MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
DECEMBER 1, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Work Session with Department Heads and Elected Officials
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 1:02 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
P.J. Greufe and Associates Representative Paul Greufe said his goal today is to explain the process of the Non-Bargaining Compensation and Classification Study. Several months ago the Board decided to conduct a review of salaries and the compensation system in Johnson County. This had not been done in a while and the intent was to find out if there were any positions out of line with comparable markets. The study's goal is to assure that similar positions within different departments are paid comparably and to see if Johnson County is competitive with other entities.
Greufe said that originally, Austin Peters and Associates began this study, and part way though the process they asked to stop working with the County. When Austin Peters Group stepped out of the process, Greufe was invited to take over. The result is a product that was completed with substantial input from the Austin Peters Group and ultimately finished by Greufe. Greufe explained that this system is employee driven. Employees were asked to fill out a job audit questionnaire, so they could have input in clarifying their roles and responsibilities within their County job. Employees were also offered interviews with the Austin Peters Group to summarize their written evaluations and provide any necessary clarification. The intent of those interviews was to ensure that the positions were evaluated correctly and that everyone had a voice in that process. After the interviews were completed, supervisors, managers, and elected officials had an opportunity to review the work to concur or disagree with the information provided by employees.
Greufe said the next step involved a comparison of compensable factors. Compensable factors are those areas of performance that are evaluated to determine where the employee should land in the structure. They compared each position with eight specific compensable factors. Each factor has a scoring range and the employee will earn a number within that range depending upon the job requirements. The factors included the following: decision making, supervisory responsibilities, required education and experience, budget impact, contacts, physical work environment, and working conditions. By comparing each position to the same eight factors, the product is consistent. Greufe said this ensures internal equitability.
Greufe said compensable factors are weighted differently. For example, if a position earns a score of one in supervisory responsibilities and one in required education, it doesn't mean they equal the same number of points in the end. If a position in the County scored the top level on all eight factors, the highest score possible is 100. Based on where each position ranks, it would go anywhere from 20 to 100, and that is where internal comparability is defined.
Greufe said the next step in this process is to evaluate external comparability. They chose approximately 30 benchmark positions of the original 100 positions and sent out salary surveys to comparability groups, which included the private sector within this region and cities and counties. They wrote short summaries for each of those 30 positions. The private sector did not respond to the survey, however, there were a good number of responses from the others. When the survey was prepared, they included a brief summary of the position in order to avoid comparing job titles and instead compared the actual work and job duties. The respondents were asked to assess how similar the duties were within the comparable positions. Greufe said that, for the most part, the job duties matched up very closely.
Greufe said the goal is to ensure that Johnson County employees are paid fairly and also competitively based on what others in similar positions earn outside County government. The process did include a review of the cost of living, and whether it was substantial enough to impact the numbers. He thinks information was returned from a good cross section of entities, which included a range of cost of living and counties both larger and smaller than Johnson County. Overall, they are pretty comfortable with the comparability group.
Greufe said the next step is to establish the salary ranges. Similar positions are grouped into similar salary ranges. The continuum ranges from 85% to 115%. Ideally, a new, entry-level hire would start out at 85% of scale within the salary range for their position. They could earn up to 115% over the course of their employment career in the same position. The salary that is at 115% of the market average is the most that position would be compensated within the County. That entire range will move with any cost of living increases offered by the Board. For example, if an employee is at 100% of scale, and the County is giving a 5% COLA, the whole range would move by 5%, so the employee would still be paid at 100% of scale. The second way an employee moves through the salary range is through performance based increases. Performance evaluations will be scored and based on the score, the employee will receive a merit increase.
Greufe explained that there are 24 different salary ranges, and based on the compensable factor score, the positions will be assigned a salary within their range. On the left side of the scale, there is a green x with a circle around it and in Human Resources terminology that is known as a green circle rate. A green circle rate is a rate of pay that is less than the established minimum for that position. Greufe said red circle rates are on the other end of the spectrum, and refer to salaries beyond what is considered competitive for the associated positions, based on the market. For example, if the 115% of scale on that salary range was $60,000 and that current employee was earning $62,000 that would be a red circle rate. The survey results indicated that in Johnson County, there are some green circle and red circle positions. Ideally, this new system should eventually move employees within the appropriate salary range.
Greufe said a compensation team will be created made up of a cross section of Johnson County employees. The team will evaluate positions to determine if any change in pay is required. This team will also evaluate job descriptions for new positions to determine, based upon compensable factors, and the appropriate salary range. Greufe said employees can move through the salary range with merit pay increases. If an employee earns a performance evaluation score of 3.8, according to the current scale, they would be entitled to a 2% raise in addition to the COLA. Pay increases will no longer be based on longevity.
Greufe said a question arose on what to do with salaries currently set lower than the entry level salary for any given position. He said the Board has decided to bump up those salaries to the 85% rate effective June 30, 2010, the planned implementation date for this system. For those employees that are red circled, or paid beyond what the salary range recommends, the Board has suggested stair-stepping those wages in. Greufe said his original recommendation was to freeze those salaries until the range caught up to them. The Board ultimately decided they did not want to tell employees they would receive no increases, so they decided to adjust the percentage of the COLA that they will receive. For example, if there is a 2% COLA on July 1, 2010, those individuals with a salary over the 115% would be eligible for a 1% cost of living adjustment. Salaries would be frozen for any employee earning a salary at 135% or more until the range catches up to them.
Medical Examiner Administrator Michael Hensch said this pay plan was implemented at Iowa City Mercy and it was immensely popular. He said it is very confusing at first, but after one year, the workforce was very satisfied with the plan.
Greufe said that once in place, the plan can be adjusted if needed, based on new information. He reiterated that the appeal process will be available to the employees, one per position prior to June 30, 2010. One advantage of this plan is that the employee knows exactly what raise they will earn based upon their performance evaluation score.
Information Technology Director Jean Schultz said her understanding was that the supervisory factor was weighted very heavily and she asked what accommodations were made to take into account the advanced skills required to perform in the field of technology. Greufe replied that the compensable factors are applicable to all positions and therefore the requirements to perform in the technical field would be reflected in the education and experience category. Schultz said that education in the technology field changes constantly. She asked which cities were included in the study. Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek said the City of Iowa City and Cedar Rapids are two that were included.
Schultz asked if the job descriptions that were sent out went to Human Resources (HR) departments or to the Information Technology departments. Greufe said his experience is that sometimes the HR department fills out the descriptions and other times the HR department forwards them to the specific departments. Schultz asked if the brief descriptions that were sent out included the type of technology that Johnson County uses. She said that there is a wide range of technology in the field and even some large counties are using mini main frame systems, which are very different than the dot.net technology that Johnson County uses. She asked if County employees would be privy to the information sent out and what was returned. Schultz said that initially, the understanding was that this would be an open process, and she asked if that is still the intent. Greufe said he was not involved with the first phase of planning so he could not answer her question directly. He did say that they pared down the number of positions to send out for review from 100 to 30 in order to get a response.
Schultz asked again if the job descriptions that were sent to comparable entities referenced the exact technology used and what Johnson County uses, because there is a vast difference. Greufe said he did not know.
Schultz asked if the red circled employees were not included in the benchmark positions, how he can know for sure they should in fact be red circled. Greufe said the information received on the 30 positions should be comparable. He added that there would be no way to account for every single job duty within every position. There will always be unique things within each agency. Schultz asked which cities included in the cost of living comparison ranked above and equal to Johnson County. Greufe replied that Story County and Ames are generally thought to be higher. Shramek said Iowa City ranked higher.
Schultz asked how the job evaluation team members will be selected and how many people will serve. Greufe said a good cross section should be sought and he does not know if the committee is finalized yet. He said this is a difficult committee to serve on because the responsibility is to set salaries for co-workers and peers.
Schultz asked if any further analysis was conducted with the red circled employees whose positions were not benchmarked, or how will those employees be able to accept that they should be red circled. Greufe said his goal is to remove the personal factor, to take the people out of the formula and evaluate only the position. His goal is to determine if the survey results reflect an accurate cross section of positions from across the state. He said he does understand that salary discussions become very personal and he recommended that if a red circled employee felt they were inappropriately categorized, they should submit an appeal to the job evaluation team. Schultz said she has serious concerns because there is a huge difference between county information technology services delivery. Greufe said the general thinking is that positions involving technological skills and applications will change frequently and therefore must be evaluated more regularly.
County Attorney Janet Lyness asked for an explanation of the compensable factors and how they were determined. Greufe replied the compensable factors are very common no matter what system is used. The compensable factors, determined by Austin Peters Group, are working conditions, budgetary impact, physical skills, job knowledge is broken out into education and experience, decision making, contacts (the impact employees have when working with other people), and supervisory responsibilities.
Conservation Director Harry Graves asked if that information could be provided through a handout. Stutsman and Neuzil said yes. Stutsman asked Executive Assistant Andy Johnson to follow up to make sure department heads receive this information. Johnson agreed.
Ambulance Director Steve Spenler asked, if the new plan will move employees up to the 85% range, was any consideration given to adjusting the salary of a 15 year employee who is paid at 85% on this new scale. Greufe said no. If a position fell within the range, that salary would not be adjusted and the impact to that employee is that their maximum pay has grown considerably. That employee now has the ability to move through the range. Spenler replied that if a green circle employee is going to be bumped up to the 85%, it seems reasonable that the long-time employee sitting at 85% should receive some pay adjustment. Greufe said if the range was from $40,000 to $60,000, and the employee is at $50,000, they will be at the 100% mark. Spenler replied that it would make sense to weight the positions so the person who has been here 15 years would be compensated for their length of service. Shramek said the new plan is based only on merit and they can't bring someone into the middle of the scale until they have a performance evaluation.
Rettig said if she ranks at 100%, and her performance evaluation score is 3.75, she will receive a 2% performance raise. Greufe said correct. She asked if that adds to the base salary for the following year. Greufe said yes, therefore now she will be at 102% of the scale. Rettig asked what happens if her performance evaluation score is very low the following year. Greufe said if an employee earns a performance score between 1.0 and 1.9, they will actually lose 1.5% of their salary.
Veteran Affairs Director Leo Baier asked when the plans will be finalized. Greufe said the intent is to implement the new compensation system on June 30, 2010. The Board is interested in making sure information is communicated to employees, so they can evaluate where their positions fall within the ranges and determine whether they would like to appeal. They want to allow enough time for the appeal process to occur. Public Health Director Doug Beardsley said he appreciates the information but thinks there will be more questions after they have had a chance to consider the details. He hopes there will be an opportunity for a follow up meeting.
Greufe said a draft document is being handed out because employees will have the opportunity to appeal the ranges. There are 24 salary ranges, and the handout provides a listing of the positions within each range. On the handout, the word "entry" refers to 85% of range, "midpoint" refers to 100% of range, and "maximum" refers to 115% of range.
County Treasurer Tom Kriz said Johnson County is very unique from other communities within the state. He said that although Story County has a university, there are a number of ways in which it is not comparable to Johnson County. He thinks it would be hard to obtain comparable data from areas beyond Cedar Rapids and asked if there is more data regarding that issue. Greufe said it is very difficult to match up County jobs with private sector jobs because of the different types of work they do. His experience is that there is fluctuation in pay differences between County and private sector jobs. At times, the private sector pays more than County government and vice versa. He said he does not know why a lot of information was not obtained from the private sector and said that can be a hurdle. Greufe said the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics was not willing to provide any information. Although comparisons can be made to other counties, there will always be a question of whether other counties are actually comparable.
Stutsman said she thought she heard Greufe say that the private sector did not respond to requests for information. Greufe agreed. Stutsman said she thinks that was the issue. Greufe agreed. Harney asked if the information is confidential or if it could be obtained by asking for a release. Greufe said the private sector was not as willing to share information because it is confidential. It is easier to receive municipality information because it is public record. Schultz said some web sites post pay ranges from private sector employers and asked if Greufe checked into those. Greufe relied no, and that the original process was used, because they wanted to ensure they were comparing apples to apples. He said a drawback to using salary web sites for information is that they typically only provide a job title with the salary information.
Rettig said she thinks the comparability group needs to be well understood. She asked how many locations the 30 job descriptions were sent to. Greufe said a 15 to 20 page survey was sent to approximately 20 to 25 entities. The survey listed benchmarked positions, a brief description of the positions, and eight to nine questions regarding the entity’s similar positions. Those questions included asking whether the positions involve supervision, whether they are exempt or nonexempt, and whether bonuses are paid. Rettig asked how many of the 20 to 25 entities responded. Greufe said he believes 10 to 15 responded. Rettig said she thinks everyone in the room wants to know who responded. Greufe said it appears that ten responded, and they include the City of Cedar Rapids, Story County, the City of Coralville, the City of Iowa City, Clinton County, the State of Iowa, Black Hawk County, Linn County, Dallas County, and Scott County.
Baier asked if the changes are set in stone yet. Greufe said he thinks they are confident regarding the methodology used to reach this point. There will be a meeting with employees following this meeting, however, and that will be an additional opportunity for department heads and elected officials to ask for reevaluation of specific positions they think need to be readjusted. He said the report is written as a draft version to allow for possible changes.
Shramek said the survey participants included in the comparability group, which is an established group that Johnson County has used for several years with the unions, are the counties of Clinton, Dubuque, Scott, Story, Linn, and Black Hawk. Rettig asked if Dubuque County responded to the request since they were not in the list previously mentioned. Greufe said his information does not indicate a response from Dubuque County.
Sullivan said a compensation study was last done in 1997, and the intent at that time was for it to be reevaluated about every five years. He said it probably should have been reevaluated in 2002, but he thinks it didn’t happen that year because there was a big financial crisis. It was then supposed to be reevaluated a couple of years later, but three to five Supervisors were up for election that year. The next year there was no money for it. Sullivan said he thinks the fact that it has taken the Board 12 years to have another study completed is part of the reason it comes as a bit of a shock to some people. The Board members have discussed that they will need to adopt a consistent review process if they adopt the proposed compensation system. It will be the Board’s responsibility to continue to review it, and it will be up to department heads and elected officials to hold the Board responsible for that. He said the positions have to be reviewed routinely to prevent them from getting too far below or too far above the appropriate salary ranges.
Beardsley asked if a range number of 13 or 14 on this scale is different from a 13 or 14 in the current system. Greufe said yes.
County Recorder Kim Painter said elected officials are in a different situation because their non-bargaining unit employees are deputies by Iowa Code definition, and are salaried at 80% or 85% of the elected official’s salary. That is determined by the Compensation Board, also established by statute. She asked the Board what changes they foresee for deputies salaries in the future. Neuzil said that topic will be covered in item number three on the agenda. He wants to make sure phase one is completed first.
Neuzil said he thinks the most important thing now is to ask and resolve questions regarding the methodology used to establish the new salary ranges, and this should all be public information. He thinks there are also a lot of questions regarding the appeal process, who will be members of the compensation team, and who gets to choose to be on the team. He thinks there will probably be a follow-up meeting, and the purpose of the current meeting is to present the information and have a conversation about it. Much of this plan was to be unveiled today, however, a reporter attended a previous salary survey meeting, which resulted in many people learning about this from a newspaper article rather than learning about it firsthand from the Board.
Neuzil asked if Greufe or Shramek would make recommendations regarding where to go from here in terms of the process and with whom to communicate additional questions. Greufe said he thinks the next step will be notifying employees that they can come forward before June 30, 2010, if they feel their position was evaluated incorrectly or the information provided was unclear. He said there is not yet a process in place to make a formal request. He thinks department heads and elected officials should evaluate the information they have been given and bring any questions forward. He assumes that once a system for reevaluation is in place, they will be told and will be able to make requests for review. Greufe said the committee will then be in place to continue reviews on a year to year basis.
Greufe said some counties have chosen to eliminate deputy positions from their offices and instead have those employees formally, professionally evaluated under the new compensation system. The change can result in both advantages and disadvantages. For example, job security may be an issue if the elected official does not get reelected. It is also possible that the elected official will no longer be the highest paid position in the office. Greufe thinks placing those positions under the new system would be appropriate and competitive.
Sullivan said he knows Shramek has identified some people from a cross section of County employees to serve on the compensation team, but the individuals will have to agree to serve. He asked Shramek if she has contacted those individuals to make sure they agree to serve. Shramek said she has contacted the department heads to get permission for certain employees to serve. Neuzil said the compensation group may change if additional positions are added to the survey.
Neuzil said the Board has discussed whether the study should be expanded to include non-union employees who are receiving both merit and longevity or should all non-union employees be part of the study. They last discussed that they probably should. Neuzil said there is a category of employees that includes all non-union positions except for administrative deputies, who are tied to the salaries of elected officials. The idea is to replace longevity payments with the merit system based on the salary range. Neuzil said he is not sure if elected official's administrative deputies are allowed to receive merit increases because their salaries are capped at a certain percentage of the salary of the elected official. Neuzil said he does not know whether it has been determined if administrative deputies should keep longevity, and if they are eligible for merit increases. He said there are still some questions that need to be addressed.
Shramek said she thinks it would be valuable to consider including all non-bargaining employees who are not part of the current plan, in an analogous study. She thinks the results of the study should be considered before making any decisions. Currently, there is a separate pay plan for the Sheriff’s Office, and the County Attorney’s Office is part of the non-bargaining pay plan. The other two elected officials’ offices are primarily unionized. Neuzil asked if she is saying that all non-union positions that were not included in the most recent study should now be evaluated. Shramek said yes, it can certainly be done prior to the implementation date. Neuzil asked if she is recommending that they subsequently determine the applicability of the new system to those positions. Shramek said yes. She said the data from the study will be necessary to determine whether potential problems would result.
Neuzil asked if the question of whether an administrative deputy tied to an elected official's salary can receive a merit increase. Lyness said she does not think they can receive merit, but she thinks they can receive longevity. Sullivan said the Code includes information regarding other compensation, but it was unclear to him when he read it. Shramek said it includes information regarding supplemental pay. Sullivan agreed and said it doesn’t specifically state longevity or merit. Rettig said the Code does refer to longevity, but it also mentions additional supplemental pay. She said she didn’t previously understand that the merit adjustment would be built into the base salary. She thought it was a year to year change. She said that because it becomes part of the base salary, it probably wouldn’t qualify as supplemental pay. Greufe agreed and said there would still be a salary cap. He said Rettig is correct that the salary plus merit increase becomes the new base pay under the proposed compensation system.
Neuzil said there are probably additional questions that need to be resolved, but the intent is to expand the study to include additional positions that would be impacted by the elimination of longevity. It has yet to be determined whether longevity will be replaced with a merit based system for those additional positions. Neuzil asked how long the process would take and what would be involved. Greufe asked if he is referring to the compensation team. Neuzil said no, and indicated that he is referring to the evaluation of additional positions. He asked if it would include 70 additional employees. Shramek said 50. Another one to two months would be necessary to expand the study to include those individuals. Sullivan said he is assuming that the process can continue for the positions already studied while additional positions are being evaluated. Greufe agreed. Sullivan said the process of changing to the new system wouldn’t necessarily be on hold for one to two months. Neuzil said his only concern with establishing the compensation team is that if people are added, then members from additional departments may want to be included on the team. Shramek said additional individuals could be added to the team. Greufe agreed.
Rettig said there are five elected officials who have administrative deputies. One of those offices is not currently participating in the administrative deputy process. She asked if that is the County Attorney’s Office. Neuzil said yes. Rettig said the deputies in the other four offices are tied to the salaries of their elected official. Following completion of the expanded study, those elected officials can decide whether to continue having administrative deputy positions or to use the new system. Greufe said that is his understanding. He thinks it would be great if the elected officials chose to use the new system, but he understands that they have considerable autonomy in the State of Iowa and could choose to keep their administrative deputy positions because it is their legal right.
Kriz asked if the Board has a long term goal of eliminating longevity for union employees. Neuzil said he wouldn’t necessarily be supportive of eliminating longevity for them, because it could not currently be replaced with a merit based system within the union process. He does think the size of the longevity payment needs to be questioned, however. Sullivan said they would ideally like the same compensation system used for all County employees. Shramek has been asked to keep that in mind during negotiations, although there is an understanding that the change would not occur in one year. Kriz said his concern was that the process would potentially take longer than two to six months. Sullivan said the Board members did discuss that they would like the new system applied to all County positions. Neuzil agreed.
County Engineer Greg Parker said the Assistant County Engineers met with Shramek last week because they are red circle positions. He said Secondary Roads employees are required to live within Johnson County limits, and he believes it is the only department in the County with that requirement. He said Shramek told the Assistant County Engineers that cost of living was not accounted for in the salary study, but Greufe said it was. He asked for clarification and said it does impact hiring within his department. Greufe said cost of living was considered by evaluating the cost of living and salary differences between Johnson County and the ten entities that returned questionnaires. Decisions were made with that information in mind so it has been incorporated into the study. Greufe said the salary ranges have been established to account for the cost of living. There isn’t any way to incorporate the residency requirement, however. He said he doesn’t know what percentage of Johnson County employees live in Iowa City.
Parker asked if the performance evaluation sheets for non-bargaining staff will be modified. Greufe said he used the same scale previously used and tried to incorporate it in the salaries. He said there hasn’t been a request to alter the evaluation, but changes can be made if it is not currently meeting needs. Human Resources Coordinator Dana Winkowitsch said she is currently leading a committee that is in the process of reviewing the existing non-bargaining performance evaluation form. They are hoping to put it in front of the Board to obtain their input in the month of December. There are a couple of additional adjustments they would like to make before it is presented to the Board for approval.
Parker asked if the department heads will have an opportunity to provide input. Winkowitsch said the committee selected some department heads and elected officials to share it with, but they haven’t discussed sending it out to everyone prior to Board approval. Parker said he was unsure if that was a component of the study. Winkowitsch said it is not part of Greufe’s study, but it is a side project. Parker said he thinks department heads should have the opportunity to provide input for the evaluation form changes. Sullivan asked Winkowitsch if he is correct that there has been no discussion as far as changing the scale. There are currently 11 factors weighted from one to five, and that will not change. Winkowitsch agreed that the same ratings will be used. Sullivan said changing the tool will not affect the salary ranges at all.
County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said the Sheriff’s Office is different from the offices of other elected officials because it is not a protected class. As a result, the potential changes previously mentioned would result in a negative impact on the Sheriff's Chief Deputy’s retirement. Pulkrabek said he is wondering if elected officials will have an opportunity to meet with the Board before surveys for additional positions are sent to outside entities. He said the Sheriff’s Office does have a residency restriction. It previously required employees to live within the County but now requires them to live within a 20 mile radius of the Sheriff's Office.
Neuzil said there will need to be more fact finding done to answer questions. Stutsman said she has been involved in two salary surveys, and they are based on the position rather than the person working in the position. They have to keep that in mind when doing salary surveys. She has to keep reminding herself of that and would like other people to keep it in mind as well. Shramek said she doesn’t think she has ever seen a perfect job evaluation system, and it is important for people to understand that. There are several different systems in existence.
Painter said she knows there will be a lot of issues to discuss regarding deputies. Although the concept of a deputy officer is very old fashioned, they play a vital role in the offices of elected officials, who stand for election every four years and live or die by how they function as CEO’s of their offices. That is essentially what they do because they have small offices from which services are provided to Johnson County citizens. Elected officials have been able to use the deputy position to make changes within their offices in accordance with their views regarding the most effective way to take the County forward. In that manner, they have been able to incorporate current concepts into their offices.
Painter said she knows the Board is aware of that, because it is discussed during the budget process. She would like to remind them of that, however, as they start to have conversations about potentially changing the title of the deputy position. Elected officials may feel that doing so would voluntarily diminish their role as CEO within their County service office. As a result, their vision may become somewhat subservient to the position of the Board. Painter said she knows that is not the intent of the Board, but she thinks it may be why people seem resistant to potential changes. She thinks the five elected officials are very proud of the strides they have made in terms of creating more corporate environments and responding to the marketplace locally and across the state.
Greufe said his understanding of State law is that elected officials' offices are completely autonomous. That is, regardless of whether the positions in the office are union, nonunion, or deputy. His understanding is that a Human Resources employee cannot discipline an employee working in the office of an elected official without the approval of the elected official. Harney said the annual compensation hearings are coming up in the near future, and he thinks Painter has a good argument for the active compensation of deputies and elected officials in light of the changes being made.
Harney asked what people’s opinions are regarding the replacement of longevity with the merit system. Although longevity is good for each employee, the merit based system will give supervisors the ability to make adjustments based on job performance. Conservation Director Harry Graves said that change has been a concern for Conversation staff because there are many long serving employees within the department. Those individuals receive up to $900 in longevity payments. His understanding is that the merit based system will make up for some of that amount if the employees rate well within it. He said Conversation employees will have additional questions, and they will be present at the next meeting.
Sheriff's Major Steve Dolezal said his understanding is that adding merit increases to base salaries will cost the County more money and result in more money for employees over time. Neuzil said yes, up to 115% of salary range for each position. He said the idea is to change from a longevity system to a merit system. Stutsman said a performance system. Neuzil agreed and said saving money is not the purpose of the change. Dolezal said it won’t save money if employees fall within their salary range. Neuzil said it potentially won’t, but there are currently employees who are eligible for a COLA, merit increase, and longevity payments, which will result in 5% to 7% salary raises for certain employees in FY10.
Dolezal said he may not have taken that into account when he did the math, because the Sheriff’s Office does not have a merit system. He said taking away a $900 COLA payment from someone earning $50,000 a year will result in a $1,500 salary increase, which will be added to their salary base the following year. That amount will then increase the following year based on the COLA and anything else. Neuzil agreed. Rettig said she was not aware prior to this meeting that the merit increases were going to be added to the base salary. She thought they would be reevaluated each year. Stutsman said they have always added merit increases to base salaries in the past, and the other Board members may have made that assumption as a result. She thinks it is understandable that Rettig did not know that since she is new.
Lyness asked if the comparability questionnaires included asking if longevity is awarded. Greufe said the questionnaire included items concerning merit and longevity and how the employee moves through the process. Lyness then asked if the information from other locations regarding longevity was considered in the determination of base salaries. Greufe said yes. Sullivan said he thinks about half of the respondents had longevity and half of them didn’t.
Beardsley said a couple of employees within the Public Health Department have been employed for a long period of time. They are currently at the top of their salary scale, and he assumes they will be at the top of the new salary scale as well. He said the elimination of longevity will not affect their merit based salary increase because they will not be eligible to receive one. As a result, there will be no incentive to perform well other than to avoid receiving a low performance evaluation score. Beardsley said there is no other incentive for those employees to continue their employment. He is sure the Board will hear that from employees who have been around a long time. Greufe said those individuals will be eligible for COLAs. Beardsley agreed but said everyone is eligible for COLA now. Sullivan said he thinks that relates to Stutsman's comment about evaluating the positions rather than the names and faces in the positions, whether those individuals have been employed 36 years or 36 minutes. The changes will positively impact some employees and negatively impact others.
Neuzil said department heads and elected officials can forward additional questions to Shramek, and she can work with Greufe to respond to them. A timetable for the appeal process probably needs to be worked out, and the Board members, department heads, and elected officials can have some related discussion during their upcoming meetings. Neuzil said the meeting for employees is scheduled for 2:30 p.m.
Adjourned at 2:22 p.m.
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary