The Platte County Commission voted unanimously to approve an updated, 71-page personnel policies and procedures manual despite County Treasurer Chris Kendall’s request to delay approval and address concerns about employee protections, enforcement and human resources services.
The vote followed a 25-minute discussion. County Administrator Wes Minder said the previous manual had not been updated since around 2018.
Kendall told commissioners he submitted 24 questions and 19 suggestions during the review process. He said only three questions were answered and four suggestions were incorporated, describing those changes as grammatical and administrative rather than substantive.
“With this many questions and concerns, I respectfully ask that you table this policy today and take the time to actually work with the other stakeholders in the county before finalizing it again,” Kendall said.
Speaking to The Landmark after the meeting, Kendall said the discussion left many of his concerns unresolved, including who would administer the policies and whether elected officials would be required to follow them.
Commissioners defend review process
Commissioners disputed Kendall’s argument that his concerns had been ignored, saying they reviewed his submissions during a public work session and relied on outside professionals to guide the revisions.
“We’ve had this going on for months and months. It’s not anything new,” Second District Commissioner Joe Vanover told Kendall.
First District Commissioner Allyson Berberich said commissioners displayed Kendall’s comments on a screen during the Oct. 5 work session and reviewed them line by line.
“We went through every single line of your document and found that information in the document and addressed each of those and discussed them at our public work session,” Berberich said.
She said Kendall’s comments arrived on the deadline and required additional review, delaying the process. Before receiving his submission, she said, commissioners had begun to think no one would respond.
During the exchange, Vanover said reviewing Kendall’s suggestions did not mean commissioners would adopt all of them.
“Just because you don’t get what you want, doesn’t mean you’re ignored. We read what you had. We discussed what you had. We did not agree with everything that you wanted,” Vanover said.
Berberich said the commission hired professionals with experience in human resources and employment law because commissioners lacked that expertise.
“So we hired experts to consult with us on all the language in this document,” she said.
Berberich stated the consultants reviewed the manual’s wording and recommended additions and deletions to bring it into compliance with applicable employment laws and make its provisions fair to the county and its employees.
Responsibilities and employee protections
Among Kendall’s primary objections was the manual’s repeated reference to a human resources department. He said the county has a payroll specialist but no department performing the full range of human resources duties.
Kendall said the manual references a human resources department approximately 80 times, leaving questions about who would carry out those responsibilities and where employees should turn for assistance.
“Before adopting this policy, we need to clearly identify who will be responsible for these duties, how those responsibilities will be carried out and who employees should contact when they need assistance,” he told commissioners.
Kendall also questioned whether requirements governing work hours, attendance, outside employment and the use of county property apply to elected officials.
After the meeting, he said commissioners referred him to a section of the manual stating that elected officials have a unique status under Missouri law. Kendall said that did not answer his questions about which rules they must follow.
“I was seeking clarification as to if the elected officials are required to follow this policy and it sounds like the commission claims it does not, that elected officials are above the policy that all other employees are expected to follow,” he said.
He also called for explicit protections against workplace bullying and intimidation beyond provisions addressing harassment and discrimination based on legally protected characteristics.
Another concern involved a disciplinary provision allowing action for conduct that management determines is “not in the county’s best interests.”
“That is an extremely broad standard,” Kendall said. “What does ‘not in the best interests of Platte County’ actually mean, and who gets to decide? I can think of plenty of actions by people in this building and even in this room that many people might argue are not in the county’s best interests.”
Kendall said the policy should provide clear standards so employees are not left wondering whether a disagreement or an action management dislikes could lead to discipline.
He also sought clarification of a provision prohibiting county assets from being used to support or oppose candidates or ballot measures, including whether it covers official social media accounts, computers, email accounts and websites.
Other recommendations included establishing consistent pre-employment screening standards and creating procedures for drug and alcohol testing when employees are suspected of being impaired while on duty.
Consultants and employee hotline
Kendall also questioned the development of an employee human resources hotline and the county’s arrangements with outside consultants.
Contracts reviewed by The Landmark show the commission approved an agreement with Executive Workforce Consultants on Dec. 1, 2025, for human resources services at a cost not to exceed $60,000. The agreement included reviewing and updating the employee handbook, training and developing an employee hotline.
Kendall said officials were introduced to an operating hotline in January but were subsequently instructed not to distribute information about it. He said the county paid Executive Workforce $7,889 before moving to another provider.
On May 4, the commission approved separate agreements with FineLine Employment Law and FineLine HR Consulting, according to documents reviewed by The Landmark.
The law firm’s agreement called for reviewing and updating the employee handbook at $395 an hour for attorneys and $95 an hour for paralegals, with fees capped at $3,950. The agreement also allowed reimbursement for reasonable costs and expenses.
The separate HR consulting agreement established rates of $225 an hour for senior HR consultants and $95 an hour for an HR coordinator. It also provided for a $100 monthly administrative fee if the county elected to establish an email address or phone line monitored during business hours, with responses expected in two business days.
The HR consulting agreement did not specify an overall spending cap and stated that the company would provide human resources guidance rather than legal advice.
Kendall reported payments totaling $3,397 to the law firm, plus a separate $270 payment to FineLine HR Consulting.
Kendall said an email to officeholders indicated employees under the commission’s management would be eligible to use the new hotline. Other elected officials were asked to sign an acceptance form and have their employees acknowledge the manual for those employees to participate.
He questioned whether access depended on adopting the manual without substantive changes.
Questions about the review process
Kendall said he received a preliminary manual Sept. 1 and submitted comments Sept. 17. On Oct. 8, he received an email from Berberich saying a number of his suggestions had been incorporated.
After the meeting, Kendall disputed explanations about the time available to consider his feedback and questioned why he was not invited to an Oct. 5 work session where commissioners said the manual was discussed.
He said the agenda identified the topic only as “Human Resources,” which did not make clear that the employee handbook would be considered.
“The work session agendas are not published nor sent to anyone,” he said. “We have to go to the commission calendar to see what they are going to be discussing, but the agendas are typically so vague you don’t really know what they are talking about. I suppose that is when they talked about the policy, but they sure weren’t transparent if the handbook was the topic. Had it said ‘employee handbook’ I would have tried to attend.”
Kendall said the process needed more discussion with the officials responsible for administering the policies.
“How can we expect to develop effective, fair, and workable employee policies without seriously considering input from the people who will be responsible for administering them on a daily basis?” he told commissioners.
Kendall also questioned the purpose of the policy and why it was “so urgent to pass today.”
“The problem is this policy is not in the best interest of the employees or the citizens of Platte County,” he said. “I have not talked to an elected official that has, or plans to, adopt it for their office. Who is this policy protecting?”
