Opinion : Build a Bridge and Get over it

"Build a Bridge and get over it" was the line used by Supervisor Rick Primmer in a campaign letter in support of the former Benton County Attorney, David Thompson. Quoting a line he said that came from his own father, Primmer addressed what he thought were reasons that people had for not wanting to vote for former County Attorney David Thompson...oh and also the lone supervisor who welcomed huge campaign signs on his property in support of Thompson.

Ironically, it appears that this might be good advice.

In the regular Tuesday morning meeting of the Benton County Board of Supervisors, the newly elected Benton County Attorney Ray Lough, presented a candidate to the board as a new hire. The duty of the Supervisors is to set a wage for the new hire. That is all. The county attorney doesn't ask, "Hey, do you guys approve of Candidate A or should we go with Candidate B?" All the county attorney says is, "We've hired this candidate and now we need you to set a wage."

Iowa code 331.904 (Concerning duties dealing with the County Attorney's Office)

4.  The board (referring to the county board of supervisors) shall determine the compensation of extra help and clerks appointed by the principal county officers. (aka the county attorney)

5.  The deputy officers, assistants, clerks, and other employees of the county are also entitled to reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties.

In the past, then County Attorney David Thompson informed the board of hirings and they were approved in one swoop. I remember the grumblings by supervisors about the worth of a candidate and the qualifications, but approval was given. We have a different set of players, the only difference is the county attorney and his hire.

At this week's meeting, an appointment made by the County Attorney was on the agenda. A position in the collection department was vacated by someone described by Primmer as a "former attorney." Benton County Attorney Ray Lough presented the new hire to the board for approval. He noted that the same contract used for the last hire three years ago for an office appointee was being used. 

The position only brought in four applicants Lough said and he had interviewed two of them. The potential hire has two years of paralegal experience and is familiar with the electronic system used by the courts, and a year and a half of customer service work which Lough explained is important as well in this line of work. While Lough said that she's young, she's experienced for someone her age and brings all of the personality traits that are wanted in this position. Lough also stated that the new hire would start $11,000 below her predecessor. Lough had convinced the applicant to turn down another job offer, and the new hire was set to begin work on Tuesday.

Had the board made its approval of the hire she would have started on Tuesday as a paid employee. Instead, the applicant ended up volunteering on Tuesday, and it would appear, again on Wednesday, and at this rate until the next closed session which the supervisors requested along with HR to be in attendance.

A motion was made to approve the hiring and Primmer said that he would not make a second. At that point, no one else moved the motion forward.

'You let a man go that was an attorney?" he asked Lough. "So we're hiring someone that's 20 years old?" Primmer continued. The applicant responded that she was 19. "I don't know many 19-year-olds without a degree, that started out at $40,000 a year," Primmer concluded.

Remember, we JUST hired someone an awful lot like this gal. Only this guy was around 22, a grandson of Primmer and he beat out a guy in his 50s who had been with the county for much longer than a mere 9 years, had more experience on the job, he was college educated AND a veteran. 

In THAT case, neither age, college experience, work experience and not even military service mattered over the appointment of a grandson. In violation of the Benton County Handbook and Iowa law.

Thus, lawsuit number one for the county.

In Tuesday's meeting Primmer now wants experience in our county. Giving a 19-year-old a $40,000 wage he believes is too much.

The county awarded $56,000 to a 22-year-old, AND put him in charge of a whole department that bought a vehicle, and equipment, hired more people all on our dime, and we didn't even bat an eye.

It seems like the lady applicant is on par for $40,000 at 19. So I ask. the following.

1) Will she sue the county over age discrimination since it was addressed in the meeting by the supervisors?

2) Was it sex discrimination because she's a woman?

3) Is it a lack of the correct DNA that disqualified her?

It appears that we could be on course for yet another lawsuit. Call it a hiring bonus.

Primmer kept going. "We're looking at someone who is replacing an attorney? I don't think this is correct. I'm not in favor of it. Nothing against you young lady, don't know you. And it's nothing against Ray. Nothing against Deb either (motioning to the other employee from the office.) So the world knows, I don't know how you replace an attorney with a 19-year-old. "

Lough said, "I am looking at productivity over credentials."

Primmer said, "A man that had been there for 9 years?"

After butting heads a bit more, the two agreed that they should go into a closed session.

Iowa Admin, code r. 161-8.15, Age discrimination in employment.

(1) Any person who has reached 18 years of age may not be excluded from an employment right because of an arbitrary age limitation and shall be an aggrieved party for the purposes of Iowa Code section 216.15, regardless of whether the person is excluded by reason of excessive age or insufficient age, and shall possess all the rights and remedies for discrimination provided in section 216.15.

When a new attorney is elected, they can at their discretion replace their staff if they so choose. It's one of the perks of being elected.

But what attorney do you know, works for only $49,000 a year? I'm thinking none.  After doing a bit of research, this wasn't the case, the person they were referring to had not taken the bar exam, so was not an attorney.

In my opinion, the county shouldn't hire a 19 OR 22-year-old. But thanks to the law, if someone chooses to, if you are a Supevisor and dare to try to fight it, it is age discrimination by law.

I disagree with Primmer on the hiring of his grandson.

Now I KNOW the argument is going to be made that he didn't have anything "technically" to do with that. This is where we'll all nod and wink. We'll give a nod to the former county attorney for being on the hiring board/committee who selected the grandson OVER the Veteran. Then we'll wink and nod to the other two supervisors who fell in line and voted to appoint him. 

However, I agree with Primmer on this one. There is no 19-year-old that is worth $40,000 and I don't care how many flowery words you throw in describing them. Nope. That's not a wise decision.

So there you have it. I disagree with both the county attorney's selection as well as the supervisor's handling of the attorney's choice. 

Will a second lawsuit for age/sex/DNA discrimination be on the heels of the nepotism/breaking the state law for NOT hiring a Veteran? 

Firing up my microwave popcorn on this one.

But if there is anyone out there that has the bridge-building experience, that might be needed in the supervisor meetings, please apply. Then we'll need a guide to help the supervisors so that they can "get over it."

.