The Johnson County West Courthhouse Annex
File photo
Some county officials are still fighting for higher pay raises for their employees as the 2025 budget process nears completion.
The Johnson County Council held the second reading for the 2025 county budget on Sept. 12. Although most departments stuck with the recommended budget guidelines this time — including the 5% limit on employee raises — the county commissioners continued to advocate for stipends for two employees. The council also approved additional positions for a few departments.
The council approved Johnson County Veterans Affairs Director Seneca Harbin’s request for another full-time service officer to continue “being the best in the state.” He sought a new employee because the office is overwhelmed by the volume of requests it gets. Veterans from other counties often seek services here because word has spread that Johnson County is a good place to seek help.
Johnson County Recorder Teresa Petro was also approved to fill a position that she eliminated as a bargaining chip earlier in the budget process. She had hoped the council would allow her to give higher raises if the position was eliminated, but that turned out not to be the case.
At the beginning of the second reading, council member Pam Burton spoke about the 5% increase limit, asking department heads to keep the discussion amicable.
“I found some aspects of behavior during the first reading budget process this year to be less than appealing,” Burton said. “Some behaviors appeared confrontational, however, the majority did adhere to the guidelines and contributed positively as requested. Our goal has always been to treat everyone impartially, transparently and with fairness and we do expect the same in return.”
Commissioner Ron West continued to advocate for $10,000 stipends for two employees, the county coordinator and the assistant county attorney, who he said do work beyond their job descriptions. For example, these employees perform human resources duties that are outside of their job description.
“Where our contention is (is) that these two individuals are providing a tremendous amount of service to the county which saves the county money … We’re able to meet those (HR) demands with these two individuals and save the county money,” West said.
West said the county coordinator is underpaid, noting that comparable counties pay $149,000 to $99,000. However, in Johnson County, the county coordinator makes approximately $78,000. West also brought up the Waggoner Irwin Scheele, or WIS, job description and pay study the council recently commissioned. West voted for the study but has reservations about it.
“Now we’ve talked a lot and I heard Mr. (council member John) Mallers say he doesn’t like comparisons but (with) Waggoner Irwin Scheele (the job study), what do you think they’re going to present you with?” West said. “They don’t establish salaries on any position, they do it through a comparable research of like positions and other officers, and that’s what you’re gonna get then.”
In the previous study by WIS, the county administrator’s job classification was put in the same category as the fleet director, assistant director of adult and child and juvenile assistant director. He said the county coordinator position should be in a higher classification, at least a bracket one step higher that aligns with the courts’ IT network administrator which this year will make over $90,000.
“You’re telling me that that position warrants almost $20,000 more than the county administrator? I couldn’t disagree more,” West said.
He also mentioned other departments like the prosecutor’s office and the unified courts have gotten pay increases in the past. He said a supplement was also given to Amy Thompson, the current first deputy auditor.
Burton said via email that salary supplemental line items for the prosecutor’s office have been around for many years and will continue in the 2025 budget, and some positions in the unified courts got a 7% pay increase, not a supplement. Last year, the council attempted to bring all like positions throughout the courts and public safety to equal pay but missed the court reporters, so the council agreed this year to increase the court reporter’s salaries to make them equal.
In reference to Thompson, Burton said via email that there is a line item in the council’s budget to hire and pay for secretarial services that was established by a previous council many years ago. Thompson has been secretary to the council and has been paid additional wages from this line item for many years, and Barb Davis, the current county coordinator, was in the position prior to Amy Thompson. It is not a supplement line item but a wage line item paid to an individual for additional council services, she said.
Burton believes the council established the wage item because, according to statute, the auditor must provide a secretary to do the minutes for the council. However, she said the secretary to the council does “much more work than minutes” for the council.
West also questioned how the department was granted three new prosecutors with an annual salary of an amount up to $124,000, which West said is higher than some other salaries listed in the prosecutor’s budget. West wondered aloud what the council would do if they were asked next year to bring all deputy prosecutors up to $124,000.
West also argued the role of assistant county attorney requires the same length of training and requirements as attorneys in the prosecutor’s office.
Burton said she and Mallers worked with the state with numbers that were provided, the recommendations they made, and percentages based on the crime. She said there was a lot of research behind the decision to add three new prosecutors and three new paralegals.
West also discussed the timing of the request. If the commissioners had to wait until after the job study, West said it would put them behind for budget hearings next year, making them wait two years to “see them properly compensated.” The council members said they believe the study will be done earlier than the projected six to eight months from December, when the company is slated to start the study.
One option, brought up by council member Melinda Griesemer, was whether the commissioners would alter their budget after the job study results came back. However, Burton argued that every department would have the right to do the same and would say “I’ll give it back next year if it doesn’t meet (the results of the study).”
The council members again voted as a united front aside from council member Jonathan T. Myers, who was in favor of giving the stipends. The stipends were rejected because the council wanted to stick to a 5% limit on pay raises for county employees. Burton said this limit was made to correct past councils’ decisions to apply raises unequally.
Myers motioned to approve the budget at the second reading with the $10,000 stipends instead of the 5% increases for the two positions but it failed for lack of a second. With Mallers’ motion, the council opted to approve the budget with the 5% raises for the two employees instead of the stipends with only Myers opposed.
The commissioners may consider using state statute IC 36-2-2-30E, Sec. 30(a) which states that “an executive may employ and fix the compensation of an attorney to represent and advise the executive” to alter the assistant county attorney’s pay.
West said the commissioners don’t desire to use the statute and would rather have the council establish the salary but the commissioners will exercise their right if necessary, he said via email.
