Browse
Search
Agenda - 12-16-1986
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1986
>
Agenda - 12-16-1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2016 2:01:37 PM
Creation date
9/27/2016 10:56:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/16/1986
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
163
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
- <br /> • <br /> 007 <br /> 3- <br /> Under this approach, agreement could be reached through which proceeds <br /> for a given period and amount would be allowed to accumulate to pay <br /> for specific improvements. The fund could not be used for purposes <br /> other than that designated. In addition, a statewide fund should be <br /> created to be distributed through matching grants to those counties <br /> where funds for improvement cannot be generated. <br /> Salaries <br /> From data presented to the Task Force, we learned that register of <br /> deeds salaries and benefits vary greatly and that in many instances <br /> the register of deeds is paid substantially less than his/her <br /> associates in other areas of county government. Registers of deeds <br /> argue that higher salaries are needed to attract more qualified people <br /> to run for office and remain there in a career status. However, we <br /> also learned that in many instances, there has been little <br /> communication between registers of deeds and their county <br /> commissioners about professional needs of the office. <br /> Salaries for positions within county government vary across the state <br /> for a variety of reasons. To determine a fair salary for the register <br /> of deeds is particularly difficult because that office is outside the <br /> county government structure and because the selection process is <br /> independent of normal county standards and qualifications. If the <br /> ultimate goal in raising salaries is to attract more qualified people <br /> and give them career status, making the office subject to merit <br /> selection within the county structure seems to be a more viable <br /> solution than placing the office under State administrative control. <br /> Under merit system status, registers of deeds and their staffs would <br /> be covered by established personnel ordinances and salary plan <br /> protections prescribed by law. They could request reclassification <br /> consideration and appeal grievances to the county manager, personnel <br /> committee, or civil court for remedies to any abuse. By having <br /> department head status, they would be eligible to have their jobs and <br /> salaries periodically studied. Such studies take into account level <br /> of responsibility, number of people supervised, workload size and <br /> difficulty, education and experience required, and comparable salaries <br /> in other departments and in the private sector. Making the job <br /> appointive under the council-manager plan of government would remove <br /> it from the political arena and enhance teamwork and professionalism <br /> among the register of deeds and his/her peers and the county manager. <br /> An added advantage for some registers of deeds is that he/she would <br /> not be confined to one county for employment opportunity. There could <br /> be mobility by moving to different counties over the span of one' s <br /> public service career as other department heads now do. <br /> We conclude that the main stumbling blocks to resolution of these <br /> concerns have been the absence of a coordinated effort to provide <br /> technical and professional guidelines, nonenforcement of existing <br /> legal requirements, and lack of communication between registers of <br /> deeds and county commissioners. We believe that if these two groups <br /> work together toward implementation of the first nine recommendations <br /> of the Task Force on a planned schedule, the final recommendation to <br /> completely reorganize the office might not be necessary. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.