.....Advertisement.....
.....Advertisement.....

Fiscal court discusses issues with building inspector

-A A +A
By William Carroll

Spencer County Fiscal Court members spent some period of time July 7, discussing the status of county building inspector Steve Clark,` as magistrate Jerry Davis voiced concerns regarding Clark’s work attendance.
Davis made comments during the meeting regarding Clark’s working hours for the county.
“He can’t have that many inspections,” Davis said. “(Clark) works from 8 to 10, goes out and does inspections and then goes home. He should come back and keep regular hours.”
Davis said that he personally wanted Judge Executive Bill Karrer to inform Clark that he had to keep regular business hours. Magistrates then further discussed the matter in executive session.
During a separate interview Karrer offered a history of the issues with Clark’s hours.
“This is not the first time this issue has come up,” Karrer said. “We have had previous complaints of Steve going home and not staying on the job.”
Karrer said that based upon previous complaints he fired Clark, only to have him rehired by the magistrates.
“They had a fit with the firing,” Karrer said. “They called a special session in order to rehire him with back pay.”
Davis remembers the facts differently.
“Bill (Karrer) fired him without court approval,” Davis said. “We called a special meeting, voided the firing and gave him back pay.”
When asked why Davis was bringing up the issue, Davis said he knew that Clark was not keeping regular hours, he said that the arrangement had been going on for years going back to Judge Executive David Jenkins administration.
“Back then here were a lot more inspections,” Davis said. “I knew about the issues but I let it go thinking that it would be corrected.”
Davis said the issue has come about because other county employees have been contacting him complaining about the hours Clark keeps.
Clark was contacted regarding the matter and gave the following statement:
“My attorneys William F. Stuart and Sam B. Carl have advised me that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on second-hand information on what was supposed to be a confidential meeting.”