MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
OCTOBER 20, 2009
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order Conference Room 214B in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 11:08 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek asked Board members to summarize why the compensation classification study was done and what they hoped to accomplish with it. Sullivan said since he started working at the County, he has heard that past Supervisors all said the survey is something that needed to be done. Over time people would have questions and he thinks this will put the questions to rest. Neuzil said the purpose of the study is to identify if there are inequities or imbalances in the current compensation plan and to give the Board courage to explain to employees that adjustments need to be made. Harney said the survey should show if employees are over or under compensated. Stutsman said that she wanted to make sure the County was competitive with comparable groups. She also wanted to save time for Shramek who was constantly asked to conduct salary surveys for individual positions.
PJ Greufe and Associates Representative Paul Greufe said that is exactly what the survey does. Greufe said the survey is objective and has internal and external accountability. To be consistent with other comparable markets, Johnson County may need to adjust the pay plan to allow for fair compensation and competitive wages, and it also should plan a system for future re-evaluation. Greufe said one benefit of the survey is that employees had the opportunity to discuss ideas about their job description through the position evaluation questionnaire and to meet with people to further clarify their responses on the questionnaires. Greufe recommends that the County create a salary range that runs from 85% to 115% of market value, and whose numbers are driven off the market survey. If the County hires a new employee, that person would start with a salary at 85% of the market value. If the employee has an outstanding performance review, they may receive salary increases. Greufe said that the majority of positions within the study fell within the 85% - 115% salary range and therefore, no pay adjustments need to be made for those employees.
Greufe said the Board needs to decide how to handle salaries that fall below the minimum of the range, for example, if an employee earns $30,000 per year while the salary survey indicates the fair wage for that job is a minimum of $35,000. Greufe said his recommendation in these situations is to move the positions up to the minimum salary so every single position within the County that falls below the minimum would be bumped up to the 85% range. This would have a financial impact to the County of approximately $15,000. Greufe said the Board will also have to determine what to do with the salaries of employees who are paid above the maximum level of 115%. The entire range moves based on cost of living adjustments (COLA). If an employee is earning 117% of scale, a red circled employee, Greufe suggests freezing their salary until that range catches up. Greufe said that while it will be an uncomfortable task, the Board will have to address these inequities and get everyone back into the range. He said the Board went into this survey knowing they would have to adjust the system, and to fix this correctly, Greufe said, the non-bargaining employees need to be brought within the range. There are alternatives he said, for example, when there is a 2% COLA increase, the red circle employees would only receive a 1% increase so they would still get a raise.
Sullivan asked what the total amount of compensation falling above the 115% threshold is. Shramek said $141,000. Stutsman asked how long it would take to get everyone into the range. Shramek said it depends on the approach the Board decides to take, but she estimates it would take five years, depending on COLAs, and then longer if only a percentage of COLAs are given. Sullivan asked how many positions are green circled (below the 85% range.) Shramek said seven.
Greufe explained how the Board could assess the financial impact of implementing this new program. He said this system could save the County about $40,000. Neuzil asked if merit increases would have an impact on many of the salaries. He said he is concerned that with the new system, department heads will compensate for these changes by giving more merit increases. Greufe said once the Board adjusts the salary scale, employee pay can't exceed 115%. Neuzil said the problem is that some employee salaries are at 130% to 135% of the market value. Greufe said if someone is at 130%, which is 15% higher than the cap, and a 3% COLA is given, then ideally it will take five years to make up the difference. Neuzil said those employees wouldn't be eligible for merit or COLA. Greufe said correct, they would remain at the 130% because the County's position would be very solid on believing that these are the correct market rates and that internally there are people being paid beyond that.
Sullivan said that theoretically, these employees could decide to get another job, but if the County is truly reimbursing them at a greater level than their skill level, it should be difficult for them to match what they've got from Johnson County somewhere else. Although then, there is also the risk of the employee who just sits around disgruntled for seven years. Greufe said the market rate would show comparable salaries, and based on that, Greufe is confident that people would not be leaving because they're not going to be able to find a higher paying job.
Greufe said the next part of the pay plan is performance standards. Employees will move within the 85% to 115% scale based on work performance. If an employee is doing their job well but not reaching the top level, performance based salary increases may serve as an incentive. On the flip side, the policy contains a wage reduction plan for employees who do not perform well. Greufe said the final piece of the pay plan is the job evaluation team. He recommends an employee job evaluation team be comprised of eight to ten employee representatives from a diverse cross section. He said the employee team will be charged with reevaluating positions, and they will be the ones to write a job description and to determine the numbers which will correlate to a salary.
Harney asked, if an employee is at the 115% range, and employees are awarded a 1% or 2% merit increase, if that is the maximum that person will get no matter what. Greufe said correct. The pay won't go above the 115%, which is what keeps this system in check down the road. Basically, what that pay cap indicates is that the County recognizes the employee is doing a great job, but the market says that as a Clerk I, they are not entitled to make $70,000 per year. This establishes an endpoint. Otherwise, Greufe said, in five years the salaries will be out of whack again. Neuzil asked what would happen with someone at 135% if the County gives a 2% across the board COLA increase. Shramek said they would not get that COLA. Greufe said they would only receive the COLA if they are within the range. If someone is outside the range, their salary would be frozen completely until the whole band catches up to them. That is the quickest way to get everyone within this range and on the same page. Neuzil clarified that they are talking about only non-union employees. Greufe said correct.
County Attorney Janet Lyness said that in the Administration Unit there were several employees that were red-circled and they got a percentage increase, they were not frozen. Harney asked if the study included any of the bargaining employees. Greufe said no, they only included non-bargaining employees in this study. Shramek said the Auditor's Office keeps track of bargaining employees' information for the Compensation Board. Neuzil said he wonders what the union's response to something like this would be.
Shramek asked the Board how they would like to handle the green circled positions. Sullivan said he felt like it is only fair that if they are going to give the green circled positions an immediate raise, then the red circled positions should have an immediate salary freeze. Sullivan said no matter how this is done, it will be difficult. Stutsman said she would vote for a 50% COLA for the red circled employees because it is just very hard for people not to get any pay raise. She said she has heard so many employees say it is painful not to get any pay increase. Greufe said one way to look at that situation is that those employees have been overpaid for all these years, and the County is not going to ask for that money back.
Neuzil said he is trying to find a system that will address the few employees who really jump off the chart above the 115%, (the red circled positions.) He said he has no problem making adjustments for the green circled employees, those paid below 85% of the market rate. Sullivan said the Board actually created the problem. He said that a lot of the red circled employees are in Information Technology, and at one point the Board gave them the increases when the market was different and IT was worried about people leaving. Neuzil said there is an agreement that those employees in the red should not get the same level of increase as those not in the red. He said that the question is how to implement this for these 20 positions that have been identified through the survey. Stutsman said two Board members want to do it cold turkey, but she is not sure what Neuzil would like to do. Neuzil said he is most interested in freezing the salary of employees in the upper 1/3 of those over 115%.
Sullivan said that there is never a good time to do this. He said Iowa City is so dependent upon the State through the University of Iowa, and the State will be implementing major cuts. People in Johnson County will hear more about the fact that State employees are taking cuts, and if the same is happening with County employees, that might not be so bad. Sullivan said he is trying to find a silver lining. Stutsman said there is no silver lining and this will be ugly. Harney said he learned just this morning that the University is not sure they are going to make payroll. They are offering pensions and retirements and are still not sure if they will make it. Greufe said it will be impossible to make everyone happy and that wasn't the goal of the study. The current system needed reshaping. Neuzil said that he has learned over his years on the Board of Supervisors that a drastic response will follow a drastic change. If a drastic change is implemented over a period of time, it is a whole lot easier. He asked if the Board is prepared for a drastic response, or do they have an opportunity to lessen the blow.
Stutsman said if all employees could be brought within the range within one fiscal year, then she would be willing to implement the change cold turkey. She said if it's going to take three to five years, that is a long time to not get any kind of an increase, which is demoralizing. Stutsman said people place a value on what their paycheck is and no matter how many times the employee is praised, he/she thinks the bottom line is that the paycheck reflects the employee's value to the organization.
Neuzil said these individuals will still get longevity bonuses. Greufe said in his opinion, longevity is incorporated into the numbers already. He suggested putting longevity funding into the overall compensation and removing longevity bonuses completely. The longevity system will be replaced with a performance-based system. Greufe said this will significantly benefit a great number of employees. Neuzil pointed out that the employees above the 115% threshold would not get merit increases. Greufe said that is correct. Sullivan asked how this could even be done, especially when half the employees are in the same area. Sullivan suggested the Board meet face to face with the affected employees to explain the plan. Stutsman agreed to meet with employees only if all Board members maintain a united position. She said this would allow the Board to deliver a consistent message and explanation. Greufe said this is a great approach to meet with employees to share with them how the Board arrived at their decision, but not to debate the merits of the decision. Greufe said the employee is entitled to request a job description evaluation from the employee job evaluation team each year. He said this provides checks and balances throughout the life of the program.
Neuzil repeated that he thinks it would be a huge hit to employees to take away longevity, freeze salaries, and not give any COLA. He is most concerned with non-bargaining employees who are also not eligible for merit increases. Neuzil asked if in these economic times longevity should be eliminated for all employees. Greufe said his opinion is yes, and, he recommended removing longevity from the union contracts also. Stutsman said the reason longevity was put in place was because County salaries were so low and it was an attempt by the Board of Supervisors to address that problem. Now, these salaries are competitive, as the Board has addressed the compensation inequity problem. Sullivan said if this process is implemented and used regularly, there should never be a need for longevity. Harney said if longevity pay is put into the base pay scale, the employee is actually still getting it.
Neuzil said his point is whether to eliminate longevity for everybody so everyone is a part of this. Greufe said his opinion is yes, and longevity should also be removed from the union contracts. Stutsman asked how that could be accomplished. Neuzil, Greufe and Shramek said the key is to first eliminate longevity for non-bargaining employees. Neuzil said the only reason he brought this up was to ensure that everyone participates in the economic downturn. Sullivan said he wants employees to know that they still have the opportunity to earn as much money as long as they get a good performance evaluation. He said not for the 20 people, but for the others. Neuzil clarified that it is more than 20 employees, it is for anybody who is at 113%, 112%.
Stutsman said she was supportive of merit increases for people who did outstanding work in their job. She is not supportive when merit is used to move people higher up on the pay scale. She thinks merit increases are doled out without real consideration of employee performance and she does not agree with that. Neuzil said the Board amended the budget to allow for merit increases. He asked if during these hard economic times, starting in FY11, should merit and longevity be moved off the table. Sullivan said he does not like that plan because it is too limiting. Shramek said it is important to note that the merit increases are included with salary and so the pay scale is not that far out of line with the comparability group. She added that with the new system, compared to the current one, there is only a $41,000 difference. This means that the current system really isn't that broke.
Budget Coordinator Richard Claiborne asked if the Board is discussing just salary and not benefits. Stutsman said correct, they are talking about salaries only.
Neuzil again stated that he believes the changes to longevity and merit should be made at the same time. He said he has an issue with unlimited merit in Johnson County. Last year the County adjusted the budget to embrace merit increases. Shramek asked Neuzil what he meant by unlimited merit. Neuzil said that last year merit increases cost the County $83,000, ($8,000 more than the $75,000 budgeted), and that number keeps rising. Sullivan said perhaps the Board should require supervisor training in employee performance evaluations because the scores are clearly too high. Shramek said that when a supervisor gives a perfect 5.0 score she follows up with them for an explanation. Neuzil added that merit increases are paid out of a separate fund and not out of department budgets. Stutsman said maybe merit increases should be part of the department budgets. Greufe said he said he understands performance evaluation scores could be inflated, but the County can control this by implementing a policy with no flexibility, and where the increase will be predetermined based upon a person's score and salary. He recommended the policy change annually and that the Board cap what they are willing to spend on merit increases.
Neuzil said merit takes place throughout the entire year. The employee who will receive a COLA and their merit increase will be at an advantage. Greufe said it takes about eight or nine years for an employee to go from 85% to 115%, and it is front loaded, but the Board can adjust it as they need. It can take an average employee 10 years to get to the maximum level. After the employee reaches the 115% mark, the only way for them to earn more money, other than COLA, is to improve their skills, go back to school, or get a promotion. Shramek said that it takes 15 years to get to the maximum level, not 10 as was previously stated.
Stutsman said she would like to put merit increases back into department budgets. Greufe asked if the Board often exceeds the budgeted amount for merit increases. Shramek said this is the first year they have gone over. Sullivan said he thinks part of the issue with merit is to make sure it doesn’t become too large a piece of the salary scale. Stutsman said perhaps merit should be reduced back to 2%. Neuzil said if the Board is going to implement a major policy change, this is an opportunity to address a lot of things. Sullivan agreed. Neuzil asked what changes would occur if they changed to the merit structure. Greufe said the way to slow down merit is to require a higher performance evaluation score, for example, in order to earn a 2.5% increase, the performance score must be four instead of three. Neuzil stated that the Board can put a cap on merit increases and Greufe said that is correct. Greufe said by tweaking the numbers on the performance evaluation scale, the Board is affecting how long it will take an employee to move from 85% to 115%.
Greufe summarized that the Board is comfortable with bringing the green circled employees up to the 85% pay range. He said as he understands things, the Board's questions regarding the red circled employees are whether their salaries should be frozen completely, or would the Board want to consider another option. If the Board is going to freeze salaries and eliminate longevity cold turkey, then the work is done. Neuzil said if they are talking cold turkey, then longevity across the board and merit need to be addressed. Greufe said he thought longevity had been addressed and had been eliminated. Neuzil said it has been eliminated only for the red circled employees, and Neuzil said he is talking about eliminating it for all employees.
Neuzil summarized that as of June 30, 2010, the Board would implement the 115% salary limit, meaning employees above that range would not get longevity. The only other issue is whether the Board should cap merit. Greufe said he does not think that merit should be driven by what is done with the red circle employees. Shramek said she wants to limit the adjustments to the non-bargaining employees at this time. Greufe said if the employee is above 115%, whatever the COLA is, those employees would get half. Sullivan said, though if an employee is earning at 114%, they get nothing. Greufe said those employees would still get the COLA. Stutsman said she thinks a new union will form if they eliminate COLA and restrict merit. Greufe said if they set up a brand new union, they will have to renegotiate wages and Johnson County will be on the high end, therefore there will probably be a salary freeze. Greufe said no matter what the Board does, the 20 red circled employees will not be satisfied.
Sullivan said those are people who make double what the Board makes and they will not go hungry, but they will be upset. Neuzil asked Board members if they were ready to compromise. Board members agreed to paying out a graduated COLA for positions over the range according to the following: employees earning between 115% and 125% will earn 50% of the COLA, those earning between 125% and 135% will earn 25% of the COLA, and those at 135% and over will not get any COLA.
Neuzil asked if Board members want to leave merit as is, and drop it to 2% with everyone being eligible. Neuzil said his point is that there will be employees who are not eligible for any pay increase, not even cost of living. Greufe said employees earning between 85% and 115% of the market range will receive the full COLA. The only merit increase those employees can receive is whatever percentage the Board agrees on. Stutsman again said she can't imagine a system that allows an employee no pay increases whatsoever for three years, no merit, no longevity, and no COLA. Harney asked if there is a way to give a pay raise to an employee who is at the 115% threshold. Greufe said he has put in a bonus systems to allow cash bonuses for employee performance in the area of attendance, performance, and goals. Neuzil said he can more easily stomach telling employees that if they are not above 115%, the only thing they are going to get for a while is a pay raise, than telling a veteran County employee who is overpaid according to this system, that they will receive no pay raise whatsoever. Neuzil said if the Board is going to make these adjustments, then everybody should feel a little of the pain. Sullivan replied that the thing about sharing the pain is that not everyone has shared in the benefit. He said there are a few employees who have made $100,000 more than they should have. Stutsman said that is what the Board had to do at that time, but now the environment has changed. Sullivan asked why the Board should ask everyone to bear the burden of a benefit that only a few employees received. He said if he was one of those employees not overpaid, he would ask why he has to be penalized now.
Neuzil asked people to consider employee morale of someone not eligible for anything compared to the person who is rewarded for their hard work. If merit isn't going to be allowed for one, then it shouldn't be allowed for anyone. Neuzil again suggested eliminating merit and longevity for all employees. Greufe said that without merit, there is no way to move through the pay scale. Neuzil said that with what Greufe is proposing, it will take from seven to 15 years before the employee will get any increases, and that is pretty tough for employees to stomach. Greufe said the alternative, if the Board can't agree to a freeze, is to recognize the personal hardship and tell the employee they will receive half of what everyone else gets. Harney asked how to rationalize that to the employee earning $30,000 who receives a 2% pay raise, that the employee earning $60,000 or $70,000 gets 1%, they are still getting further away from the $30,000 person on that scale. Stutsman said the $30,000 job is not the same as the $70,000 job, obviously they are not doing the same thing. Neuzil said sometimes though, they are comparable jobs, but somebody has been in the position for a long time. He said there are individuals who are way out of whack with the pay scale.
Sullivan said he still prefers freezing salaries but does not know how to move forward with that. Stutsman said she could compromise. Harney asked Shramek how this will be tracked in her office. Shramek said it wouldn't be too difficult because there are not that many individuals. Harney said he could go with that.
Neuzil said that none of these individuals would be eligible for merit because they are above the 115% threshold. Greufe said correct. Stutsman asked if that meant no merit and no longevity for anybody. Neuzil said that merit would stay as is depending on if the Board wants to cap it at 2% rather than 3%. Greufe said the way the policy is written is that employees can move more quickly from entry level to 105% of the scale depending upon the performance evaluation score. If the employee earns a 3.14 on the performance evaluation, that correlates to a 1.5% increase. The other system is capped at 5%. The Board can change the scores as they correlate to the pay increase. But the difference with the 5% scale is that in it, longevity is compensated for.
Greufe said to affect the merit budget, the Board can adjust the earnings scale. An average employee will move from 85% to 115% in about ten years. If the Board thinks that is reasonable, they should leave the scale as is. If not, and the Board thinks ten years is too fast, then the Board can slow down the process by changing the merit pay scale. He said a brand new employee earning $50,000 at 85%, and earning a 3.5 performance evaluation score, will receive a 2.5% increase on the $50,000. That bumps this employee to 87.5% of scale after the first year. Now, the COLA is paid at 2%, and this employee is still at 87.5% because the entire band moved. Greufe said the rate of pay changes, but not the percentage. Next year, the same thing happens and new employees will receive a merit and COLA every year until they max out. Once the employee is at 106%, more is expected of them and the bar is raised a little higher, and it takes more effort to move from 105% to 115%. A 3.5 performance evaluation score earns a 1% increase.
Neuzil said his issue has been that some employees receive up to a 3.5% raise which is really great, and then some are getting 3.5% plus another 3%, totaling a 6.5% raise and this is under the radar. He said if the public learns that 19 employees are receiving 6.5% to 7% raises, people would go nuts. Stutsman said it is all cumulative, unlike a bonus. Neuzil asked if the scale could begin at 2% and go down from there. Greufe said that is completely possible.
Shramek said if they reduce the merit scale to 2%, they probably don't want to get rid of longevity. Greufe said longevity would still be incorporated into the numbers. Neuzil said they are talking about making a change and people are going to get less money. Sullivan said they are also talking about buying into Greufe's system so in ten years, the Board won't have to redo much of anything. His fear is if they monkey with this too much, in five years, the County will be too far below all their comparability groups, so Sullivan is inclined to go with what Greufe has proposed. Neuzil asked if that system would keep the merit budget at $75,000. Shramek said that $75,000 budget would be out the window. Greufe said the Board would pick a new number. Neuzil said, again, he has a real problem with the potential of giving some employees a 7% raise in a time when things are really tight.
Stutsman asked Shramek if she feels the merit scale adequately reflects what employees actually are doing. Shramek said pretty well, though there are a couple of departments where it is problematic and she has discussed that with the department head. Sullivan said no one is going to get a 7% increase, 5% is the most anyone could get. Stutsman said it could be 7% if they also get COLA. Neuzil said he can live with the merit system, he would just like to see the percentage lowered. Stutsman suggested 3% and Neuzil said that is where it is now. The idea here, Neuzil said, is that longevity is eliminated and merit is rewarded. Shramek said that longevity is a bonus, not part of the salary. Neuzil said it is a reward for years of service. Neuzil said he is having a hard time stomaching a 6% raise to a government employee at a time like this. Stutsman said it would be different if COLAs were not awarded each year.
Neuzil asked if each of the 143 employees has the merit system. Stutsman said yes, all non-bargaining. Shramek said yes, some of them are maxed out. Greufe said employees below 115% are eligible. Neuzil asked why the Sheriff's Department doesn't do merit. Shramek said they have their own pay plan. Neuzil asked Shramek to explain that. Shramek said it’s the same as with the County Attorney's Office, elected officials can have their own pay plan. Neuzil said okay, so County Attorney and Sheriff's employees don't get merit. Shramek said County Attorney employees do. Stutsman said that is because County Attorney Janet Lyness set up her own merit system. Neuzil asked why they have different systems. Shramek said elected officials have the privilege of establishing their own pay plan. The Sheriff's Department has a separate pay plan and the County Attorney employees are part of the non-bargaining pay plan with the County. Stutsman said that works as long as the Board approves the budgets. Neuzil asked what the Sheriff's Department pay play is like. Shramek said it is strictly based on years of service. Neuzil asked if they have their own system beyond longevity. Shramek said yes. Neuzil asked how the Sheriff's employees are impacted by the 115%. Shramek said they are not part of the study. Neuzil clarified that the Sheriff's employees are not part of the 143 people and Shramek said that is correct. Neuzil said that he thought when they talked about the 143 employees, it included all the non-bargaining employees also but he sees now, that is not the case.
Neuzil asked if people understand what he is trying to get at. He asked if it is right that a non-bargaining employee in the Sheriff's Office still gets their pay plan and longevity while everyone else doesn't. Stutsman said the Board does not have to fund this. Neuzil said he is just asking if the Board plans to eliminate longevity for every non-bargaining employee or not. Greufe said his understanding is that once the elected officials' budget has been approved, they have considerable autonomy on how to spend it. Sullivan said the Board can't ever really control elected official's budgets. The Sheriff could decide to not buy any more cars and just give raises and that would be his choice. Sullivan said it is impossible to force the Board's will on an elected official. Neuzil asked though, if the Board could not fund longevity for every employee. Greufe said that would be a budget item. For example, he said if the Sheriff asks for $100,000 and the Board figures out that longevity is $10,000 of that, they can approve a $90,000 budget for the Sheriff.
Neuzil said he is confused why there are different systems within the County. He said he feels really uncomfortable about taking away longevity for only those 143 employees on the pay plan while employees in other departments will get longevity.
Greufe said he thinks there might be an opportunity to bring everybody on board because his gut says there are people within the Sheriff's Office that could benefit a great deal from the pay plan. Neuzil asked if the Sheriff's Office is the only department with a separate pay plan. Shramek said the Sheriff's Office Command Staff and Auditor's Office Administrative Secretary Nancy Tomkovicz are not printed out on the pay plan. Stutsman asked if the Sheriff's Office is the only one that pays out sick leave or vacation when someone retires. Shramek said among others, the Sheriff's Office and Secondary Roads pay out unused vacation time when someone retires. Stutsman said she thought those employees could accumulate vacation time year after year and go out with a $10,000 pay out. Shramek said an employee can be paid for two years worth of vacation accrual. Greufe said if the County wants to save one million dollars, they should get rid of sick leave pay out.
Sullivan suggested the Board discuss the merit scale. Greufe advised the Board that the lower the number, the lower the impact to the budget. A conservative approach would be to start low and work with that for a year to see what the impact is on the budget. The Board could look at the performance reviews that have come in. Stutsman, Sullivan, and Neuzil said they are okay with the 3%. Stutsman said they can reevaluate in a year. Neuzil said this still means that someone could get a 5% raise. Harney asked if they are getting rid of longevity. Neuzil said yes, for the 143 employees but not everybody. He said he thinks they need to discuss the fairness of this. Shramek reminded the Board to recall what happened when they tried to reduce sick leave from 18 days to 15 days. She said a lot of representatives came in to say if the union gets the benefit then management should too. Stutsman said elected officials do have autonomy. Greufe said if this is an issue for the Board it is something they could approach together.
The Board agreed to discontinue longevity and decided to go with the following 3-point merit scale effective June 30, 2010:
4.75 – 5.00 3%
4.50 - 4.74 2.75%
4.25 – 4.49 2.5%
4.00 – 4.24 2.25%
3.75 – 3.99 2%
3.50 – 3.74 1.75%
3.25 – 3.49 1.5%
3.00 – 3.24 1.25%
2.00 – 2.99 0%
1.00 – 1.99 (-1.5%).
Neuzil said he would like to know how many of the 20 red circled employees are in each of the COLA categories. Greufe asked what the Board is ready to share with department heads. The Board agreed they would only present general information until they have agreed on the final scale. Neuzil said generalities and a time line should be presented to department heads today. He would like department heads to know the Board is addressing issues in regards to merit, longevity, and the implementation timeline. Sullivan said he thinks the Board needs to have a meeting with some of the employees this will affect before the topic is addressed at an Informal meeting. The Board agreed to hold a separate department head meeting to explain the plan. Sullivan said the sooner they can get this information out, the better it will be for people who are going to be impacted. Stutsman said she does not want to ruin anyone's holiday. Stutsman asked if they should combine the department heads meeting with the employee meeting, she said she doesn’t want any misinformation circulating. Shramek suggested combining the meeting with department heads first and then with employees in the same afternoon. Harney said people need to be given the opportunity to ask questions and get answers as soon as possible.
The Board decided they would recess this meeting to convene the Department Head meeting at 1:30 p.m. and then reconvene this Work Session afterwards.
Recessed at 1:19 p.m.; reconvened in Conference Room 203C in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 2:47 p.m.
Neuzil asked Shramek if she could provide a summary of their discussion and send it to Board members. Shramek asked if a final decision had been reached on the green circled employees. Neuzil said the Board agreed they should be bumped up to 85%. Sullivan said this would all be effective June 30, 2010. Neuzil asked how the Board would fund this. One idea is they would budget for it, and the other would be they would use the excess dollars not expended for this study. Shramek said she could take it out of the $200,000 that was earmarked for this study. Neuzil said that money was for the study though and not to pay employees. Neuzil asked if any additional dollars would then go back into the General Fund. Shramek said she does not anticipate there will be a lot of money left over. Neuzil said if the study cost approximately $45,000 and $200,000 was allocated, and there are seven employees who need to be bumped up, he would assume money will be left over. Neuzil said he is asking how that left over money would be used. Shramek said she would think it would go back into the salary line item to cover for the increases. Stutsman said she thinks they can't do that. Sullivan said it will go back into the General Fund. Executive Assistant Andy Johnson asked if there will be any training expenses for the people on the job evaluation committee.
Sullivan asked when the Board should plan to roll out the pay plan for department heads and employees. Shramek asked if the Board wants this to be open to all employees or just the affected ones. Sullivan said particularly the red-lined employees. Stutsman suggested the meetings be open to all employees, they are public meetings. Sullivan agreed, but said he wants the red-lined employees to know there is the opportunity to question the Board first.
The Board discussed possible meeting dates and times. Sullivan said it is important to encourage people to attend the meeting with the Board so that they are all on the same page. Stutsman asked if the meeting will be mandated. Sullivan said they can't mandate it but he wants to inform employees of the time the Board will address employees. Stutsman asked if employees have the opportunity to get on the Board's Informal meeting agenda after that meeting. Greufe said in his opinion, the Board is sharing information with employees, and not asking permission. The Board is telling employees what the new plan will be. He said obviously, people will be upset and if the Board wishes to talk to people personally, they are free to do so. Greufe asked the Board if they want to determine the employee committee before the meeting. Stutsman said she thinks they should explain the purpose of the committee at the meeting and then give people an opportunity to apply or sign up to serve. Neuzil said this work session for department heads and employees is to explain the new policy, and not to gather input or fact finding.
Harney asked for more clarification about the employee job evaluation team. Greufe said the team would consist of employees and supervisors. He recommended the committee be comprised of people not afraid to voice opinions, not easily swayed, and willing to make tough decisions. He suggested asking elected officials, department heads, and employees to obtain a cross section from top to bottom, and to include a couple people from Human Resources, in case tie breakers are necessary. Neuzil asked if these evaluations will be for people who ask to have their job reevaluated. Greufe said yes, the policy will state that position evaluations are typically done annually, but someone can request one during the budget process. Stutsman asked Board members if they were okay with delegating Shramek with the responsibility of setting up the committee. Neuzil said that seems practical. Shramek said she is comfortable with doing that.
Harney emphasized the importance of finding a good cross section of employees for the job evaluation committee. Sullivan said if someone Shramek has identified does not want to serve, they should not serve. He doesn't want any unwilling participants. Greufe said perhaps the Board should make some recommendations to Shramek in order to avoid any perception that the committee was hand picked. Harney asked if the committee will be appointed by the Board. Greufe said not necessarily, but the committee must be confidential because they will see personnel files and employees ratings. Johnson said he thinks the Board will not want to appoint the committee.
Neuzil asked when they should present the pay plan to employees. Shramek said that prior to a department heads meeting, the Board should meet with two of the departments because of the affect this plan will have on those departments.
Harney said that a couple weeks ago, County Engineer Greg Parker and some of his staff said that no one had talked to them about their job descriptions. Parker told Harney that he thinks the original group had done some work on this but never got back to Secondary Roads. Sullivan said they handed that information to him, Greufe has everything they did. Harney said that is what he had told Parker and his staff, but they said no one ever came back. Shramek said she doesn't think that Parker ever requested it. Greufe said when they first started this, they had a department head meeting and he told people that if they wanted to meet with him again, they should let him know. He said he heard from a couple people and he doesn't believe they missed anyone.
Stutsman asked if Shramek is going to meet with the two department heads ahead of time. Shramek said yes. Stutsman asked if Shramek is going to give the presentation to the department heads and employees. Shramek said Greufe will give the presentation. Stutsman asked if Shramek is going to summarize today's decisions in an email to Board members. Shramek said yes. Stutsman said she can't stress enough how much this meeting is going to be about presenting a plan and not asking for input. She recalled the first meeting she ever attended as a Supervisor was one at which the Board suggested office hours be extended from 5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and that was minor compared to what this is going to be about.
Neuzil said he wanted to ask again about the change with longevity. Obviously they are talking about the 143 individuals. He asked if they are talking about eliminating it for all non-bargaining employees. Stutsman said no, not the Sheriff's employees. Harney asked if they should be included because they are non-bargaining. Sullivan said they can't make it happen, they can cut the Sheriff's budget $50,000 and he can still do anything he wants. Harney said that is the Sheriff's problem if he doesn't abide by a policy the Board sets. Neuzil said his point is that, to help soften the blow a little bit, if the Board is committed to letting everyone know that longevity is no longer on the table for every non-bargaining employee, at least that is something to discuss in the budget cycle. Sullivan said he does not want to send a message they can't send. Stutsman said they can send the message through the budget process. Harney said he thinks that if the Board is going to say it to some, they have to say it to all. Sullivan said he does not disagree with that, but what he wants to emphasize is that the Board does not control how the Sheriff spends his budget and he does not want the Board to send a message to the other folks that they do. Harney said he thinks the Sheriff will comply. Neuzil said if they don't comply in that year, he guarantees the Board will get their attention in the following year's budget cycle. He said at least there is consensus among Board members that when they are talking about longevity they are talking about it for every non-bargaining employee. Board members indicted they were in agreement.
Stutsman said she would be more than happy to give a heads up to elected officials and department heads saying this is how the Board is going to proceed. Neuzil said it can't be forced, but they can emphasize that longevity is an anticipated thing they are not planning to budget for. If they want to find the funds somewhere else, that is fine, however, the Board will make sure that loophole is closed the following year, if they collectively want to do that. Harney said if it shows up on a budget, the Board will refuse to budget for that.
Sullivan said with regards to setting the next meeting, he thinks the sooner the better. He said that many people go shopping the day after Thanksgiving and spend lots of money. The Board agreed to schedule the meeting for November 3, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. first with department heads and then with employees. Stutsman asked Shramek when she plans to meet with the two departments. Shramek said probably after Halloween. Sullivan said Shramek would not have much time before the November 3rd meeting. Stutsman asked Shramek to send an email to all Board members asking for input on the evaluation committee and she agreed to do that.
Harney asked if this plan will positively affect the overall long term budget. Greufe said yes, the cost savings will be realized. Harney said the cost savings will be approximately $40,000. Shramek said the cost savings would be $41,000. Stutsman asked Shramek if she has concerns about this being too much change at this time. Shramek replied she thinks this is a lot of change for the employees. She recalled when the Information Technology Department received the $3,000 market adjustment and when it was no longer needed, they tried to take it back. Individuals lobbied individual Board members and removing the market adjustment never happened. Stutsman said the same will happen with this plan and she knows department heads will ask for meetings with Supervisors to explain that they just can't accept the plan. Neuzil said he is just happy the County is not talking about laying off employees like a lot of places.
Stutsman said she is bothered that they are hiding behind the State budget cuts, this is not what this is all about. Neuzil said it is for him. He said he can't think of a better time to explain to people about how they are adjusting to the times. Harney said from his perspective, he had no idea what the outcome of the survey was going to be. The County could be handing out a lot more money than they are. Sullivan said that is what he thought too. Stutsman said she is more comfortable saying the Board is doing this because this is what they had planned to do all along.
Sullivan asked what the response should be when three people from one department come to a Supervisor and say they want a work session. Greufe said he thinks the response should be that they are open to talking to employees and ideally, they should stick to the agreement stating that this is the system, it may not be perfect, but several employee-driven checks and balances are in place.
Adjourned at 3:22 p.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary