Shelby County – AG Issues Letter – Contents Not What Some Are Claiming

Shelby Co. (ECWd)-

Once again, the facts elude the local propaganda network and county officials, and rather than publishing the actual letter from the Attorney General, a straight-up lie gets posted stating the following:

“Ignoring an AG opinion that states the county cannot by law impose electronic timekeeping….” (emphasis added) 

What was the first sentence in the last paragraph of the letter from the Attorney General?

“This is not an official opinion of the Attorney General.”

So, not only is there no AG opinion being ignored, but the correspondence from the AG does also not say the county cannot, by law, impose electronic timekeeping.

In fact, anyone with just a smidgen of reading comprehension skills can see clearly what the AG indicated in their letter.  With another smidgen of reading comprehension, people can see that misrepresentations are still alive and well in Shelby County.

State’s Attorney Ruth Woolery asked the AG Opinions Bureau for an opinion regarding two things:

1. “whether a timekeeping policy passed by a county board applies to county officers who have been granted internal control over the operations of their office; and”
2.  “whether a county board has the “managerial right” to implement a mandatory electronic timekeeping policy when the timekeeping policy conflicts with the terms of a union contract.”

Key language in the AG response, emphasis added:

“For the reasons stated below, a county board may not impose a mandatory electronic timekeeping policy on officers with internal control over the operations of their office if the policy affects the personnel decisions of those officers.“

Can anyone explain how electronic timekeeping affects “personnel decisions“?   Not a single board member asked that question when the matter was discussed by the State’s Attorney during the last meeting.

Does electronic timekeeping affect the qualification, term, or condition of employment?  No, it does not.  Those were some of the “tests” the AG references regarding why something may or may not be implemented by a county board.

“For example, an electronic timekeeping system or policy that dictates personnel decisions–such as the officers’ employees’ work hours and leave time– may impermissibly interfere with elected county officers’ internal control of the operations of their offices. See Ill. Att’y Gen. Inf. Op. No. I-90-020 (county board does not have authority to control hours of work of employees of in ternal control county officers).”

There is nothing in the electronic timekeeping we have found that dictates personnel decisions. What it was designed to do was to ensure adequate records for accounting purposes, which the AG indicated was permissible if read in context.

“Based upon the foregoing, a timekeeping policy that merely requires elected county officers operating under internal control statutory provisions to cooperate in maintaining adequate records for accounting purposes would not infringe on the elected county officers’ internal control. See Ill. Att’y Gen. In f. Op. No. I-02-007 at 5; Ill. Att’y Gen. Inf. Op. No. I-98- 036, issued October 28, 1998, at 2. A county board may not, however, use a timekeeping policy to “impose personnel policies indirectly that it is not authorized to impose directly.” Ill. Att’y Gen. In f. Op. No. I-02-007 at 5; see also Ill. Att’y Gen. Inf. Op. No. I-98-036 at 2 (the accounting procedure did not interfere with officer’s internal control because it “merely * * * assisted in the tracking of fees required to be paid to the clerk” and did not concern the “organization, staffing or management of the office“). For example, an electronic timekeeping system or policy that dictates personnel decisions–such as the officer’s employees’ work hours and leave time–may impermissibly interfere with elected county officers’ internal control of the operations of their offices. See Ill. Att’y Gen. Inf. Op. No. I-90-020 (county board does not have authority to control hours of work of employees of internal control county officers).”

A timekeeping policy that ensures an adequate record of accounting and has zero effect on personnel decisions appears, on the face, to be acceptable by simply applying the standards outlined in the AG’s correspondence on the matter.

While the State’s Attorney failed to provide the alleged conflicts with the policy and union contracts in her request for an opinion, as noted by the AG Office, the letter received did not say that the county board did not have managerial rights to implement electronic timekeeping.

“Accordingly, whether a county board has an inherent managerial right to implement a mandatory electronic timekeeping system is a fact-intensive inquiry that is best determined by the Illinois Labor Relations Board or other avenues of dispute resolution provided under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act.”

The AG’s conclusion on the matter speaks volumes and does not say electronic timekeeping cannot be implemented by the County Board.

“For the reasons stated above, the county board may not implement a mandatory electronic timekeeping system that interferes with the personnel decisions of county officers operating under statutory internal control provisions. Moreover, whether a county board has an inherent managerial right to implement a mandatory electronic timekeeping system is a fact-intensive inquiry that is best determined by the Illinois Labor Relations Board or other avenues of dispute resolution provided under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act.”

We have yet to identify how on earth electronic timekeeping interferes with personnel decisions.  Regardless, as anyone who can comprehend basic English, the AG letter does not say what some have claimed.

It is perplexing the level of effort being applied to avoid electronic timekeeping in Shelby County, especially when over 11,000 hours of pay were issued for time never worked while using paper timesheets or people claiming they are at work when in reality they were on vacation.

To those who wish we would stop reporting on Shelby County matters, rest assured, we would love to, but until even the most basic level of honest local reporting begins and misrepresentations by elected officials and local propaganda stop, we will continue full steam ahead.

A copy of the AG letter can be viewed at this link or below.