Prosecutor Michael Gmoser asked for a special meeting Thursday with the vet board to discuss the matter. He told the three commissioners who showed up — Smith and Commissioner Tom Jeffers were not present — that they did not do their duty under the law, which is to set policy, correctly. As county prosecutor, Gmoser is the legal counsel for the vet board.
Some in the county perceive the vet board as dysfunctional as a result of infighting and questionable decision making. Gmoser told Southard that his reasoning for tossing the study could be construed by the public as taking a “juvenilistic approach.”
“With respect to not being involved in a process, I have some understanding on how that comment was made, but it gave the appearance to the general public that it was more of a sour grapes response than a statement on the benefit, or lack there of, of a particular study,” Gmoser told Southard. “That’s intolerable.”
As for Smith, Gmoser said the board needs to help him understand what the study says and conduct a do-over vote.
“My recommendation is you should not take a vote on an issue until this board fully understands everything there is to know about that particular issue,” the prosecutor said. “If a member doesn’t understand, the matter should be tabled, further proceedings should be taken to gain an understanding.
“Then, if in your considered opinion you decide the study was not something you want to vote for, then so be it,” he said. “And you won’t have a call from the prosecutor saying, ‘What the heck is going on down there?’”
Southard took full responsibility for the flawed vote and apologized for the “unfortunate” comments he made at last week’s meeting.
“Unfortunately at that time, I did not explain my reason. That was not my reason I voted no,” he said. “There is a list of reasons why I voted no. I can tell you I will still be a ‘no’ vote, but I will express my reasons, hopefully, in a much more intelligent manner than what I did at that meeting.”
The board decided it would have Kelly Babcock from Clemans Nelson come to their board meeting in June to explain the study to Smith and anyone else who has questions, and take another vote.
After the meeting, Southard said there were a number of things he expected to be included in the study that weren’t, and that soured him to the report. For instance, he said he would have liked a recommendation on whether their staffing levels and positions are appropriate. The study provided comparison numbers but didn’t address whether changes should be made.
However, he said there are some good things in the study that sets out pay grade and salary ranges, and he intends to go back over the study to see if he can support it.
“I championed this; I wanted this wage study,” Southard said. “Even though I’m a ‘no’ vote the flip side of it is, I’m going to go back before the next meeting, back through all this information and maybe I’ll come in and I’ll find a way to be a ‘yes’ vote. There’s some good stuff in here; there’s no ifs, ands or buts about it.”
About the Author