being requested.

Councilmember Raben: Internal transfers so back to what I originally said, we’re still going to have three vacant positions.

President Shetler: We have a second. Do I have any questions specifically about the motion? All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Gary Heck: Thank you. I appreciate the position that you all are in with this, but we do appreciate the opportunity to come and at least plead our case and I thank you for your support on this today. The community will be in a better position because of your vote. Thanks.

Councilmember Lloyd: I was going to say, they may want to look at that Public Health Nurse, have your attorney look at that. I mean, that might be something we need to – I mean, depending on when the vaccines come in, if that would be a need.

Councilmember Raben: Let’s don’t get into overstaffing with H1N1. Let’s find out that we’re going to need to be there.

Garvin Senn: I’m Garvin Senn, I haven’t met many of you. I’m a staff attorney at Legal Aid and I’m here this morning with Legal Aid’s request for an exception to this hiring policy that we’ve been talking about.

President Shetler: And your request basically is that you have a full-time person that has left employment and they were –

Garvin Senn: Her employment’s not been terminated yet, she’s been away because of an illness. We’ve kept her position alive but she’s basically on unpaid, extended absence at this point. What we would like to have is we would like to have permission to bring in just a temporary position that wouldn’t allow or pay benefits to keep the office functioning. We’re a small office in the justice for all business. There are three attorneys paired with three legal secretaries and that’s our sole staff. So without one of our legal secretaries there, we’re down considerably in our ability to manage the work of the office. The hope is that, the legal secretary that is out will be back, that she’ll get well and she’ll come back. But at this point, she’s absent without really any compensation. She’s just, we’ve kept her position open, but we don’t know, we don’t have any guarantee that she will be back.

Garvin Senn: I don’t think so. I think she’s outside the time of her – I think she’s outside the time of her benefit eligibility.

Councilmember Bassemier: Now if she would come back from extended sick leave, just say if she would, now would you let go of the part-time person?

Garvin Senn: Yes, it would be purely a temporary position that would be the proviso. This person would be coming in understanding that this is strictly a temporary position, this is not a permanent hire, and that it’s at a reduced compensation basis without benefits and eligibility.

Councilmember Raben: You know, Mr. President, speaking for – were you next? I don’t think there’s any – we’re not bound to this position for any reason. There’s no statutes that say, you know, that Legal Aid needs to, has to work with this many people. In fact, they can pick and choose, to my knowledge, the cases that they’re asked to take on. I know we’ve gone against the grain twice today, that I had never intended to do since passing the resolution back in July and I don’t want to start walking down that road. I think Legal Aid, unlike a payroll clerk or somebody dispensing flu shots, that’s different. But, you know, in this case I think we need to give them the opportunity to figure out a way to work without this individual for a while and maybe revisit it after the first of the year.

President Shetler: Apparently, the person that occupies it in a permanent position, but is not there, is receiving, I guess, health benefits at the present time from what our understanding might be. But –

President Shetler: So is she on a COBRA deal? She pays the county’s portion then or just hers?

Karen Paulin: Karen Paulin, senior secretary. She has exhausted all of her benefits for the year. She’s been through her FMLA and as far as I know, she is paying her own portion of her insurance at this time. And she’s been –

President Shetler: By her portion, do you mean what all employees pay or are you saying that she’s also paying the county’s portion?

Karen Paulin: I don’t know how all that works. I’m sorry, I don’t know how that works, but I know she is still insured at this time through the county. What portion she pays, I don’t know. But she’s been off since May.

Bill Fluty: I believe, I haven’t seen the pink slip but I believe she is on a leave of absence with insurance, so she’s – we don’t have the ability to take her portion out of her check so she’s actually just sending her eight percent in, but the county is picking up the rest of that, as I –

Councilmember Bassemier: Mr. President? On this part-time employee, now, if we decide to postpone it, now if I understand it, the city picks up 32%, United Way picks up 36%, if we deny it right now and put it on hold, who will pick it up if the city and United Way decides to go ahead and pay this employee? The part-time person? Am I reading this right?

Councilmember Bassemier: The county pays 32%, the city pays 32%, United Way pays 36%, and the finance chairman just said that he’d like to postpone it, so –

Councilmember Raben: I think we’re the – the action we take – you know, in this situation, we’re speaking on behalf of the city. So if we say yea or nay, the city can’t come in and do what they want.

Councilmember Lloyd: My discussion with Mr. Senn, this has been going on for a couple of years, the person has had health problems for quite a while, I mean, without getting in to personnel policy, that’s why she’s exhausted all her time.

Garvin Senn: And, of course, with respect to the Council, the work that we do is typically really the most vulnerable families in the community, so we like to think that the work that we’re doing is helping families and children that are most vulnerable and for that reason it’s critical that the work continue. We’ve, you know, I think us being here this morning is a really good example. You would normally have our executive before you, Ms. Hartig, who I’m sure you’ve all met. She’s away. She’s attending a seminar. Mr. Gibson, who is the more senior of the staff attorneys might be here, but he has appearances in court that he has to make. Karen and I are here with this presentation. Sonia is out on extended sick leave, that leaves one other secretary, who is potentially manning the office this morning and she’s got a sick grandbaby, that really is our concern. Because of the fact that we’re such a small office, with a person out, managing lunches, managing mandatory instruction for us to keep our law licenses, it gets to be desperate at times for the work that we do to continue. We have some exposure if we don’t maintain the function of our support staff in regulating us and, as attorneys, making sure that we’re aware where to be. We have to be able to do that. It’s not like we can ask the attorneys to do the job of the secretaries. That won’t satisfy our malpractice providers. We would have some exposure if we started missing court dates if we were handling things and...

President Shetler: Is it, well, I guess, basically, since this has been going on since May, what have you been doing? Just going day by day, minute by minute?

Garvin Senn: I think there was a time when we were permitted to have a temporary person and we had a temporary secretary for some time.

Karen Paulin: Sonia was out for eight weeks before we were allowed to hire a temporary person. She was with us for approximately 90 days. It was not a good fit, so we did let her go, so we are asking to hire somebody in at the initiation rate of a COMOT IV, which is about $12.64, to help us out between this time and January until we see if Sonia can come back.

President Shetler: First floor. I mean, have you worked like with the Public Defender’s office where they could send somebody down at lunch time, for example, to cover phones or do things like that, or is that not at all feasible?

Karen Paulin: It’s never been suggested to us. I’ve never thought it would be feasible, though, since we’re two separate businesses. They handle the criminal and misdemeanor, we’re strictly family related civil matters, so I don’t know that they would understand exactly what we do.

President Shetler: Yeah, I mean, I understand the differences between the two, I just didn’t know if, since, you know, I guess the requirements for the jobs are very similar, and if there were people from there that from time that at least could cover the phones and they could bail you out at least while somebody is at lunch and particularly if you’ve got somebody that’s out sick and you’re down to one and somebody needs to run to lunch for a half hour, you need somebody that is capable to man the office for a little bit, if that kind of thing worked out for you or not. But, okay. Councilman Goebel?

Councilmember Goebel: With Sonia, I believe, if after the beginning of the year, she won’t be able to continue, unfortunately, will she then go on disability and leave the county or is there any kind of plan or length of time that you’re going to hold the position open?

Karen Paulin: She’s been through FMLA, she’s been through one session of sick leave approved by you all, she’s on her second three month period now. So her time is up in January, either she comes back to work or she will have to be terminated. If she comes back, fine. If she doesn’t, we do hope that she goes on disability.

Garvin Senn: We all hope she comes back. We’re really hopeful that she’ll come back. We’d really like for her to come back, a lot.

President Shetler: Okay, do I have a motion – any other questions or...do we have a motion for approval?

Councilmember Raben: Postpone, deny, I mean, it’s one in the same. Let’s say deny and they’ll have a decision or it sounds like they’ll know a little more in depth in January, anyway, if they’re talking about a replacement or what.

Councilmember Raben: Well, that’s fine. Then the motion is to approve the request and if you’re against it, vote no.

Councilmember Bassemier: Let me hear again how much of a hardship it’s going to put you in until the first of the year.

Karen Paulin: Well, there are two of us now doing the whole work of three people. I have two and a half to three more weeks of vacation, which leaves one person in the office for that period of time. We’re used to having three people, so that takes us down to one person doing the job of three people. It’s a hardship, yes. It backs up cases, it backs up the whole system. If we miss a court date, that’s a problem. If we miss filing dates, that’s a problem.

Councilmember Bassemier: And at this $12 and something an hour from this point on, if you hire them next week until the first of the year, how much would it cost? What’s the cost to that?

President Shetler: What about a part-time person that would be, you know, 20 hours or something like that?

President Shetler: Oh. No, I’m saying somebody could only work 20 hours rather than 40 hours. I don’t think you would –

Karen Paulin: That would be helpful. Our normal procedure is that we take our phone applications in the morning between 8 and 11:30. That’s a very, very busy time for us. We try to schedule appointments in the morning and afternoon, but afternoon is more of getting our work done and seeing people and not having the phone.

President Shetler: So your request is actually – it was for 40 hours, part-time per week?

Councilmember Bassemier: 39, wouldn’t it be 39? I mean, 40 would be entitled to –

President Shetler: You were asking, well, for a full-time temporary person and what I’m suggesting is a part-time temporary that maybe would work 20 hours a week. And that would be helpful and satisfy a lot of your needs and be able to accomplish some things.

President Shetler: Alright, we have a motion on the floor and did we have a second, because it got changed around.

Councilmember Goebel: Wait a minute. Excuse me. You just came up with another proposal, did you not?

President Shetler: Well, I – there was a motion on the floor, so I was going to let that fly first and then –

Councilmember Goebel: Are you going to bring that motion back after the vote on this?

President Shetler: Well, where I’m coming from is to split the baby here, a little bit and that is to say go with a part-time temporary which would be at 20 hours a week, that we could, you know –

Councilmember Raben: Okay, I’m going to amend my first motion that we approve the use of temporary help for up to 20 hours per week. And do we have a rate or – $12.50?

Jeff Ahlers: You have to set the rate today at this meeting, so whatever you guys decide that rate is, is what it will be.

Councilmember Raben: Right, so we have to set that, so at a rate of $12.50, I make that in the form of a motion.

President Shetler: Okay, now we have a motion on the floor. Any questions about the motion? All in favor signify by saying aye.

(Councilmembers Sutton, Bassemier, Lloyd, Goebel and Shetler voted in the affirmative)

Susan Kirk: We can make this really fast because I’ve listened all this time. I have an employee who has found another job that she’s going to. You had discussed about the Recorder’s office didn’t get their employee because their numbers are down. I have already given all of you Councilmen, during budget, where our numbers are up and growing. We’ve already done as many traffic tickets at the first of September as we did all last year, and I can give you all kinds of numbers. So, please grant me to keep this position filled because if we don’t, then you guys can deal with the judges.

Councilmember Lloyd: I guess a question for Madam Clerk, what is the position that’s leaving and, just generally, what are the things they do?

Susan Kirk: She’s, I don’t remember her exact title, we have so many titles with 54 of us, but she basically organizes, helps with certified mail, takes care of – and when I say certified mail, that’s not – I’m talking baskets full. She helps with small claims, and she also helps the administration department filling in by answering phones, filing, like I said, well, certified mail and helps a little bit in the cashier’s office when they have to take their lunch. So, she’s very busy just like all of us are. But I think the numbers pretty well does it. Our numbers are up and growing, unfortunately.

Councilmember Lloyd: They don’t answer or they’re not at the front desk, though?

Councilmember Raben: Susie, is this person already gone, that you’re wanting to replace?

Susan Kirk: No. She will be leaving the 9^th, so then we’re going to be, you know, --

Councilmember Raben: Mr. President, I’m going to make a recommendation only because I’ve got an appointment I need to make, but, you know, I think this is one that I would really like to see us try to work through for a period of time and see if we can get by without replacing this person because, you know, I’m kind of losing – I think everybody is losing sight of what the original intent was –

Susan Kirk: Well, Councilman Raben, then if I may, I feel like that, by listening to this, that because you voted yes for one, now you feel like you just need to vote no to kind of justify what you guys have come up with as far as your ordinance. I asked for part-time help, and I’m telling you now, with vacations, people off sick, and different things like that, that we’re not going to be able to make it. We will not be able to get -- everything in our office is time sensitive. Everything. I don’t care if you’re the highest paid, if you’re turning in the payroll, or if you’re the one putting the files in. Everything is time sensitive. And if we cannot keep the staff that we have, there has not been a new person in that office – we’ll go back, I mean, it wasn’t Helen Kuebler or way back even before that, Joe O’Day – there has not been a new person. And this staff has tried to keep up and we are to the point where it is not going to happen. It’s not going to happen. So like I said, you guys can deal with the judges because when these things are due, people want their files, the cases need to come before the courts and it’s not ready, I’m not taking responsibility for that.

Councilmember Raben: And, Susie, respectfully, I understand what you’re saying. But, again, this person has not even left – I mean, we’ve not even made the attempt yet to work without this person in this role. And again, I’m one of many up here, so I’m probably not going to affect this either, but I felt, looking at the bigger picture, that the intent was is to ask everybody to make that, you know, where possible, to make that effort. But –

Susan Kirk: Well, I just don’t want the county to face lawsuits because we can’t get our job done. But that’s up to the Council.

President Shetler: Got a motion and a second. Any questions about the motion? Anybody have any questions of our Clerk?

Councilmember Sutton: You know, I...I think it’s very difficult for us to really make an evaluation but to a certain extent, to Councilman Raben’s point, everybody is working on less and more is being demanded of them. And so at some point in time, I think every single request that we get, there’s going to be some reasonable, rational justification of why we ought to go ahead and approve them. And I guess in this situation, it’s – I find it difficult for us to, at least on my end, to – the way some of the other requests, the first request we got from the Health Department, ultimately, the net effect would likely be some savings to the county. The other request, we ended up altering that. Actually, it’s going to reduce in terms of we went to a part-time position and that’s a smaller office, kind of back to the situation I talked about earlier. Being that this position hasn’t opened up yet, so we don’t really know and I think maybe we can leave the door open to see what the impact ultimately may be and I think that’s what we’ve tried to do on the others as well. I guess I’d find it hard on my end to vote to approve it, just kind of weighing out all those different things.

Susan Kirk: So it doesn’t make any difference that our numbers keep raising every year, every month? That we have more work, prove it, gave you the numbers just on part of it? So when an officeholder comes up here and can prove that they have more work generated every year and you’re going to deny it?

President Shetler: I don’t think that’s the only criteria that Council is using to determine, I mean, that’s one criteria, certainly. I think the size of the office, for example, if one has four people in the office and one is gone, that assumes that you’re going to pick up 30% more work than what you had before. If you have 50 in your office and one is gone, that assumes you’re going to pick up 2% more work. So there are other criteria that I think we can use rather than just simply saying, you know, the workload has increased or decreased or whatever it might be. I think the point of this is, is to try to see if we can’t do more with less is what the ultimate outcome is.

Susan Kirk: That’s just it, we already are. And like I said, if there’s lawsuits, don’t look my way if we can’t get the job done.

Councilmember Sutton: I would say that I don’t think we’ll have one office that comes in here in light of what we’ve discussed, because their workload is lighter, who will come in and want to give up a position. I don’t think we’ll get one that comes in, and I’m not saying that your workload hasn’t – I mean, you’ve indicated with your numbers here, but just (inaudible) how many people do you have in your office?

Susan Kirk: There’s 54 of us altogether, and that’s just in the Clerk’s office. That doesn’t include the Election Office.

President Shetler: And I will say, I mean, you mentioned the Clerks over the years, and stuff, and I appreciate that, but there have been several things in our nation that have taken place over the course of time as well, new computers with record storage folks, that are able to put that – scan it, put it on line and stuff, where people can just simply go to it and look it up rather than have to run back to a file room. Heck, we used to have people run downstairs at the old courthouse and grab files out and that was –

Susan Kirk: We go downstairs, we go several different places to get what we need. But I just, you know, I’m just telling you.

President Shetler: So you have been able to institute some improvements and some good management practices that have allowed some efficiencies over time as well, too.

Susan Kirk: We have, it’s just – and, I mean, the Clerks over the past years have done that because the workload has increased. It’s to the point, though, to where, you know, we’ve exhausted everything that we can. And like I said, I just, you know, it’s up to you, you make the decision, but of all the offices that can show the time sensitive, the importance, this would be the one. This would be the one. And I just feel like that we’re leaving ourselves open for some problems if that staff can’t continue at the number that it is. And believe me, we all work. There’s no, you know, Clerk coming in two hours a day and leaving and – we all work. Every one of us. And it’s – like I said – it’s up to you.

Councilmember Lloyd: Quickly, if for some reason the Council denies this request and you would have to go several weeks without that employee, you could come back at the November meeting as well. I mean, I guess that’s another possibility just to think about.

Councilmember Bassemier: Susie, were you going to replace it right now or were you going to wait until the employee –

Susan Kirk: Well, we wanted to, she’s leaving on the 9^th and I was hoping to get approval today so that we could go ahead and go through the process and get someone in there. I’ve got two, three pregnant, different things like that. I mean, and using the scenario of four people in our office and 54 people in our office, the workload is still per person, big. So I don’t know that that scenario works. I’m just –

Councilmember Bassemier: (Inaudible – microphone not turned on) of course, we’re not giving her or any of her employees a pay increase, they’re still working at the same level, we’re asking them to do more work that she says she can’t get done, so I think we’re really putting a hardship on Susie and her department.

Susan Kirk: Well, it is, and the thing of it is, I think the lawsuits, if you can’t get things done on time, people, nowadays, it doesn’t take anything. They can sue over anything and then we’ve got to pay, you know, the attorneys and all that stuff to go through all that, which that costs a fortune and – whatever, I’ll be quiet. You guys go ahead and make your decision.

President Shetler: Alright, we have a motion on the floor. Any other questions or comments? Roll call please.

Councilmember Sutton: Now I would be open to reconsidering this, but right now, my vote would be no.

Councilmember Raben: Again, let’s try for a period of time and see if we can make it work without and then I’ll be open to revisiting it later, no.

Councilmember Kiefer: I echo Councilman Sutton’s sentiments, and I’ll vote no.

President Shetler: No. So we’re talking about two ayes and five nays, the motion is denied.

(Motion fails 2-5/Councilmembers Sutton, Goebel, Raben, Kiefer & Shetler opposed)

President Shetler: Okay, we’ve already dealt, I think, with the Auditor’s position unless anybody wants to re-bring that up, but that’s really all been dealt with, I think, in the appropriation.

President Shetler: So the next would be approval for BKD’s letter of engagement. I think you all received copies of that. Do you have any questions about it? Motion would be in order.

Councilmember Kiefer: It looks like a standard letter of engagement and they are requesting to move their operation to draft job descriptions for Superior Court and Circuit Court. I mean, I read it and it looked like their standard engagement. I believe the cost was $11,480. Estimated cost.

President Shetler: Okay, any other questions? Comments? Motion would be in order.

President Shetler: So ordered. We’ve already done the taxing things. So, okay, anything else?

Councilmember Lloyd: Just real quickly, looking at Vanderburgh County Personnel Administration Job Study meeting would either be after the Personnel & Finance October 28^th at 10:30 or the Thursday afterwards, October 29^th at 8:30, and I’ll check with other members to see which time works better.

President Shetler: Afterwards is fine with me. The 28^th. Okay, anybody else? Anything else?

(There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:31 a.m.)

1010-3603	Record Storage	30,000.00	20,000.00
Total		30,000.00	20,000.00

1020-1160-1020	Bookkeeper/Payroll	4,831.00	4,831.00
Total		4,831.00	4,831.00

1240-4250	Misc. Equipment	5,000.00	0.00
Total		5,000.00	0.00

1310-3200	Utilities	50,000.00	50,000.00
Total		50,000.00	50,000.00

1360-2270	Juror Meals/Lodging	2,000.00	2,000.00
1360-3723	Psychological Eval.	2,000.00	2,000.00
Total		4,000.00	4,000.00

2600-2210	Gas & Oil	1,000.00	1,000.00
2600-3130	Travel/Mileage	2,000.00	2,000.00
2600-4230	Motor Vehicles	14,028.00	14,028.00
Total		17,028.00	17,028.00

2861-3210	Emergency Mgmt.	3,000.00	3,000.00
Total		3,000.00	3,000.00

From: 1020-1210-1020	Transfer Supervisor	700.00	700.00
1020-1310-1020	Admin. Secretary	780.00	780.00
1020-1160-1020	Bookkeeper/Payroll	8,902.00	8,902.00
1020-1910	PERF	1,700.00	1,700.00
To: 1020-1971	Accrued Payments	12,082.00	12,082.00

From: 1070-2410	Body Transport	500.00	500.00
1070-2710	Color Film	1,000.00	1,000.00
1070-2720	Lab Supplies	500.00	500.00
1070-3190	Solid Waste Disposal	1,000.00	1,000.00
To: 1070-3530	Contractual Services	3,000.00	3,000.00

From: 1460-3000	Bond & Insurance	200.00	200.00
1460-3010	Other Insurance	217.00	217.00
1460-3680	Malpractice Insurance	237.00	237.00
To: 1460-2600	Office Supplies	437.00	437.00
1460-3140	Telephone	217.00	217.00

From: 2861-3310	Training	500.00	500.00
2861-3313	Education & Public Outreach	150.00	150.00
2861-3370	Computer (Data Mgmt)	100.00	100.00
To: 2861-3210	Emergency Mgmt.	750.00	750.00

3650-3200	Utilities	25,000.00	25,000.00
Total		25,000.00	25,000.00