Is now called to order.

The date is September 9, 2025, and the time is 5 30 p.m.

At this time, Board of Members, are there any preliminary items from the agenda that you would like to discuss tonight before we start into our work session?

Okay.

I'll so see.

And Miss Mr.

Davis is willing to wait.

He sits down.

Nothing for you.

All right, y'all.

Well, let's let's keep moving.

All right.

So we're gonna move on to item three of our agenda.

Um at this time, I want to is Marlon ready.

Are you guys ready yet?

Or you want to wait for um you want to Okay.

Okay, all right.

So I'm I'll move on and go to this um to number two.

And the number two is record recommend reconsideration and of resolution 2016 176.

DC UO Landry Markison.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chairs, members of the board.

Um, I'm bringing before you tonight a request and a presentation for reconsideration of resolution 2016-176.

Um, I did put this together in consultation with our leadership as kind of some of their thoughts and and ideas that have come out of our work through the shift, and then um also in working with um our human resources division.

Um, and just for general context, so ordinance 2016-176 was an ordinance that was passed in December of 2016 that effectively from that date forward removed department leadership from civil service protection.

So that's kind of that the genesis of that, and we're gonna run through kind of the creation of that and some of the things that that we've discussed, um, and then of course open it up for discussion, and I will move relatively quickly.

Um so brief history of civil service.

So the creation of the act, so Georgia voters ratified a local constitutional amendment in 1963 that authorized the General Assembly to create a civil service system for Clayton County, covering county paid employees but not elected official.

The General Assembly then enacted the Clayton County Civil Service System in 1963.

Um the act was amended.

The legislature repealed the 1963 act in its entirety and replaced it with a comprehensive new law in 1994.

This established a civil service system of personnel administration that would be known as the Clayton County Civil Service System.

The 1994 Act put most of the county positions under civil service, excluded county or excluded elected officials from coverage, confirmed that the sheriff's office employees, but not the sheriff, were covered, and required that covered employees may be removed only for calls under the applicable provisions of the civil service rules.

Um in 2005 that rule was challenged shortly after assuming the office of the sheriff in Clayton County in January of 2005.

Sheriff Hill sent notices to 27 employees announcing their termination that basically advised that they were not entitled to the protections of the Civil Service Act.

Um as previously passed in 1994.

Two of the discharged employees brought a petition for declaratory judgment, an injunctive release asserting that they are subject to the 94 Act, which affords them due process and prohibits termination without just cause.

The trial court agreed that employees of the Clayton County Sheriff's Office are covered by the 94 Act and granted summary judgment in their favor.

Um the sheriff appealed, asserting that the trial court's ruling was erroneous on several aspects.

Um Hill asserted that a certain resolution adopted by the board in 1965 to implement the 1963 act violated the home rule provision of the act and said that that uh that act did not extend to an action affecting any elective office or the personnel thereof.

Uh the Georgia Supreme Court in February of 2006 ruled that under the 63 Act, any department of Clayton County could be brought under civil service by a vote of more than 50% of its employees.

The resolution in question showed that the Clayton County Sheriff's Office voted for coverage, and as previously noted the 1963 act was expressly repealed by the 94 Act.

Thus we find the resolution in question had no applicability.

So at the end of the day, it was ruled that the Sheriff's Office employees did stay within the Act.

Um their rulings specifically said the General Assembly specifically authorized Clayton County via an unambiguous 1963 constitutional amendment as extended in 1986 to enact the civil service system.

The 1994 Act properly included all positions within the office of the sheriff as required, and therefore that ruling held.

So we get to resolution 2016-176, as I just discussed, was a resolution that was passed by the board under the Home Rule Act to remove and to exempt department directors and department heads from the civil service system and to provide an effective date of this ordinance and for other purposes.

And that was done by deleting subsection C in its entirety and replacing with the following.

That resolution was further amended and by House Bill 879 in the 2001-2002 session, which deleted that section and replaced it in its entirety with predominantly the exact same language, with the exception that this added investigators and attorneys within the office of the Solicitor General were now also exempted from civil service.

So that brings us to today and what what the ask is of myself and leadership.

So excluding department heads, so this is kind of the impact of the previous actions.

Excluding department heads from civil service protection.

While it increases political flexibility and alignment, it also introduced risk of instability, weakened succession pipelines in a workplace culture, more focused on political survival than professional development.

Over time, this can undermine organizational resilience and effectiveness.

So we kind of took that and broke it down and looked at a lot of other resolutions and other civil service acts across the country and looked at some pros and cons that's been published from both local, state, and federal civil service policies.

We are aware that the Civil Service Reform Act as passed really applies to federal workers.

However, a lot of the recommendations and requirements have been adopted by lower lower bodies at the local and state levels.

So under succession planning, short-term flexibility, political leaders, political leaders do gain more discretion in appointing and replacing department heads, allowing them to align leadership quickly with new priorities.

Weaken internal pipelines if department heads know their rules are politically vulnerable, they may invest less in mentoring or grooming successors and weakening leadership continuity.

Discourage talent development, ambitious mid-level managers may avoid aspiring top roles if those positions are viewed as precarious, reducing the effectiveness of leadership pipelines.