Commissioners Deny Request From Sheriff

The county’s retirement benefit has changed but not in the way Sheriff Mike Jolley had requested.

Jolley had previously approached the commission requesting a change in the method county employees receive retirement benefits. He request would have the county revert back to pre-2009 when county employees could retire, begin drawing their retirement, and continue working for the county. He said this would apply to county employees ages 65 and older with at least five years of service with the county.

During his initial presentation, Jolley noted the number of current county employees that switching the plan would immediately impact and a cost estimate to the county. Offsetting the additional cost, Jolley said the county would benefit by keeping those with extensive experience in county operations.

In his specific department, Jolley noted a continual loss of experienced deputies seeking high pay with other law enforcement agencies. By changing the retirement disbursement plan, he would be able to keep experienced deputies longer.

Instigating the retirement discussion was an extraordinarily tragic situation in which a county employee with over 30 years of service passed before actually retiring and his widow could not draw his retirement.

JOLLEY approached the commissioners again regarding the county’s retirement plan during the July 21 meeting, seeking action on the request.

Also present was a representative from ACCG, or Association County Commissioners of Georgia, who provided information and answered questions from the commissioners.

Commissioner Scott Lightsey motioned to approve allowing county employees to retire and continue working while drawing the retirement benefits with a review in two years “to study the effects”.

Commission Chair Susan Andrews noted that she would not be voting on the issue since she would be impacted by the decision.

Commissioner Greg Gantt noted the original issue that Jolley had noted, but said the discussion had moved to a “different scenario”. “You get to receive your retirement income and work at the same time which is the positive,” Gantt said then added, “The negative is, in my opinion, you clog up the pipeline for the employees in the chain of command seeing people in front of them and they are disincentivized to hang around. That’s the tradeoff. For that reason I can’t support this initiative.”

The vote on Lightsey’s motion resulted in a 2-2 vote with Lightsey and Rob Grant voting for and Gantt along with Commissioner Bobby Irions opposed. Without a tie-breaking vote, the motion died.

After the vote, Grant said, “We have gone round and round on this. We haven’t had a vote, we haven’t done anything. I do not believe we should not do anything for our employees. We have just been stuck in this one rut.”

Grant said that since one motion had failed he motioned to implement the second option, which was survivorship lock-in at age 65.

In seconding the motion, Irions also noted the scope of the discussion on retirement had changed and that it was the responsibility of the commissioners to protect the employees. That motion passed by a 3-1 with Lightsey casting the dissenting vote. Andrews recused herself from voting on that motion as well.