Crawford County nixes leave time donation policy

The donation of leave time has caused a division between the Crawford County Quorum Court and some county staffers.

During the May 23 meeting of the Court, justices were asked to vote on an ordinance that would allow county employees to donate unused leave time to other staffers in need of additional time, whether for personal sickness or other issues.

"Under no circumstances shall an employee benefiting from such a donation or multiple donations from more than one other County employee, receive more than 30 days of donated time," the ordinance read.

Justice of the Peace James Lane, head of the court's personnel committee, was vocal in his opposition to the plan, which was eventually referred to the committee for further consideration.

Speaking Tuesday (May 28) to The City Wire, Lane said his opposition to the plan has nothing to do with disenfranchising county employees.

"If we could find some free money, some free days, then I'd be willing to look to get it to needy employees," he said. "And I don't know where that free money is."

Saying there is "no free lunch out there," Lane said it was not "prudent" for the Court to even consider such an idea.

"It wouldn't be prudent for us to establish another benefit in our economy," he said. "We just had to raise taxes and now we're going to create a benefit to eat that up?"

While Lane says passing an ordinance that would establish a "leave bank" would be providing another benefit, payroll clerk Tina McAlister said that was not true.

"We're not asking for anything more … we're just asking for what we had," she said.

According to McAlister, the county previously had a leave bank established where employees could donate unused sick time. It was not included in the new employee manual, which she said was implemented March 19, 2012.

Sheryl Couch, executive secretary for County Judge John Hall, said the actions of the Quorum Court were stripping county employees of the benefits they had worked hard to accrue.

"When they did the handbook, the Quorum Court agreed that they didn't want to take anything away from the employees," she said. "And this is taking something away from the employees."

Lane disputes Couch's statement, saying that a "firm policy" was not in place.

"They didn't have a firm policy of who was entitled to it and it wasn't applied equitably and I don't see how we can apply it equitably."

The policy, he said, was likely not spelled out in the old handbook.

"I think it was an old custom that had evolved," Land said. "We voted on this before we printed that new book and didn't include it on purpose and then we have had it brought up and voted on it since and it has no support on the Quorum Court."

McAlister said what she and other county workers are asking for does not hurt anyone, but instead it helps out co-workers in need.

That was another statement Lane disputed.

"Even though this thing sounds like a good deal, it is not a good deal and I have no interest in passing that unless someone finds some free money. Then I'm all for it," he said. "In your salary, let's say you make $12,000 a year and that's for X number of days and X number of hours. In that they give you ten days of vacation, they don't give you 12 months pay and 10 days paid."

Vacation days and sick days, he said, have cash value and giving it to other employees means the leave time would "have a cash value in excess of your salary."

"If you want to give away one of your vacation days, then you are going to come in and work for free that day or you're going to take off," he said.

While Lane is "passionate about what I believe," McAlister said there are county workers who need the ordinance to pass right now. (The ordinance included an emergency clause which would let it go into law immediately upon passage)

"We have a gentleman at the road department and he hasn't been here long enough to qualify for FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act), which all that does is guarantee him a position when he comes back," she said. "His wife has been diagnosed with uterine cancer. They don't have assistance from anyone else tog et her to and from doctors appointments. Therefore, this man has to be docked and his income is necessary for them to live and when we had it prior to the new handbook, we were able to help a lady that had cancer that worked in the treasurer's office, who's now deceased."

The policy, McAlister said, gets her fired up and just as passionate as the committee's chairman.

"All we're doing is trying to help another employee," she said. "It's not right."

Lane has yet to call the next meeting of the personnel committee.