Gloucester supervisors continued their deliberations on the county’s proposed 2023-2024 budget during a pair of work sessions last Wednesday, April 5, and on Monday, April 10, in the colonial courthouse.

Supervisors are expected to adopt its budget when they meet this coming Tuesday, April 18, at 6 p.m. in the courthouse.

April 5 meeting

During discussions, several board members expressed their desire to make sure security measures for Gloucester County Public Schools are adequately funded in the proposed budget.

Board member Phillip Baz-zzani said that Superintendent of Schools Dr. Walter Clemons said he was researching costs for security equipment for schools and will get back to the board regarding those costs. Bazzani suggested that to fund additional security equipment, the board could postpone the bus replacement plan a year in order to free up about $1 million to ensure these security features get funded.

“I think if you were to weigh school buses versus a dead child, I think you would forgo the buses and protect a child’s life,” said Bazzani.

County Administrator Carol Steele said there are additional funds in the current budget that have not been spent and believes that Clemons was looking at using those funds for additional security measures. This would allow the board to fund additional security measures without sacrificing other budget items.

Supervisor Ken Gibson said that the board had funded a school resource officer for each school, added school security officers with a 7 percent increase to help with recruiting. He said this is fantastic progress and suggested providing a sign-on bonus for SROs and SSOs. He too was in favor of funding additional security equipment for the schools.

“We can talk about parks and we can talk fun things like that all day long but if we cannot protect these vulnerable children and teachers, I don’t think we’re doing our job and I know you all share that,” said Gibson.

Board vice chairman Ashley Chriscoe said security equipment would either be funded through unassigned fund balance or partially funded through the $700,000 the schools currently have not spent. He said there were funding sources available that would allow them not to affect the proposed budget.

Also discussed during the meeting was the possible funding of the new human resources position for Gloucester County. The position for HR would be a compensation position and would cost around $100,000 annually in salary. This position was originally proposed to be funded in the budget but was deleted in order to balance the budget as corrections in the budget were made.

Board chairman Christopher Hutson said he viewed the position as a necessity for the HR department. Baz-zani contradicted that view, saying that he didn’t view the position necessary because the county could hire a contractor to do the same work once every three years.

Hutson argued that the problem with having a contractor provide market research for salaries every three years is that salaries would only change with the market once every three years. He said it would be better for that work to be done in-house and on a regular basis to improve employee compensation.

Chriscoe said that over a 10-year period, around $1 million would be spent on this position in salaries, a much larger price tag than the cost of an outside contractor. He said the money saved on this position could be used for pay increases for current employees.

Hutson said he also views this position as a way to free up the time of Human Resources Director Elaine Johnson and her staff.

At a prior meeting, Johnson presented the position to the board and expressed that part of the work the new staff member would perform was work she was currently doing, like position reclassification. She said reclassifying a position requires extensive job shadowing and surveying. She said this work has taken up a majority of her time and prevents her from performing other duties.

Board member Mike Hed-rick said he too saw the benefits the new HR position would have on the county in the long term. Finding the funds for this position was the real issue to him and suggested bringing this position back up next year.

Steele said a lot of Gloucester’s policies are out of date and that some departments have yet to switch to an electronic time clock. She said this is because there are not enough hours in the day for the current HR staff to update county department policies or procedures, which is keeping Gloucester behind the times in some areas.

Gibson said he recalled that policy updating was critical for legal protection for the county. He also said another point that Johnson mentioned with regard to the position was succession planning. The new hire would be a potential replacement for Johnson or at least could step in if Johnson were to miss time.

In her presentation, Johnson told the board that no one else in the HR department was capable of performing the duties the new position would handle. She said her entire staff had expressed to her that none of them would be interested in taking on a compensation role.

April 10 meeting

Budget conversations continued during Monday’s meeting. Among those in attendance was Johnson, who renewed her request for the new HR position.

One of the topics she clarified was that of succession planning. The succession planning wouldn’t just be for her position but would aid i all departments. The new employee would help identify those on the county’s payroll who would be eligible to step into vacant leadership roles.

Gibson asked Johnson to compare an in-house compensation position versus hiring an outside consultant. Johnson said consultants will perform accurate work to improve compensations for positions. However, a contractor wouldn’t perform job shadowing to identify the work a person is doing outside of their position’s job description. She also said the new position would perform compensation and position reclassification throughout the year as needed.

Hedrick asked Johnson how this position would free up more of her time. Johnson said she would be able to spend more time updating county policies and improving department efficiencies. She pointed to the HR department need of becoming less reliant on manual data entry.

Johnson said she would also look to create career ladders for county positions. She said employees want to know that upward progression is possible and this would aid with employee retention.

Chriscoe asked Johnson if a consultant coming in once every three years would free up more of her time from the large compensation planning. Johnson said it would to a point, as it wouldn’t help during the budget process, which for her lasts from November to the adoption of the budget. Her part of the budget process is analyzing salaries and compensation other department requests.

As it stands, the HR position is not included in the proposed budget. To add it back in, the board would have to free up about $100,000 in the current balanced budget.

Chriscoe said the savings the county would realize in using consultants is hard to look passed, especially as money used to fund the new HR position could be used for pay raises elsewhere. The requested HR position would be a benefit, he said, but that he would prefer to look at funding the position next year.

Hutson presented the option of funding the position contingent upon when the final revenues and expenditures come out for the year. This would allow the board to reevaluate the HR position in September, while leaving it out of the proposed budget. The other board members agreed to moving forward with this approach.