Orange County NC Website
35 <br />Board, members of the Youth Service Needs Task Force and also to the <br />Commission :on the Status of Women. <br />Ttem 4: The Social Services Board has recommended position #523 <br />and #524, presently classified as Caseworker I, be reclassified as <br />Caseworker II. The agenda attachment stated that the pay grade for <br />a Caseworker I is 63 and the annual salary for each of these positions <br />is $9,528. Pay grade for a Caseworker II is 66 and the annual salary <br />is $10,872. The Board of Social Services has recommended these positions, <br />while vacant, be reclassified as Caseworker TI. <br />,. These positions have been filled prior to this time and State Per- <br />sonnel upon review while filled felt the work assigned to the persons in <br />these positions was responsible enough to warrant a Caseworker II classi- <br />fication. <br />These positions are two of the five new positions added to the <br />Social Services Depar,$ment about halfway through the last fiscal year. <br />At that time, the Board of Commissioners approved the addition of one <br />Caseworker II; three Caseworker I; and one Typist 1T to the staff of <br />the Social Services Agency. <br />When the Social Services Director fills these positions, he wishes <br />to continue the practice of assigning an unsupervised caseload to each <br />of these positions. These workers would then report directly to a <br />supervisor and not be under the close supervision of a Caseworker II. <br />These five new positions were added to help reduce the average <br />caseworker load within the department. At the time the Board of <br />Commissioners added these positions, Social Services Departments in <br />the State were under the threat of a federal Court Order that might <br />mandate the number of personnel in each agency. It was suggested that <br />ten additional personnel be added to cut thr active caseload of each <br />worker to a manageable level. <br />Upon motion of Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner <br />Gustaveson, it was moved and adapted to reclassify positions #523 and <br />#524 to Caseworker II in the Social Services Department. <br />The Chairman referred to Item #5 on the Agenda: The Manager <br />recommends adoption of a resolution, to be filed with State Personnel, <br />fixing the number of hours in the standard workweek for County Employees. <br />The agenda attachment stated that lately federal auditors have <br />taken exception to claims filed by County Social Services agencies <br />for salary reimbursement when they discovered the working hours in <br />some social services agencies were sometimes different from those in <br />other County Departments. To avoid any possible exposure to this situa- <br />tion, State Personnel has suggested each Board of County Commissioners <br />enact a resolution setting forth the standard workweek for all county <br />employees and filing a copy of this resolution with the Office of <br />State Personnel. <br />The County Manager suggested that the resolution read as follows: <br />"Commissioners moves that the standard workweek for all <br />County agencies, including the Department of Social Services, be <br />forty hours." <br />Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner <br />Willhoit, it was moved and adopted that the standard workweek far all <br />County agencies, including the Department of Social Services, be forty <br />hours. <br />Item #6: Will the Board of Commissioners enact a resolution re- <br />questing the State Department of Transportation add additional guard <br />railing to the bridge crossing University Lake? <br />The County Manager stated that he had talked with the District <br />Highway Engineer regarding this matter. Mr. Jones had advised the <br />County Manager that the Traffic Division had investigated this crossing <br />last summer and had suggested the guard railings be installed as they <br />presently are. Mr. Jones will review this question with the Division <br />Engineering and also request the Traffic Division to review its original <br />findings. The District Engineer is requesting the Board of Commissioners <br />enact a resolution requesting the Departmement of Transportation look <br />into the question of additional guardrailing at this bridge. <br />