H.B. 335 County Employment Amendments: transcript

Okay, thank you, uh, Mr. Chair and committee. So we talked about this a little bit last meeting, and we've made a substitute. It's live on your, on your computers now. And thanks for waiting for that. Um, so let me just review a little bit what we talked about before, uh, on, um, in sheriff's departments in the counties, this only applies to sheriff's departments. We're looking at what is the appropriate level to have, uh, career exempt employees or at will employees. And what level, what below that line is, what level be Below that level that we're looking at is merit employees or career service employees. And so, um, uh, representative Gwynn's, uh, suggestion, we, we made this substitute that basically says, and, and because every sheriff's department has a different structure in their line of command, what we wanted to do, say if you're supervising and you're making policy decisions and you have ability to hire and fire and those kind of things, you'd be in the career exempt level. And so we want to go down that level far enough to catch those people, but not too far down that we get into the line, uh, level where, where they're supervising, uh, frontline peace officers. And so in the substitute, uh, we just defined what is the, uh, line level peace officer and their duties, the frontline peace officer supervisor. And it's, it's in three parts of the, the bill. So it's repeated three times, but on six line 63 is where that starts. And then it goes down and lines 1 51, it just talks about, uh, the three levels of the command that you can go down to have career exempt employees. And then that, those two mechanisms of not getting below the line where you have the frontline supervisors, uh, that's the protection. So what what it does is it opens it up to all of the counties to decide what they wanna do. By July 1st, 2026, and there was a discussion, why don't we just open that date up? But the concern is, is are you gonna, if we open it up, then every time there's a new election, the county sheriff might reorder everything. And so we just said, look, let's let 'em right size it to their county the first time and then, and then shut that off so that it doesn't go back and forth. And so hopefully we've reached a balance where we can say the counties have the options to do what, what they want, but still protect frontline supervisors and still be able to manage their organizations. So, um, uh, sheriff und, did you have anything to add to that or we good?

Nothing new to add. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Corey Holdaway. I'm representing the Utah Public Employees Association. Although most of our, uh, uh, members are state employees, we do have a few county employees that, uh, are part of our, our association. Uh, we understand the desire to have a supportive leadership team, however, sometimes being challenged is healthy. Um, I read a book once, uh, by Doris Kearns, team of rivals. I don't know how many of you have read that. It's a, it's a book by about Abraham Lincoln's presidency. And what he did when he was elected, he asked those that were against him or, uh, rivals of his to be part of his cabinet. And when you're in leadership positions, I think it's important to be able to have a voice, to be able to push back, to be able to, uh, provide it maybe a different perspective than the one that's in charge. Um, my fear with this bill is that, uh, um, if you make those employees that, uh, uh, are pushing back, uh, or questioning or, uh, providing, uh, feedback that maybe you don't like, that are part of your leadership team, and, and you say, okay, well great, then you're fired. We're talking about public servants that have been probably employed for many, many years and they're in jeopardy of, of, of that providing that voice in a meaningful way for fear of losing their jobs. So this bill is, although is, uh, being presented as a bill that, uh, uh, could, could be of benefit. We see it as a challenge for public servants that, uh, that are, they've dedicated their life to this, this profession in public safety. So for that reason, we would just ask that you carefully consider this bill. Uh, it could have some, granted it's optional, um, but it could have some dramatic effects. And for that reason, we would just ask that you reject the bill. Thank you.

Mr. Chair Committee. My name is JC Jensen. I began serving the community in 2001 as an EMT became an becoming a nationally registered paramedic. Shortly after that, though inactive, I'm still a nationally registered paramedic, a position that was at will, meaning that I was free to be terminated for no cause at all. I sat there and watched my coworkers be fired for no cause with no ability to challenge that. I began working in law enforcement in 2005, became a u Utah law Enforcement officer in 2006 where I worked full-time as a deputy sheriff paramedic. I was there for seven years. At the conclusion of that, I was fired. I was a married employee. I was not at will. I was given the due process rights that I was afforded. I utilized those due process rights. And after a trial, I beat the sheriff. Those who made all allegations against me were impeached. They had lied on the stand. I had hard evidence to prove it. Without that due process, right, without my ability to go to my trial, I would not be where I am today. Since that's time, I currently work still as a police officer for a local municipality. I work every other Sunday. In 2016, I became a lawyer. My law firm represents Utah Turner Order of Police members. Currently about 5,500 strong. Every single day. I speak with my clients who are going through issues at work where they're, they are entitled to due process. The question was asked yesterday, what is the merit system? The question that was answered by Representative Christofferson who stated in part to protects employees from political changes and career exempt or merit exempt system is where you become an at will employee. That just means that your employment depends on your performance. That is not correct. You can be terminated for no cause and you have no, nothing that you can do to challenge that. Usually in leadership positions, uh, representative Christoffer and continued, that's the preferred way because your loyalty is to the administration, to the leadership in an organization and not to the career service commission. And that that is the problem. The question was asked about the merit system. Lemme provide a little, a little more robust response. I apply and I get hired. That agency puts me on as a probationary employee, usually anywhere from six months to a year and a half during that probationary period, I, as the employee I'm at will. And that is how it should be. The agency can look at me, make sure I pass whatever requirements are necessary so that I am fit for the uniform and fit for that agency. And once that six months or year and a half has passed, in the event I successfully pass my probationary period, I checked off every box and they still like me, I then become a merit employee. And that is important how a Merit, merit employee entitles me to due process. Due process is so important, ladies and gentlemen. You find it in the United States Constitution as well as our state's constitution. So where does due process come into play? Every single day? When I deal with it, it comes into play. When an individual, an employee is being alleged to have violated a policy, policies can refer to statutes. So in general, they're alleged to have violated a policy as policy. This allegation usually results for merit employees. In the opening of an internal affairs investigation, I'm contacted, I attend, I make sure the agency follow the rules, whether Garrity applies or not. I make sure my client is fully advised and we sit there and we participate. And my clients are always told to tell the truth. Once that internal affairs investigation is concluded, the investigator types up their findings. They usually submit that to a superior who reviews the facts of the case, at least as they know the facts to be, and decides if a policy violation has occurred. And if so, what potential discipline that employee should be subjected to. That employee's then presented with a notice of intent to discipline with a deadline to respond. If they do respond, they can have a hearing, a loudermill hearing from Cleveland Board of Education versus Loudermill, United States Supreme Court case Law, which states that every government employee before their protected property interests can be taken away from them, is permitted to have a loudermill hearing. It's also known as a pre-disciplinary hearing or a predetermination hearing. This hearing allows the employee to know of the allegations against them, to know of the evidence that the agency is relied on, and then to have an opportunity to address that with the department head or the department head's designee. That is important, ladies and gentlemen. That is the due process. Usually at the conclusion of the hearing, the department head or the department head's designee, we will take a break, whether it's that day, a few days later, a week, a month, it's up to them. They get to decide what happens to my client in the event my client does not like what is being handed down and statute permits it. My client has the ability to appeal it. When we talk about the sheriff's office, my client has the ability to appeal it to the district court, that ladies and gentlemen, is due process. How unfair would it be for me as a police officer to walk up to you and say, I think you stole an 18 pack of Diet Coke from the Smiths. I don't care if you say you didn't. I am taking you to jail right now, and you'll sit there for three months. You say, but I don't even drink Diet Coke. And I said, I don't care. You have no due process, but you served three months in jail just because I said so.

Absolutely. Representative Teuscher.

Thank you. Uh, and thanks for for your comments here. I'm a huge proponent of due process. In fact, worked really hard with the FOP last year on a bill, trying to get that, that now is advancing with, um, Representative Gwynn. This, this session. Um, I think most of us are, are very, um, supportive of due process and wanna ensure that officers have it, especially because of the line of work that they do and how important that is. So the question I had is with this particular bill, um, what percentage of your members would then qualify as these, the merit versus at-will employees? If this were to pass? I believe the question was asked yesterday. Um, how, how many, how many people would this affect?

Um, I don't know the answer to that. I don't know the number, but my answer to that one is too many. If I decided to become a lieutenant and I I worked in the, uh, I worked where this was applicable, I Would be chilled to apply to a, to be a lieutenant because I would not want to give him my due process.

Okay. Thank you. How many people? One, one is too many.

I do. My, my, my concerns relative to this bill, especially with the changes or it is too vague and ambiguous. I, I I can essentially take the verbiage that has now been proposed to you in number two and apply it to all sorts of individuals, not just lieutenants and above. I'm sure I could find a way to bring it down to sergeants. Okay. The concern is these individuals, my brothers and sisters day in and day out are fighting for you. They deal with the worst of the worst. So to take away something, this thread of due process that gives them comfort at night, knowing that they, they cannot have their job taken without going through the process. That is the concern. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony And I stand for any questions.

Chair, representatives. I appreciate it. My name is Edwin Milo. I am currently a sergeant for the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office and am the president of the Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Association. This bill directly affects US American Commission is something that we don't take lightly. It is something that has been not given to us, but fought for at this point in time with the verbiage that has been instructed in the first half, that that implies to our lieutenants, which are this side of first line supervisors and support of the lines level supervisors or line level deputies and road officers. That is not something that is taken lightly. It's something that's treasured and it's something that, uh, should be looking at very carefully. I understand that the second bill or the second iteration of that has changed some of that language. It would be appropriate or better to find, to have that be more specific as not as broad. Right. As, as the former speaker just said, I, I'm currently a sergeant. I can't test to be a lieutenant. I would like to be a lieutenant, but if a lieutenant now to be in a disagreement with anybody in my chain of command and can be let go at any moment because I'm trying to fight for what would, in my eyes be the public's s and not the administrations. I now look at it and have no support or rebound to be able to dispute what I am let go for. So I would ask you to please look at it, thank you for your time, and consider it carefully on how it's presented. Thank you very much for your comments and for being here today.

Chair. May I make a comment?

So I appreciate everyone's testimony today and I too come with unique perspective in that I myself am appointed now. Now the sheriff being elected, I think should have the ability to have some command staff that are at will. The sheriff is elected to carry out those duties and if they have command staff that are obstructive whatnot, they should have the ability to let those go who aren't in line with the mission that they're trying to serve at, at the request of their, uh, constituents. I myself am at will. My command staff are merit. So I'm constantly in my own head wondering whether or not that should continue to be a problem or if they should be at will. I may or may not have captains that sometimes agree with what I'm doing or they may disagree with what I'm doing. If they disagree with what I'm doing, then they too have the ability to be obstructive. They may not commit policy violations, they may not break the law, but that still gives me the ability as administrator to make sure that I am carrying out the mission of the police department as our city council would see fit. Now, the inverse of that is everybody in the legislature knows for the last six years I have been an ardent defender of the merit system and the employees in that system. I do not believe that all employees should be merit appointed and elected administrators have a job to do. They have to rely on their command staff to carry out that mission. And I think that's where the lines maybe get brighter. Arguably still blurry. Now to this particular bill, I have spoken with Sheriff Arvin considerably over the last few years. Ideologically, uh, you know, we disagree on whether line staff should be merit. I believe line staff should be merit. He did negotiate in good faith, which is why we have the bill back today. I am fine with the bill. The, the sheriffs have the option to make this decision. We have set out that merit or first line supervisors are protected. I do have to admit, however, and I don't know that we can overcome this. Yes, sheriffs have the option by a certain date to make this decision, but that holds other sheriffs to the current sheriff's position in perpetuity. The other option is, is that we just say we don't have that option. The elected sheriff can make that decision when they get elected, but then employees are running the risk of being merit or at will and having that change every election cycle. I don't think that to be appropriate either. I don't know what the solution is. I thank Sheriff Arvin for working with me. I do think maybe we could work on some language as it relates to, you know, what is command staff who, our command staff, again, we can discuss that language. My issue wasn't that, my issue was holding future sheriffs accountable for a decision that's made in the next six months. The inverse that people's employment status is changing every election cycle. I don't know that we can solve that problem. I just wanted to make those comments.

This is, I guess this is just another clarifying question to the sponsor.

Go ahead. So the structure is in the bill is that before July 1st, 2026, each sheriff's office and with the sheriff currently in office during those months makes a one time decision that is then irrevocable going forward for the long term. Yeah. So right now we're all the counties are set by code where they have to be. And so we're just saying let the counties right size it at least once and then keep it from changing every election. And so, uh, it's, it's not perfect either way, but I think this is probably the fairest way to get there.

Okay. So this is a one time decision now, and then after July, so this bill actually wouldn't make any additional changes after July 1st, 2026 then? 'cause then those decisions would've have to have been made in those four months.

Right. And each of the county sheriffs, they don't have to make changes if they don't want to. They can leave it the way it is. They have the choice. They can take that level down or up, you know, they can take it to the level they want down to three, but no more than the, so if they've got a flat leadership, they can't take it lower than the, um, the line. The, um, how do we name that? The frontline Supervisor. Supervisor. So they can, they can never include a frontline supervisor. Right. So it gives 'em flexibility, but there's some protection there. What, where that should be. Okay.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I move that we adopt the second substitute to house bill 3 35. The motion is to adopt second substitute house bill 3 35. Would you like to speak to your motion? I'll waive discussion to the motion Representative Christofferson for on the same I'll waive Representative Walter a waive place the motion to adopt second substitute house bill 3 35.

Representative Walter, I'll continue. I move the recommend favorably house bill 3 35 second substitute. The motion is to recommend favorable house Bill 3 35.

Christofferson, I just have a couple of comments. I appreciate your work on this. It's a little messy, I would say, but I appreciate your efforts. I like the part where there's a one-time election so the employees know what they're in for. You know, it's not gonna change your year. I think that'd be horrible. And I like the flexibility. But if you're an employee and every year you might be married at that will, depending who the sheriff is, that I don't see how that works. So I like that part. The part I struggle with is, is the sheriff that's making the decision, you know, which is like the executive. Okay. And we say, well, each sheriff can decide, but he or she could decide to implement this. And the employees were just stuck with that. My other concern is if I'm a, a sergeant and I'm merit and if I go to lieutenant at will, rather than just saying I want that additional responsibility and I want to progress with my career or not, I've gotta make that decision. Am I willing to be an at will employee? So I, I struggle. I appreciate your tears and all the efforts you you've done on this since yesterday. Thank you. I I still struggle with that, but the motion is to recommend favorably.

Yeah. Thank you. So, um, yeah, it's, it is a little messy. It's, uh, we're trying to find a balance there. Um, the, um, I I think that where right now, you know, the legislature has kind of locked it in and nobody has a choice that we're trying to be sympathetic to the different organization organizational structures that, uh, each of the, um, uh, each of the, uh, counties have. But, uh, And, and, and when, when someone who is like a sergeant, if they're promoted to a lieutenant, uh, if, if that's an at will position, uh, there is language in here that they possibly look at giving an incentive to do that so that they, uh, have an increased, uh, pay. And usually when they get a promotion, they do anyway, but, but if they're, if they go back for some reason in the department, uh, then they can go back to the merit system as well. But yeah, you're right. It's not perfect. We're just trying to, uh, thread the needle here, but we'll see where it goes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I recognize there's a lot of effort here. I appreciate all the, uh, statements for and against. Um, I'm not sure, uh, I don't think I'm the right person to determine for sure if we have the right policy, but I think we've trying very hard to get to the right policy. And I'm supportive of continue to try to move forward, uh, with the legislation and, uh, engage as many voices along the way as possible. So that's why I made the recommendation to, uh, uh, recommend the made, the, made the motion rather to recommend favorably. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, committee for your endurance. Appreciate it.

Representative Ward. Thank you Mr. Chair. I would like to make a motion to adjourn.

Thank you Chairs and Committee. Appreciate this. Uh, uh, with me, I have, uh, sheriff Ryan Arvin from Weber County. He's the Weber County Sheriff, and he'll be presenting a little bit later, uh, with me. But, uh, this is gonna, I'm presenting the first sub. And, uh, just to give you a little bit of background. So this, this only pertains to sheriff's departments, not, uh, city police, uh, agencies or municipalities or other, uh, law enforcement officers. So what what this does is, so there's a hierarchy in the, uh, in, in the leadership of sheriff's departments, and it gets a little confusing. So there's, there's the sheriff who's the top, then there's an undersheriff or a chief deputy, and then a chief and a major commander, captain, lieutenant, sergeant corporal, and the deputy who's an, uh, also called an officer. So there's quite a hierarchy there. And, um, um, what this, I'll just tell you what the bill does, and then Sheriff Arvin can kind of explain how it came about. But, uh, so each of the sheriff's departments have a little bit of difference in that hierarchy. And right now, the sheriff, the chief deputy, and the chief are, um, are exempt to the merit system. And what this bill does is just say, we want to, in some areas, in some counties, they want to go a little bit lower. They wanna include the major commander, the captain, and the lieutenant, and, uh, as merit exempt or career service exempt. And this, um, the bill's a little bit long because it does the same thing in three different sections. There's the countywide career service co code, there's the counties of the second through the sixth class, and then there's the counties, uh, counties of the first class. And so it just kinda repeats that language. Also, there's two or three parts in here where they've, where, um, the section has been, uh, removed and, uh, and re uh, enacted just so that it cleans up language. So there's a lot of it that in this section, it hasn't been, uh, worked on for several years. And so the drafters wanted to update language. So basically the bill allows the sheriffs, um, starting July 1st, 2026, or by that time to decide if they wanna keep the merit system the same in their county, or if they want to extend that, uh, down to the level that I just explained to, uh, uh, Lieutenant. And once they decide that, then, then if someone, um, on a, who is part of the merit system, um, wants, wants to accept a, um, position that's higher, uh, then they could either one of two things. They could either just say, yeah, I'm gonna, uh, forego become, uh, career service exempt. Or they could say, uh, or the county could say, we want to, uh, incentivize you to become career service exempt. And, uh, if they are in that position, and then later on for some reason, take a position that's lower, they can then become, uh, get their career service status. And, uh, so that's, it's optional. It provides some incentives and it, uh, uh, you know, they can change around, uh, depending on the duties that they're called upon to do. And so I'm gonna have Sheriff Arban just explain a little bit about the background of this,

Right. Uh, chair and vice Chair and members, thank you for your time and listening to me, uh, share some of the, some notes that I've prepared. My name is Ryan Armond, sheriff of Weber County House Bill 3 3 5 strengthens accountability and operational effectiveness in Utah Sheriff's while preserving core merit protections for rank and file deputies. This bill clarifies that law enforcement's officers serving in positions with the rank of lieutenant or higher are exempt from county merit systems. Deputies and sergeants remain protected under merit. Why this matters? Sheriffs are elected constitutional officers accountable directly to the public command level. Leaders implement policy, manage risk and shape agency culture. Leadership must be aligned with the elected sheriff's direction to ensure public accountability. Merit systems are designed to protect employees from political influence and arbitrary discipline. That protection remains intact for the lion officers. However, command staff serve, excuse me. However, command staff serve a fundamentally different role. They are executive leaders responsible for carrying out the sheriff's vision and policy. What it does ensure is it clears executive accountability. Greater operational flexibility reduces administrative delay in leadership decisions, stronger alignment between voters expectations and agency leadership. This, uh, bill was discussed amongst the Sheriff's Association. Uh, I can tell you that, uh, uh, many of the sheriffs with smaller counties, the merit system is not, uh, does not, is not in use there. But the larger counties, there was a couple of concerns. One of 'em was that, uh, that they wanted to have the ability to make the decision from the cells to, to explain what is command level. Most of the sheriffs have a different rank structure for my office, the command level starts at Lieutenant other offices. It does not. And so it allows the sheriff to define what is command level. And the other, uh, concern that the sheriff's has is that they could have the option to do this or not. And so we implemented those, uh, in, in the bill. This bill does not eliminate par merit protections for deputies and sergeants. It does not remove due process for those who currently hold merit status. It carefully balances stability with necessary leadership authority. Utah Sheriffs must be able to lead their organizations effectively, responsibly and aligned with the voters who elected them. House Bill 3, 3, 5 supports, uh, that principle while maintaining fairness with the rank and file officers. That's all I have to share. Thank you for Your time. That ends our presentation, so we'll accept any questions?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for the presentation. I am not familiar with Merit status. Can you explain that to me, please?

You wanna explain it? I can. So, so, uh, the, the Merit system is, uh, a system that protects employees from political changes. Uh, and, uh, a career exempt or a merit exempt system is where you're, you become an at will employee. That just means that, um, you know, your, your employment depends on your performance and usually in leadership positions, uh, that's the preferred way because your, your loyalty is to the, uh, administration, to the, uh, leadership in the, in, in the organization, and not to the career service, uh, commission. So it, it, it's, it's just trying to balance that line.

Thank you. Mad Chair. Hey, Uh, thank you. I I do have a question. So the decision has to be made before July 1st of this year.

Can, can they change that decision at any point in time in the future, or is it just before July 1st of this year? It just sets it so they, they have a line that they can, so they're not wondering what's gonna happen and jumping around. So it just kinda sets that, so they, they have a shot at making that adjustment and then it secures that.

Okay. I mean, I guess we could look at that or have it changed in the future, but we haven't addressed that.

Thank you Madam Chair. I'm representing the Utah Public Employees Association, of which we have a few county employees, uh, as members. Um, Can you, can you please state your Name? Yes. My name is Corey Holdaway. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, there's a very good reason that we have, uh, um, career service protections for employees. Um, there are very few positions in public employment that may be more important or more challenging than public safety. With that said, officers are sometimes placed in situations that have potential political backlash. Should they be required to, uh, to enforce the law against, uh, uh, fellow officers or, or political, uh, uh, elected officials. Um, historically career service protections were put in place to avoid political backlash and unfair dismissal of career employees, particularly those employed in public safety. In fact, that's the way the merit system was, was created. It was to protect those employees. Career service protections are in place to create a process for dismissal for cause. Passage of this bill would eliminate the necessary protections for certain officers, making them at will. Public safety officers are different with regard to orders being given and necessary to be followed. And if not followed, there is a process to deal with that, to hold these officers accountable. This policy proposal circumvents that process. For that reason, we ask you to reject this proposal. Thank you. And I'm happy to answer any questions if there are any, Uh, Representative Ward,

Sometimes it's a little bit hard for me to just get the scale of the changes that are being proposed. So I don't know if the question is for the witness or for the sponsor of the total number of officers that we have throughout the state, would this proposal affect 30%? 1%? Is it a tiny number that are on the fence? Uh, it's a small amount because what it there? So there's 29 counties, uh, maybe 30 or something, uh, depending on that, based on that previous discussion, there's 29 counties and this rep represents, it could change the major commander, the captain and lieutenant. But this is optional. So the sheriffs can leave it like it is, or depending on their structure, they can adjust that to, to lieutenant. So, uh, not that many. Does a witness wanna make a comment to that? I'm not saying You, I'm not sure what the number is.

And Corey, why are you going down to lieutenants? So I'm thinking of the lieutenants that I interact with and, and they often seem like more lying workers, you know, they, and maybe they should be still be protected. Have you thought about going down to captain and not lieutenant?

Um, I mean, we could do that. Uh, we just, I know that some counties are bigger and they have more of that structure, and so, uh, in sheriff ban's, uh, area, he was thinking that ca that a lieutenant would be the appropriate place. And that's why we picked that. But I think we could do it somewhere in between. So

I work with the folks at Salt Lake County Jail, and I'm just thinking, I think probably lieutenants may need to be, have that merit protection. Uh, I do see you get captain and above. I see. It makes sense. I'm just struggling a little bit with lieutenant. Thanks.

Yeah. Well, we'd be flexible there.

Thank you. Um, just a question around possible fiscal or, or legal risks. I mean, any, any time we, um, seek to remove or limit or amend, um, rights to appeal, um, are we opening perhaps any litigation risk in this case?

May I get a response to my question?

Thank you. It's a good question. Uh, discussion with the sheriffs was that very, uh, issue that you just raised? Um, and I wanna be careful not to speak too much for the other sheriffs, but I know that for my office, I don't have captains. I don't have majors. We have, uh, there's the sheriff, there's, uh, deputy chiefs and lieutenants. That's what we view as our command structure. Now I know if you go to Salt Lake, it's much more robust, but in this is we have the opportunity to define each, each sheriff what our command structure level is. So the, the lieutenant came in is, is what was, would apply to my office, if

That helps. Okay. So if I just wanna clarify. So in Salt Lake County, could they say captain and above?

Yes. Okay, thank you.

That's important because I'm thinking, you know, we've got a sheriff, an undersheriff, a chief deputy, a deputy chief captains, lieutenants, um, all over the place. Well, my lieutenants do a lot of the roles of the, the captains and the assistant chiefs, if you will. Okay. As long as, and I think you mentioned that in your presentation, as long as each sheriff can decide, and that's good answer.

Representative Ward, you asked about the number. I can tell you that my office roughly when fully staffed were about 300 and 320 sworn. And it would affect, uh, 15.

I'm happy for you, but I just wanna point out that you have a different structure than some of the other counties. That's Yes. You have much more lower level and not as many upper Level. Right. And that's

what made this such a challenge is, is where it gave us the sheriffs the opportunity to find what is command each one. Because it is different. Yes.

Thank you. I don't know how we would, I just had a commented question 'cause I agree with the chair and I've, I've had these discussions at length with Sheriff Arvin, so I appreciate him not including line staff, but where certain sheriff's agencies, uh, their command structure varies from agency to agency. I would, in agreeing with chair dunnigan, I would like to see some kinda language that says, look, we're only gonna change this status to at will for those positions that are maybe one or two degrees separated from the elected sheriff. Then it doesn't matter what you call 'em, we just know if you're one or two degrees from the elected sheriff your merit or your at will. Does that make sense? I don't know how we would word that, but that's something I would like to see.

Thank you Madam Chair. Um, I move that we adopt the, is it the first substitute? I'm just pulling it up right now. Yeah. First substitute, I move that we adopt the first substitute to, uh, house Bill four 40, excuse me. 4 3 35 County Employment amendments.

Sure. And I guess this is discussion be before action. So I, I agree with, to me also, it would be important that we had it, that we either moved it to captain or had it with within one degree of the sheriff. So we really weren't catching midline folks. So to me the question is do we move, do we hold this and do that? It's the next committee. Do, uh, I don't know, uh, the discretion of the chair. If you have a comment on what you would like to do one way or the other, that is a change. I also would like to see made to be supportive.

Y yes. Chair Dungan. So I think reps m Gwen raises a fair point. Y you are compacted, you know? Right. You're like here. And so what's your pleasure? Do you think you have a way that you could meet Representative Gwynn's request? At least there's someone on the committee that would like to see that. Do you understand what he was asking for? I do. You look like you have heartburn, so,

Well, it candidly, it, it just, it comes to a, every sheriff's office is different. Yeah. And so he says one to two. Realistically, I would love to eventually move into captains and have some, you know, as, as our county grows, like every other county we're growing currently right now, for me, it makes sense to be a lieutenant for lieutenant level, which could be three levels, but it still protects the line staff. Uh, our, we consider line staff and the first line supervisors up to sergeant. Uh, some lieutenants have more of a role with line than others, but at my office they don't. And that is where we, we feel like the line should be created because that is command staff. That is the, the, the As as I stated in my words earlier, that's for us is where it's at. But if we're a really large a, uh, organization, two levels could make sense. But it doesn't for me create the, uh, solve the issue that we're looking for, if that makes sense. I don't know if that helps you represent Ward, but I, I'd like to know for sure in what way it's gonna be resolved before voting to, for the bill that, I guess that's just kind of my line at this moment.

Well, uh, I'm wondering if, uh, we could get with Representative Gwynn and just work out some language that that works with him and, and give some flexibility, but still accomplishes what, uh, uh, sheriff Arban needs and, you know, uh, so whatever you'd like to do there.

Um, if I'm hired by your department or anywhere in the state, I have expectations that I'm hired. We, we Do have openings. Thank you. My age might get me there. That said, I think they have expectations when they're hired and whatever that current currently was at the time, this would make a change on some people, probably against their will speak to that.

So in the bill it just says those who are already there have a choice. So they don't have to change if, if, if they're, uh, if they're now a major commander, they don't have to change that. It's just new people that's coming in that doesn't have that expectation.

I got that part. But if I'm, if I'm promoted, then I lose that option.

Yeah. And once you move to a different level, then you're, I I still think it applies. I, Right. Yeah. If you're promoted, then you lose that unless, uh, you know, uh, and there could, could be incentive to that the counties can give to make that happen.

That's just some heartburn I have with the bill. Thank you.

Well, I, I'll make a motion to move to the next item on the agenda and I'll,

Sure. At least in our brief discussion here, it doesn't sound like we can easily know what change we want, but it sounds that there are some that wanna change. So I, I'm happy to see the bill again and if that gets sorted, I, I would be supportive of the bill, but I guess that's my motion for now.

Uh, yeah, I think that's a fair motion. There's some discussion here we could probably implement and if we could get back on in a hurry, we'd be glad to do that.

So I support that motion. We have a committee meeting tomorrow afternoon, so if you wanna work on it, I'd say suggest get together. I understand what you're saying and I'm sensitive to that. Maybe get together, Representative Gwynn work something out. You can be back on tomorrow afternoon. Great, thank you very much.