CUMBERLAND – During the Board's scheduled special called meeting last Thursday, the majority of the County's Board of Supervisors voted to accept a counter offer submitted by county administrator applicant Vivian Giles to act as county administrator and county attorney.

Chairman David Meinhard, District Four, told The Herald on Tuesday afternoon, “Basically, she would reject the single position but she would accept both of them…Basically, she did not want just the one position at the price we offered but she wanted both of them for less than double of what we asked for.”

Shortly after the meeting commenced last week, the Board voted to consider the counter offer from county administrator applicant Giles and the rest of the county attorney applicants in open session.

Last week, the Board also interviewed candidates for the county attorney position, which will also be vacant at the end of the month.

“From reading this over, I personally would like to go ahead with this and take action-to be real honest with you-I'm in favor of accepting it,” offered Board Chairman Meinhard, after reading the counter offer submitted by Giles to the Supervisors.

Afterwards, Supervisor Lloyd Banks, District Two, said, “Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept the offer as presented by Ms. Giles for a start date of March 15, 2012.”

According to later discussion by the Board, the counter offer provided by Giles included the declining of the county administrator contract that was offered to her earlier last week by the majority of the Board but added that she would accept a package proposal for county administrator and county attorney with an annual base salary of $135,000.

Following Banks' motion, Supervisor Bill Osl, District One, made a substitute motion.

His motion was that the Board offer a contract to one of the other county attorney candidates that had been previously interviewed for $90,000.

“It's for the county attorney position and if she wants to respond with a counter proposal like this-I mean this is the first time in my career that I've seen an offer sent out to a candidate and they came back and said I'm not going to accept your offer for that job. I think I'll change it to another job and combine the two. I've never seen a candidate do that in my career so I think we ought to offer it for the county attorney and if they want to give a similar response for a consolidated job function for the same knowledge that Ms. Giles has had then that's fine,” said Osl about his substitute motion.

At one point during the meeting, Supervisor Kevin Ingle, District Three, addressed the proposed amount of $135,000 received in the counter offer and said, “I just don't see $135,000 being a large amount for both positions.”

“I'm not sure what the issue is other than trying to get this person in the job perhaps,” added Osl during the discussion. “We have a candidate that has equivalent experience and better experience in some areas especially in the local government field…very capable, a minority, and we're not going to make a proposal to her when she might be able to come in at a cheaper price than what we're looking at here.”

After Banks reminded the Board that there were two motions on the floor, Supervisor Parker Wheeler, District Five asked, “Why are you so hot on getting Ms. Giles in both of these positions? What is the reasoning? It's just a question, I just want to know why.”

Ingle responded first to the question and said, “It's not that it's just Ms. Giles-it's just that this was the first applicant that I saw that could go either way.”

Banks followed and said, “It's not my position to quote information that was shared in closed session but I believe that both candidates had reservations with such issues. I believe that we've looked at candidates and we've looked at her background in particular and I don't believe that there was another candidate that had business and finance experience.”

“Ms. Giles has an accounting degree from the University of Virginia-the most reputable university in the state, top 25 in the country-and she has the background that would be consistent with being able to field both positions. I don't believe I saw any accounting or finance experience or any form of degree from any of the other candidates,” continued Banks.

“We've been through multiple discussions about these issues,” Banks said. “I have a motion on the floor and I'd like to proceed with a vote. If the Board's opposed to it then let's vote on it. It's time to stop discussing the same issue night after night after night. We've met a half a dozen times about this issue. How much more will we continue to beat the issue over and over and over? I've mentioned the basis for my decision in my opinion and as a Board we vote on what your position is. Not explain your position-not argue your position-but to vote on where you believe the County is best going to go forward…”

“I have one vote and that's all I want to present,” added Banks.

Related to Osl's substitute motion pertaining to offering a county attorney contract to another candidate, Osl said, “I make it on purpose. I want the Board to go on record that we could possibly have an equally or better qualified minority candidate that we're not going to make the offer to at a cheaper rate and that's what the substitute motion does.”

The Action

While still struggling with his decision and as discussion continued on the substitute motion that was made by Osl, Ingle said, “I just know that when you go through a motion and you vote on something it's either yes or no. There are no in betweens or going back and touching on it so before I can eliminate myself from an action I want to make sure that I've clearly seen or foreseen the ramifications of the vote.”

After the lengthy back and forth debate between the Board members, Supervisor Ingle suggested to the rest that he was in a position to vote and Chairman Meinhard asked for a vote on the substitute motion made by Osl.

Supervisors Osl and Wheeler voted in favor of the substitute motion and Supervisor Banks and Chairman Meinhard voted against it and Ingle abstained. The motion failed.

The first motion made by Banks was then back on the floor.

The motion made by Banks was that the Board accept Giles' counter offer for county administrator and county attorney and that it be effective March 15.

She would be designated as an “administrator designee,” added Chairman Meinhard.

“I think it provides the option of Ms. Giles coming into the office to meet staff and help Judy and familiarize herself with what's going on…rather than having her come walking in here on April 1. It will give her the opportunity to get familiarity with what's going on in the office,” said Meinhard. “Transition from one administration to another administration … rather than expecting a person to walk into the office and sit down at the desk and never have been there before.”

Giles would be an “administrator designee” until County Administrator Judy Ownby's official retirement of March 31.

“I think that it's inappropriate to accept her counter offer without having considered the other candidates and I know the motion failed and I understand that but I think it's inappropriate to accept that offer without letting the other candidates have an equal ground to participate,” suggested Osl when the Chairman asked for discussion on the motion.

Ingle said, “Me, personally, I think this is a doable deal here. If it turns out to be that it's too much for her to handle then I think that's when we need to go on and send out that offer for county attorney.”

Osl at that time suggested that the County would then have to re-advertise at that point down the road.

“Once again, why would you want to put a person in the position such as that and wonder if it's going to work out and then go back?” asked Wheeler.

Chairman Meinhard also added to Banks' motion and said, “This agreement with Ms. Giles is contingent upon her showing us Tuesday receipt for those paid taxes.”

Chairman Meinhard proceeded with asking for a vote after Ingle, again, suggested that he was ready to take a vote on the motion.

The motion carried to accept Giles' counter proposal carried on a three to two vote.

Supervisors Banks, Ingle and Chairman Meinhard voted in favor and Supervisors Osl and Wheeler voted against the motion.