Alamance County’s commissioners have agreed to increase the number of bailiffs who serve under the county’s sheriff in response to an upcoming expansion of the local court system.
During a regularly-scheduled meeting on Monday, the commissioners voted 5-to-0 to create four new positions and repurpose two vacancies in the sheriff’s detention division so that the sheriff can add six more bailiffs to his existing courtroom security detail.
The commissioners also agreed to let the sheriff offer signing bonuses to any new bailiffs who join from other agencies while raising the overall quota for these $10,000 enticements from 20 to 30.
The commissioners approved both of these measures after Alamance County’s sheriff Terry Johnson approached them on Monday to plead for some additional staffing to cope with recent changes in the local courts system.
Johnson told the commissioners that as recently as January of this year, he was expected to provide security for eight different courts with a staff of 10 full-time bailiffs and 7 part-timers. He said that, by the spring of this year, the total number of courts he was responsible for had gone up to 12 although his staffing had remained at its previous level. Johnson added that, come 2025, he’ll have to provide security for three additional courts as the local court system debuts a new drug court, adds another court session for Class H and I felonies, and onboards a new district court judge.
“These are courts that will be going on as of January 2025,” the sheriff added. “I am responsible for keeping the judges, the D.A.s, and the public safe…and we have already had to pull [deputies] off the streets who are supposed to be out there patrolling just to cover the courts.”
Counting courts
The sheriff’s claim that he’ll be responsible for 15 different “courts” in 2025 was ultimately called into question as some of the commissioners realized that the county would still only have eight actual courtrooms at its disposal by January.
It eventually emerged that Johnson had “double counted” some of the county’s courtrooms by larding his tally with specialty sessions, like the county’s drug court, which is slated to meet only twice a month once it convenes.
The commissioners nevertheless seemed to accept Johnson’s underlying argument that he doesn’t have enough staffing to provide each of the county’s courtrooms with a minimum of two bailiffs whenever court is in session.
This point was further underscored by Kyle McPherson, a lieutenant who oversees courtroom security on the sheriff’s behalf. McPherson pointed out a courtroom invariably loses one of its bailiffs whenever an inmate has to be brought to the dock.
“Last week, we brought 74 inmates over from the jail to the court,” he explained. “This left one bailiff in courtroom…and that’s just a big security issue for us.”
The sheriff went on to add that an extra six deputies is just the bare minimum that he believes he needs to provide adequate coverage for all eight of the county’s courtrooms.
“I’m only asking for six because I know we can make it work with six,” he said before noting that he has requested a second opinion from one of the state’s leading law enforcement advocacy groups. “The North Carolina sheriff’s association is coming in here to analyze our security,” he added, “I’m telling you that when they come in, they’ll tell you how understaffed we really are.”
Securing the funds
Johnson had told the commissioners that the addition to six bailiffs to his staff would cost the county between $400,000 and $500,000 – with $450,000 being the figure that the county’s administrators had used in their own calculations.
In order to ensure that the county can afford this added expense, Alamance County’s manager Heidi York had advised the commissioners to reclassify three vacancies in the sheriff’s detention division for courtroom security. York went on suggest that the commissioners hold off on Johnson’s other three requested bailiffs until they contend with the county’s next budget – at which point, they can also restore the three vacancies pilfered from the detention division.
As an alternative to York’s recommendation, commissioner Craig Turner proposed that the commissioners could immediately add four new positions for bailiffs without waiting for the county’s next budget. He went on to suggest that the board shift the other two requested positions from detention, and he insisted that the county could scare up the funds to pay for these posts by drawing on the lapsed salaries from the sheriff’s vacant positions.
Turner’s suggestion received some support from Rebecca Crawford, the county’s budget director. Although Crawford acknowledged that the sheriff’s operations division is currently running over budget, she added that his detention division is roughly $1 million under budget due largely to lapsed salaries.
In the end, the commissioners voted 5-to-0 in favor of Turner’s proposal, which relied on these lapsed salaries to created all six of Johnson’s requested positions for bailiffs.
Bonus round
The commissioners seized on the sheriff’s lapsed salaries once more when they turned their attention to a series of signing bonuses that the sheriff’s office has used to fill some of its perennially vacant positions.
This July, the commissioners gave Johnson the go-ahead to offer new jailers and deputies a financial enticement of $10,000 over 22 months in order to help him fill the 70 front-line vacancies that he had in his patrol and detention division. The commissioners added the stipulation that they would discontinue the bonuses once Johnson had filled 80 percent, or 56, of his vacancies. They also enjoined the sheriff to dole out no more than 10 of these payouts at a time before he had to return to them for permission to extend another 10 bonuses.
Last month, the sheriff received the board’s clearance for the first batch of supplementary bonuses since the first set of 10 was approved in July. On Monday, the commissioners signed off on another 10-bonus installment, bringing to 30 the total that they’ve so far authorized the sheriff to hand out.
The commissioners approved the latest round of bonuses after they heard a report on the sheriff’s recruitment efforts, from captain Mantrese Dodson, who handles personnel matters on behalf of the agency.
“The sign-on bonus is indeed working,” Dodson assured the commissioners that morning. “In July of 2024, we had 70 vacancies. So far, we’ve hired 14 people using the sign-on bonuses…and we’re getting at least 35 to 40 applications a day.”
Dodson informed the commissioners that eight of her agency’s bonus recipients have been brought on to relieve the staffing shortfall in the sheriff’s detention division. She added that patrol deputies account for the other six recipients. Meanwhile, Dodson said that the sheriff currently has 13 prospective new jailers and one deputy who are still in the pipeline.
“So, we have people pending and waiting,” she added, “and we’re wanting to know if we can continue the sign-on bonus.”
The commissioners voted 5-to-0 to let the sheriff issue another 10 signing bonuses – which would not only suffice to cover the 14 recruits who are currently in the pipeline but also the six new bailiffs that they gave the sheriff permission to add to his courtroom security staff. Dodson had told the commissioners that these additional bailiffs would qualify for the bonuses as long as they’re hired from outside the sheriff’s office.
Meanwhile, Rebecca Crawford, the county’s budget director, assured the board that the sheriff’s lapsed salaries would continue to cover these bonuses at least for the moment.
“Historically, the sheriff’s positions have not been fully filled,” Crawford went on to inform the county’s governing board. “That trend does seem to be changing by having these signing bonuses, which I look at as a really good problem…and I would prefer to use existing funds now [to pay for the bonuses], and come before you in late April or early May if we need to add additional funds.”
