News : Nepotism policy: Marriage may result in county employee\'s termination

Kari and Josh Burkhart: Marrying daughter of fellow county employee may cost Josh his job.

Benton County Secondary Roads Department mechanic Joshua Burkhart may lose his job for an action that would not affect his employment in most other Iowa counties, but is specifically prohibited for Benton County employees: He married the daughter of another Secondary Roads Department employee.

Josh and Kari Burkhart, the daughter of Mike Benson, were married on Oct. 3, but unaware of the rule.

Benson is a grader operator who has worked for the county for 35 years; he works primarily in the county’s Urbana shed. Josh Burkhart has a mechanic in the county’s Vinton facility for 18 months.

Such a marriage is a violation of the Benton County employee nepotism policy, which states that “individuals who are related are not allowed to work in the same department.”

The policy – originally adopted for the 1993 employee manual and affirmed in the 2000 employee handbook – also states that an employee whose marriage creates a new family relationship within a county department must resign within 60 days or force the termination of the related employee within 60 days of the marriage.

On Nov. 4, Benton County Engineer Myron Parizek wrote a letter to Josh, informing him that his marriage “has created a violation of the Benton County Nepotism Policy.”

Parizek, while thanking Josh for “all the hard work you have done for Benton County,” informed him that under the nepotism policy, his employment would be terminated effective Dec. 2.

“Our hearts are crushed,” said Kari. “The people who are doing this don’t know that we had just secured a mortgage. They didn't know that we had been seeing several specialists for months to prep for pregnancy. They didn't know that we had fertility treatment set to begin this month. They didn't know that our 10-year-old has a significant cognitive disability that requires over 20 pills a day to control his seizures, or that we have been working to purchase him a therapy dog. Our realities have become a hell. I wouldn't wish this hurt on anyone. It's not just a job, it was our livelihood. Now, we're faced with a long road to the unknown.”

This is the first time since the implementation of the nepotism policy that a marriage activated the nepotism rule and led to a termination of a Benton County employee.

The issue was a topic of discussion at the Nov. 10 supervisors meeting; the supervisors will discuss the situation again at their next meeting, this Tuesday, Nov. 24, where an official vote to terminate Josh’s employment is expected.

While the supervisors are authorized to make an exception to the policy and allow Josh to keep his job, Parizek’s letter to Josh indicated that he had been told an exception is unlikely. Supervisor Terry Hertle said that since a grievance has been filed, he does not believe it is proper to comment at this time.

Josh, Kari and Mike all say they were unaware of the strict nature of the nepotism policy; they were aware of the Iowa law but not the more restrictive county rules.

“My husband and father report to different supervisors, work two different jobs within secondary roads,” Kari explains. “The state law that every other county follows does allow 1st-degree relatives to work together, but they may not have any authority over one another.”

The Burkharts say there have been other situations in recent years among county employees where spouses have worked in the same department. The couple is receiving help from union representatives as they appeal for an exception to the policy.

Kari said many people who work with Josh, who has been working for the county for a year and a half, knew when he got hired that he and Kari were dating and considering marriage.

“We announced our engagement in January 2015, says Kari. Just like every other engaged couple, we planned a wedding. We told everyone about it. It was no secret. Our wedding day came; several county employees attended. If we had been informed prior to our wedding that his employment would be terminated, we would have waited to marry, as my dad is nearing retirement.”

The termination letter arrived a month after the wedding.

While this is the first time the nepotism policy has resulted in a termination, it’s not the first time that the policy has been challenged.

Sheriff Randy Forsyth discussed the policy with the supervisors during a meeting in April of 2014 – the same month, coincidentally, that Josh was hired. He asked them to consider adopting the more permissive state guidelines.

“We discussed the fact that the County policy is more stringent that other counties’ policies and in the wording in the State Code with respect to nepotism,” Forsyth recalls. “We asked them to take a look at the County policy and make it more in line with the State Code. They agreed to take a look at it, but nothing was changed.”

The supervisors had begun reviewing the employee handbook before Josh’s case came before them, but have not expressed a desire to change the nepotism policy.

The “2013 New County Officers Manual” published by the Iowa State Association of Counties offers this assessment of the state nepotism law, which would allow Josh to work in the same department as his father-in law:

Nepotism Under Iowa Code chapter 71, it is unlawful for any elected or appointed county official to appoint a close relative as a “deputy, clerk, or helper,” if that close relative is to be paid from public funds, unless such appointment shall first be approved by the officer, board, council, or commission whose duty it is to approve the bond of the principal. For purposes of this law, close relatives means “any person related by consanguinity or affinity, within the third degree.”

The nepotism law does not prohibit the employment by county boards of persons who are related to one of the board members (Attorney General Opinion 1934, p. 382). The theory is that, in such cases, the entire board approves the appointment, so it is not as if one county official on his own was appointing the relative.

If one county official hires another, and then they get married and continue to work together, that is not a nepotism law violation. The law only prohibits someone from hiring a relative. In this case, they were already on the payroll when they became a relative. Under Iowa Code §71.1, the only exceptions are: if the job pays less than $600 a year; or if the appointment is approved in advance by the officer, board, council or commission whose duty it is to approve the bond of the principal official. Any appointment in violation of this law is null and void and the county official appointing such a person is liable for the salary paid to that person.

State law, according to that ISAC publication, “only prohibits someone from hiring a relative.”