Hardin County board rescinds recent treasurer’s office raises after contested discussion

The Hardin County board voted to rescind pay increases for two employees in the treasurer’s office during its Jan. 21 meeting, after a policy motion and extended discussion about budgeting and internal communication.

Board members debated a motion to "reset the change of status for pay increases that were approved on 01/14/2026 for Chrissy Hoffmeister and Melissa Harvey effective today," which Speaker 4 moved and Speaker 2 seconded. The motion carried on a voice vote.

The rescission prompted extended remarks from the treasurer’s office and department heads. Speaker 5, who identified operational details for the office, said the raises were intended to redistribute duties after a retirement and provided specific budget context: "My office approximately brings in $9,000,000 for the DOT, which we retain approximately $343,000," and "Our base salaries for all 6 of us is $329,919." She also said the raises she proposed were designed to replace a $63,830 salary and that the increases—including FICA and IPERS—totaled approximately $2,854 for three people.

Board members framed the vote as a budget-management decision. Speaker 2 said the county faces a projected roughly $1,000,000 shortfall over the next two years and described the workshop’s role in reviewing carryovers and percentages. Speaker 2 characterized the workshop as a planning step and said adjustments would be necessary to meet mandated budget constraints.

Members of the public criticized the board’s action during the public-comment period. Donna (identified in the transcript as Speaker 6) urged the board not to rescind the raises, called the move "wrong" and "unfair," and argued rescinding the increases after duties were redistributed punishes employees. Donna presented a savings estimate and urged better communication: "If you couldn't check what was on your agenda prior to last week's meeting, then you should have had that discussion before voting, not waiting until afterwards."

Julie (identified in the transcript as Speaker 3) also criticized the board’s handling of personnel and governance issues, raised broader concerns about county policies and transparency, and said the board had not shown adequate principles or oversight.

The board did not record a roll-call vote in the transcript; the motion passed by voice vote. No staff-directed follow-up tasks or implementation dates were recorded in the meeting record provided.

The board’s next procedural step on this personnel matter was not specified during the meeting; the rescission took immediate effect as stated in the motion.