Kosciusko Circuit Court Judge Matthew Buehler, pictured left, listens to a question from Kosciusko County Councilman Dave Wolkins, pictured right, on Thursday evening, Oct. 9, about probation officers. Photo by David Slone, Times-Union.

By David Slone
Times-Union

WARSAW — Four Kosciusko County Council members voted Thursday, Oct. 9, to give the probation officers a $5,000 stipend in 2026, while three others voted against it, though the amount was half of what the judges had sought for them.

The 4-3 decision came after months of research and discussion between the probation officers, judges and county council on the matter. At their September meeting, the council tabled the matter due to conflicting advice from the state on stipends. The council had considered in September to give probation officers a 2% retention bonus, though the judges went before the council at their Aug. 19 budget hearings to lay out the case for $10,000 stipends for each of the 11 probation officers for 2026. The judges also were at the September meeting.

Probation officers are state employees but paid by the county. The stipend requested would come out of user fees, not tax dollars. At Thursday’s council meeting, Circuit Court Judge Matthew Buehler brought the stipends back up, reminding the council it had been tabled from September pending further information.

“So here we are, asking, again, for the council to consider the resolution that we brought forth last time, asking for a stipend for our probation officers,” he said.

Councilman Dave Wolkins asked if they were still asking for the $10,000 amount, and Buehler said that would be their ask.

“Certainly, we are open to any discussion as far as that is concerned … we certainly would like to do what is best and what we believe to be the most we can do for our people – the people that we rely on, the people that take care of us and, as I’m sure everyone wants, is to be able to take care of their people,” Buehler said.

He said they believe the $10,000 figure is appropriate given the amount of time and experience the probation officers have. However, if the council has a counter-proposal to offer, they would be willing to discuss that. Council President Tony Ciriello noted there’s been conversations with the State Board of Accounts (SBOA) since the last meeting.

“Our person down there says that we can give a stipend or bonus to probation officers – any amount we wish to do so as long as it’s classified as a stipend/bonus – and we can take that away after one year, we do not have to give it ever again, and it does not add to their wages for 2027 wages” and on, he said.

That contradicts previous advice the council said they were given.

“It would be a one-time bonus going forward, and it would have to be revisited on an annual basis if that’s what you want to consider,” Ciriello said.

Based on that new information from the SBOA within the last week, he said they “were able to share that amongst ourselves, have some discussions about it.” Ciriello said the county has over 200 employees that “probably deserve the same bonus that we can’t give them.”

While he realizes probation officers are state employees, and the money for the stipends would come out of the user fees, he had a concern about the other 200-plus county employees not being treated equally. The state also said probation officers won’t get any raises for 2026.

A Motion Made

Councilwoman Rachael Rhoades did some research on her own and shared what she found.

“Based off the research that I have found after reaching out to Ricci Hofherr from SBOA; Tyler Louis, Reedy Financial; as well as Jennifer Bauer, Indiana Supreme Courts, I have confirmed the following,” she said. “According to our governing body at SBOA, per Ricci Hofherr, (SBOA) will not audit whether the payment of the stipend or bonus is removed from one year to the next, only that the salary agrees to the salary ordinance. SBOA is going to audit against the salary ordinance. Whether the term stipend or bonus is used will not make a difference, as long as it is clear who is receiving it,” she continued.

“A retention stipend or bonus, if classified correctly, can be done, as Tony mentioned, as a one-time, non-base building compensation that does not add to the base salary of the probation officer,” said Rhoades. “This stipend or bonus would be decided during the annual budget at the discretion of the county council annually. If approved, it would need to be paid out of the user fee account that has been provided by the state for these purposes. By using the user fee fund, we would not impact taxpayer dollars.”

Based on her research, Rhoades made a motion to approve a one-time, non-base-building retention stipend of $5,000 to be paid out of the user fee fund in the last paycheck of the year, if the probation officer has been continually employed as a full-time probation officer in the county from Jan. 1 to Dec. 1, 2026.

“This motion would be half of the original retention request of $10,000 in an effort to work with our courts, with the understanding that they are state employees and this would have no impact on the county budget, and it would not increase the base pay salary of the probation officers,” she concluded.

Councilwoman Kimberly Cates immediately seconded Rhoades’ motion.

Quality of Employees

Wolkins said when you give a person a salary, you expect them to do a really good job. When you give them a bonus, you expect them to go “above and beyond.” He asked Buehler if there was any reason they originally asked for the $10,000 bonus for the probation officers, other than the fact the user fee funds were available.

Buehler responded, “Absolutely. It gives me nothing but pride to be able to stand here and talk to all of you about the job and the performance that our probation department does, and the reliance that our courts and the five of us in the judiciary here in Kosciusko County rely upon those probation officers. Their opinions about offenders, who have been placed on probation, are valued, perhaps above all other opinions, because they are the ones that are working with the offenders. They are the folks that are monitoring their progress during the rehabilitation phase. They are the ones that are enforcing the court’s orders (throughout) the rehabilitation phases. And we have built, through hard work and good fortune, quite frankly, here in Kosciusko County what I believe to be one of the finest probation departments around. And it is that work, Mr. Wolkins, that has gotten the five of us to come together and ask this body for some additional funds for these folks.”

He said it wasn’t just because they hoped the probation officers would continue to do a great job, but they expect and know they will based upon the officers’ prior 10, 15, 20 years of performance.

Pay and Morale

Council Vice President Kathy Groninger said she did not support giving the probation officers a bonus or stipend that exceeds the amount they are giving the county employees.

“I believe that a 2% retention bonus is generous for the following reasons,” she said. “We’ve never given a bonus to the probation department in the past. To my knowledge, a vast majority of counties in Indiana are not giving a bonus.”

She said the state did not give probation officers an increase in their minimal wages or a pay increase for next year. The county wage committee sent the probation officers’ job description to Waggoner, Irwin Scheele & Associates (WIS) for review, and Groninger said it came back the county should decrease the probation officers’ wages.

“Their current wages are high, as compared to other county employees and elected officials, with the highest making nearly $88,000, and several others making wages in the $70,000 to $80,000 range, while we have elected officials and department heads who are making less,” she said. “Additionally, we have jailers and deputies who are making in the $50,000 to $60,000 range and they are potentially at a greater risk for injury. They already have received other benefits that county employees do not get, and the $5,000 bonus equates to an increase of approximately 5.7% for the highest wage to 8.6% for the lowest wage.”

She said giving the probation officers a bonus greater than the county employees could create morale issues for the county employees, “which I contend would increase our county budget.” She encouraged the other council members to vote “no” on Rhoades’ motion and instead give the probation officers a 2% retention bonus “because morale issues lead to turnover and increased wages, which will eventually cause an increase to the taxpayers of our county.”

Ciriello agreed with Groninger, saying all employees should be treated the same, even though probation officers are state employees. Superior Court II Judge Torrey Bauer joined in on the conversation, saying the county has the authority to do with their county employees as they wish.

“The law is very clear that we have authority over our employees. The statement that was made that they are paid more than your county employees is not entirely accurate,” he said.

Bauer pointed out a 911 director, with 10 years of experience, based upon WIS, would be paid $86,000. A probation officer, under the mandatory minimum salary schedule, with 10 years of experience, would be paid $64,000. A Work Release director, with 10 years of experience, would be paid $86,000. The assistant 911 director, $79,000; prosecutor’s investigator, $72,000; assistant jail commander, $74,000; JCAP coordinator, $72,000, he listed.

“So to say that probation officers are overpaid, in comparison to county employees, is simply not accurate. They are not,” Bauer said, adding it gets even worse when one takes a look at the lower-level probation officers as far as years of experience because their pay is based on their years of experience. A 911 director with one year of experience would get $73,000, while a probation officer with one year of experience would get $45,000.

“So it’s not accurate to say that they’re overpaid. We wouldn’t be here, and gone through all of this as judges, if we thought they were overpaid,” Bauer said.

Bauer also pointed out they want to retain their probation officers, and some probation officers have to have second jobs to support their families. Probation officer slots have been open for years because they can’t be filled due to salary amounts. The cost of living in Kosciusko County is higher than many other counties in Indiana, he pointed out. Two years ago, he said the council decided to give all county employees a $2,000 raise. Then every employee associated with the sheriff’s department was given a $5,000 raise.

“Nobody stood up and screamed, ‘That’s not fair’ to all the other county employees. Everybody that worked in the legal system, except probation officers, got a $5,000 raise. Wonderful. I’m glad you did it. They deserve it. All we’re really asking is the same consideration for our people that was given to your people two years ago. That’s all we’re really asking for,” Bauer stated.

Groninger countered there are probation officers who are making in the $80,000 to $90,000 range, with the lowest making around $56,000.

“Here’s the difference. They haven’t been doing the job for 10 years, they’ve been doing it for 20 years,” Bauer replied.

After some further back and forth, the council finally voted on Rhoades’ motion for the $5,000 stipend. Voting in favor were Rhoades, Cates, DeLynn Geiger and Wolkins. Opposed were Ciriello, Groninger and Joe Irwin.