MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
DECEMBER 1, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Work Session with Employees Included in the Non-Bargaining Compensation and Classification Study
Discussion with Employees: Compensation and Classification Study and Recommendations
Chairperson Neuzil called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Health and Human Services Building at 2:32 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, Janelle Rettig, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan.
PJ Greufe and Associates Representative Paul Greufe said his goals for today's meeting include describing the methodology of the Compensation and Classification Study and how a compensation system works. He asked that employees should feel free to ask questions at any time. He said that following the discussion, he will pass out a document which shows the new salary ranges along with which positions fall within each range. The intention is that any system currently in use will be replaced with this new one. He said it is also important to note that PJ Greufe and Associates had to be totally objective when they did this study, and it is purely an objective assessment of the positions themselves. To avoid all subjectivity, which is difficult to do, they could not take the people into consideration, whether they knew them, and how long they have been working for the County.
Greufe said the Board initially requested this study because it had been approximately 12 years since the last study was done and they have seen that the system can get out of balance over time. As a result, the Board elected to have the Austin Peters Group (Austin Peters) begin the study. They were looking for salary consistency and whether similar positions exist in different offices. Austin Peters subsequently stepped out of the process and PJ Greufe and Associates was then asked to take over. The final product was completed with substantial input from Austin Peters but finished by PJ Greufe and Associates.
Greufe said it is important to note that this is an employee centered program. Employees were asked to fill out a job audit questionnaire describing daily job duties and responsibilities. Once that was completed, employees had the opportunity for a one-on-one interview with a representative from Austin Peters to describe the position in even greater detail. The intent of those interviews was to ensure clarity and accuracy. In addition, Greufe said, supervisors, department heads, and elected officials had the opportunity to review the job audit information.
Greufe said the next step involved comparing compensable factors. Compensable factors are: decision making, supervisory responsibilities, required education and experience, budget impact, contacts, physical work environment, and working conditions. A different score is assigned to each factor and each position is evaluated with these eight specific compensable factors. By comparing each position to the same eight factors, the product is consistent. They wanted to ensure that similar positions in different offices and departments would be compensated fairly and equitably.
Greufe explained that scoring for the compensable factors is done on a scale of one to six. For example, supervisory positions may receive a score of one if the position does not involve any supervision and six if it involves supervising a supervisor. Each position earns a number within each category based on information provided. The factors are weighted differently, however. The sum of the numbers for all eight factors is then determined for each position and results in a number between 1 and 100. If a position receives the highest number in all eight categories, the total score for that position is 100.
Greufe said the next step related to external comparability. They took approximately 30 of the original 100 positions and labeled them as benchmark positions. Brief summaries for each of those 30 positions were provided and the summaries were sent to 20 to 25 outside entities in both the private and public sector, including cities and counties comparable to Johnson County. The human resource departments or administrative teams of those entities then evaluated each position by assigning a number of one through five to indicate how closely the County position matched the position within their entity. If the position was a close match, it was considered a valid comparison. Positions that were not ranked as being similar were not used as readily because they wanted to ensure that the study compared apples to apples.
Greufe said the goal of the salary survey is to ensure that employees are paid fairly and competitively based on actual job duties and responsibilities. The process included consideration 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, counties both larger and smaller than Johnson County, and included a range of different costs of living. Overall, they are pretty comfortable with the comparability group.
Neuzil asked for the list of communities that were a part of the study. Human Resources Administrator Lora Shramek said she sent it to the comparability group, which includes the counties of Clinton, Dubuque, Scott, Linn, and Black Hawk. However, her understanding is that Dubuque County did not return the survey. In addition to that group, information from the following counties and municipalities was obtained: Dallas County, Story County, and the Cities of Iowa City, Cedar Rapids, and Coralville. Shramek said the State of Iowa also responded.
Greufe explained the next step was to create salary ranges that go from 85% to 115% of the established salary based on the survey. A brand new employee would ideally start out at 85% of scale within the salary range for their position. They could earn more money over time. The Board has the option of giving a cost of living adjustment (COLA) each year, which they have been doing. The entire salary range is adjusted with each COLA. Greufe said employees move within the salary range based on performance evaluations. For example, an employee receiving a performance evaluation score of 3.8 would earn a 2% raise. Over time, an employee can earn up to 115% of the established market salary. When they reach that maximum, they are no longer eligible for merit increases, but they would continue to be eligible for an annual COLA. The goal is to bring all employees back into the 85% to 115% established salary range based on the survey.
Greufe said when they completed the study they found that there were some Johnson County employees earning less than the established minimum salary for their position and some employees earning more than the established maximum salary. In the field of human resources, salaries outside the established range are referred to as green circle rates (below the minimum) and red circle rates (above the maximum). The Board decided that appropriate adjustments should be made effective June 30, 2010. They decided that green circle employees will receive a salary increase to bump their salary up to 85% of scale. There are approximately seven County employees that will be eligible for this salary increase.
Greufe said his original suggestion regarding adjustments for the red circle employees was to freeze those salaries until the range catches up to them. The range will continue to move with each COLA and eventually catch up to the current red circle rates. The Board ultimately disagreed with freezing salaries and said they want to give employees some pay increase. However, they decided that red circle employees earning between 115% and 125% of scale will receive only 50% of the COLA. For example, if there is a 2% COLA, those individuals would be eligible for a 1% COLA. They will still gain something, and it will take longer for the range to catch up but the Board felt that was a more palatable strategy to reach that goal.
Greufe said he thinks there are 24 different salary ranges. The method used to determine the range for a position was based on the number determined during the audit process and the interview. As a result, certain positions have been lumped together. For example, positions that were given a number between 75 and 77 during the audit process were determined to fall into a specific range. Greufe said his recommendation to the Board was to eliminate longevity payments and in many instances, that money will be built into the salary range and will go beyond the current amount those employees are able to earn. The difference is that the salary increases will be based on performance rather than number of years in the position.
Greufe said the process was employee focused in the beginning and will return to the employees when he leaves because a compensation team will be created. The team will periodically evaluate the system to ensure it stays up-to-date. If any employee feels that they did not initially provide accurate information regarding their position, or wants to update what they reported on the job audit questionnaire, there will be ways to do so. If a position was somehow missed or not appropriately accounted for, adjustments can be made on a year to year basis.
Greufe said the new system is scheduled to go into effect June 30, 2010, the end of FY10. He stated that the Board said that they would like everyone to feel comfortable with the process and he assured employees that they would have the opportunity to appeal the compensable factors if they feel there is a need to reevaluate. In addition, newly revised job descriptions can be submitted to the team for reevaluation. Greufe said the compensation team is part of a system that will be put in place to deal with changes over time. If an employee takes on additional responsibilities due to the resignation of a coworker, for example, the new system can account for those changes. After the additional duties have been put in place, the job description can be updated and brought to the compensation team for review. The members of the team will evaluate whether the change will result in a pay increase. Greufe said the Human Resources Department is in the process of assembling the compensation team.
Greufe reported that someone in the previous meeting with department heads and elected officials mentioned that he worked under a similar system at Mercy Iowa City. He reported that once everyone got beyond the initial confusion of a new system, it worked very well. Greufe said raises are based on performance and depend on where an employee is placed within the range for their position. If the individual is currently at 85% of scale, over time they can earn an additional 30% based on their performance. Individuals who are at 115% of scale, or higher, will only be eligible for the annual COLA, or a percentage thereof.
Ambulance Field Supervisor Becky Loyd said her understanding is that there are a number of employees who currently receive a 3% raise rather than 2%, and she asked if everyone in the department could get a 3% merit raise. She asked Shramek to explain how that currently works and how it will change under the new system. Shramek said the current system is based on both years worked in the position (1%) and on merit (3%). The new system will be solely based on merit, which is strictly based upon the performance evaluation rating.
Information Technology (IT) Programming Manager Carl Unternahrer said he was asked by some employees in the IT Department to speak on their behalf. He said when the study began last spring, representatives from Austin Peters said there would be open communication throughout the process and there would not be any surprises. He said many people in the IT department were negatively surprised when the study was completed. Unternahrer said their understanding is that the process used to compare the positions was based on a point system, and Unternahrer said Greufe explained that very well. He asked if an index was applied to the compensable factors for specific positions to reflect the variance in markets for those professions. Greufe replied that there are a number of compensations systems in use, but they are all based on the same philosophy. That philosophy emphasizes the importance of reducing the requirements of different positions to compensable factors, so the positions can then be compared to one another. The compensable factors have been used many times over as a way to assess someone’s ability to do their job. As a result, an attorney, a county engineer, and a park ranger can be compared to one another based on their level of decision making, supervisory responsibility, and other compensable factors. He said that is the intent of the process.
Unternahrer said Greufe may find there is some disagreement with that being a fair comparison across a broad range of professions. Certainly, he said, there would be different indexes applied for different areas even when comparing local markets to state or national markets. He asked Greufe if the job descriptions that were sent to other entities included knowledge of specific technologies used for programming and for building servers.
Greufe restated that only a cross section of the total number of positions evaluated were actually sent to outside entities because it was predicted that people would not respond to a document addressing 100 jobs. They tried to capture the essence of the positions with a brief job description, three to five sentences long. Greufe said he does not remember whether those summaries included specific programming language. Within the questionnaire for each position, the outside entities were asked a number of questions, including whether they felt the position was a close match, if they supervised people, how the position was compensated, and whether they offer merit increases. Unternahrer said personally he likes the change from longevity increases to solely merit based increases and thinks it is a positive move. He does not know whether other IT employees feel the same way.
GIS Coordinator Rick Havel said he would also be asking questions agreed upon within IT. He said it is understandable that surveys were sent out to private industry; however, the surveys were not returned. Their concern is that those entities, particularly the University of Iowa and some private businesses within Johnson County, represent a lot of the competition for the employees within IT. Excluding them because the surveys were not returned puts IT employees at a disadvantage. Greufe said they sent out a large number of surveys. Some of them were returned in a timely manner and some of them were not. Unfortunately, not all of the surveys were returned. Greufe said his experience with County government is that it is sometimes difficult to compare County government positions to those in the private sector.
Havel asked if experience as a compensable factor refers to length of experience. Greufe responded that the experience factor is driven by employee responses on the survey regarding how many years of experience and what level of education is required for the particular position. The numbers were all based on information provided by IT employees. Shramek said that information is also specified in the job descriptions.
Unternahrer said he would like to clarify his question because he is not sure that it was understood. He said employee retention in Johnson County's IT Department is very high compared to other county IT departments. They are wondering if this would have resulted in the reporting of lower salaries from other county IT departments. Unternahrer asked if the salary of someone who has worked in the Johnson County IT Department for ten years would have potentially been compared to someone who has worked for another county for only one to three years. He asked if that factor was taken into consideration when determining the pay scale range. Greufe said the questionnaires sent to external entities asked for information including both current salary and salary range. He thinks the Iowa State Association of Counties (ISAC) survey also showed information regarding number of years worked. Greufe said the salary ranges of comparable groups were more important to them than where individuals fell within those ranges.
Havel asked if the process involved evaluating job descriptions for experience required for particular positions. Greufe said yes. Havel asked if a cost of living index was applied to salaries collected. Greufe said they did take a look at that, and they obtained information from both smaller and larger counties. Havel asked if Greufe had said he had contacted department heads for recommendations of people to serve on the compensation team. Greufe said ideally they want eight to ten people to serve on the compensation team, so he doesn’t think every department can be represented. He thinks the process so far has been to contact certain department heads to see if they have any interest in adding someone to the team. Havel said IT is interested in serving on the team.
Conservation Naturalist Brad Freidhof asked how staffing rates were taken into consideration in terms of comparisons with other counties. For example, there is one Naturalist position in Johnson County, but some larger counties have five Naturalist positions. The salaries within those counties may be lower, but they have twice the staffing rate. Greufe said the numbers were driven by individual job duties and responsibilities rather than how many people do that particular job. Freidhof said that job duties fall in line with the population and statistics of the county. He asked if the number of staff within the county was taken into consideration at all. Greufe responded that it would depend on the job. He said he assumes that a single Naturalist in one county would be more comparable to the top Naturalist in another county, because that one person is doing everything. It would depend on the results of the comparability groups, however. Greufe said that his experience is that someone in a particular, sole position typically has a broad range of duties. When compared to a county that has ten similar positions, it typically starts pushing things to the other end, because people in nine of the ten positions may be doing more specialist work. Freidhof asked what factors Greufe used to evaluate that. Greufe responded that it would have affected every factor based on how Freidhof responded on the job audit questionnaire. Freidhof asked if Greufe considered that information for each one of the categories. Greufe said yes.
Environmental Health Specialist Erin Pettypiece asked how it was determined that the salary range would include 15% above and below a predetermined salary. Greufe said it is a pretty common approach, and it establishes a system in which people do not max out too quickly. If the performance raise stays the same, the largest increase an entry level employee would earn is 3% per year, which could result in reaching the top range in ten years. Pettypiece said some employees in green circle positions have been working for the County for a period of time. She asked if they will be starting at the minimum salary in their pay range. Greufe said yes. Pettypiece said it may result in employees with many years of experience earning the same salary as a newly hired employee. She said that doesn’t seem right. Greufe said the system is no longer based on longevity but on the skills and attributes brought to the job and performance following hire. He assumes a person who has been working in a position for five years will earn a higher performance raise than a new employee.
Pettypiece asked if she is only eligible for performance raises until she reaches 115% of scale. Greufe said correct. If an employee is at 112% of scale and earns a 3% raise, they will be at 115% of scale and that is the most they can earn based on performance. He said a raise could potentially be obtained each year based on the COLA. Pettypiece asked if she will continue to earn the same salary while being higher in her salary range than she was in the past. Greufe said yes, and that most positions fell within the range, although a few fell below it and a few fell above it. He said almost all employees will fall into a range close to the salary they are currently earning.
Pettypiece said the red circled employees who will begin receiving 50% of the COLA, will essentially get a pay cut every year because a COLA is an adjustment rather than a raise. Pettypiece said those employees will essentially lose pay for increasing their longevity. Greufe said the idea behind the range is to establish the effective market rate. They had both internal and external comparability groups. The external comparability group results suggest that these are appropriate ranges when compared to other counties and cities. If someone is beyond that range, they will continue to earn the same salary. Greufe said money is not going to be taken away from anyone. As a result, people in red circle positions will essentially continue to be outside the range, despite reduced COLAs. If someone was at 135% of scale, they will ultimately pick up 25% and then 50% of the COLA until they are within range. He said the idea is that they are saying they are confident the ranges are appropriate. Their goal is to get everyone back within the ranges, and that will happen over time.
Pettypiece asked why a salary range was not determined for each individual position rather than grouping positions together. Greufe said there generally were not large gaps in numbers, and they were actually very comparable. For example, one position may have had a number of 74.23, and another position may have had a number of 74.48. The belief was that the ranges made sense for particular groups of positions, based on data including current salaries and external comparability.
Pettypiece asked if the study, including the job descriptions, comparable counties, and related information is available to employees. Greufe said he thinks the job descriptions are readily available and that the job audit questionnaires were completed by employees themselves. A document that outlines every range and every position that falls within that range will be provided. Greufe also stated that employees ultimately have an opportunity to have their positions reviewed by the compensation team. Pettypiece clarified that she was referring to the availability of the position summaries that were sent to external entities rather than the official job descriptions. Greufe replied that the Board would be responsible for making that decision. Pettypiece asked if the study will be posted online. Stutsman and Neuzil indicated that they think it will be.
Pettypiece asked if there will be an official vote at a Board meeting to decide on the new system and whether it will be adopted. Shramek said it will be presented at a future Informal Meeting and voted on at a future Formal Meeting. Pettypiece asked if there is a timeline for when that will happen. Neuzil said he anticipates there will be at least one more meeting with employees before a formal vote; however, he thinks the concept is at least informally agreed upon by the Board currently. They will have until June 30, 2010, to make a final decision, and the compensation team will probably be assembled prior to doing so. Pettypiece asked if appeals can be made prior to adoption by the Board, so any resulting changes can be incorporated into the adopted policy. Neuzil said he believes the appeals would take place following adoption of the policy. Sullivan said they need to allow a fair amount of time, because there may be several people who would like to appeal. Neuzil said the Board is also interested in including additional nonunion positions that were not included in the initial study.
Pettypiece asked if the position summaries that were sent to outside entities were selected to represent all departments. Greufe said they were selected to obtain a cross section of departments and levels of employment. Identifying a cross section was important in order to obtain a clear picture of whether the comparability group was appropriate.
Rettig asked why the 30 selected positions and related summaries are not public information. Sullivan said the County owns the information, because they paid for the survey, and it is their decision whether to give it out. Rettig said the Board decided to give out the compensable factors documentation at the last meeting. Rettig said that from her perspective, more information is better. Maintenance Supervisor Shari Butler asked if it shouldn't all be public information. Neuzil agreed. Sullivan said he doesn’t think anyone objects to sharing any of the information. Neuzil said they will be handing out information regarding the pay ranges. He said employees in red circle positions should have already been notified. He is not sure whether employees in green circle positions are aware that they may be getting a significant raise.
Environmental Health Coordinator James Lacina asked why it was not decided to increase performance raises to adjust for length of time served in the position, since the step raises will be eliminated. Greufe said the performance raise document will ideally become a human resources policy, so it is clearly communicated to everyone. The Board will certainly have the ability to adjust the performance raise as needed. Neuzil said it was the result of compromises made by Board members in the process of coming to an agreement on the current plan. Stutsman said she thinks Greufe has a good point that this is a fluid document, and the Board will reevaluate it every year.
HIV Outreach Worker Andrew Weigel said he has questions regarding standardization of the ratings scales. He has informally heard that some people will never give scores of five because they feel that represents perfection, and other people feel differently about the rating. He also thinks that longevity and performance get conflated because people often expect more of an employee who has been here a long time, and they may receive a lower performance rating as a result. Weigel said it seems like that system should change if the longevity component is eliminated. Greufe said he thinks the performance evaluation tool has been given to an employee committee for evaluation and to ensure it is up-to-date.
Human Resources Coordinator Dana Winkowitsch said she is currently leading a committee that is revising the current nonbargaining performance evaluation form. She said employees are currently rated on a scale of one to five, and the same rating scale will be kept in place. Winkowitsch asked if that answered Weigel’s question. Weigel said he thinks it is customary for a person who has been on the job longer to be rated lower than a person who is new to the position because more is expected of the longer term employee. If longevity pay is eliminated, it seems the performance evaluation system should change so employees are exclusively rated on their outcomes regardless of their length of employment. Sullivan said that is the goal. Stutsman agreed. Sullivan said they must not consider any names, faces, or lengths of employment during this process. It is up to managers to complete the evaluation. He said he agrees there will be a little inconsistency in the way they are completed, although they hope evaluations are pretty fair throughout departments.
Weigel asked how they are going to encourage standardization. Greufe said he has experience with performance evaluations and thinks there has to be a common understanding between supervisors and employees that the evaluation represents a snapshot of what the employee has done over the past year. The results should not come as a surprise to the employee. Greufe said he has heard it said that people cannot receive a score of five because that would mean they are perfect. He thinks that issue should be addressed with supervisors to let them know that an employee can earn a score of five. If someone thinks an employee is outstanding, he would ask why and obtain examples. Similarly, if an employee is said to be performing poorly, Greufe said he would ask for supportive information. If there is good communication between a supervisor and employee, the results should not be a shock. Greufe said, on the other hand, employees cannot expect to get a higher performance rating in subsequent years. An employee who earns a score of five one year may earn a score of four the next, although they are still performing very well. He thinks give and take can be beneficial to the system.
Neuzil said to note that a merit increase becomes part of an employee’s salary. It is not just a one year bump. There is potential for an employee below 115% of range to obtain a 5.5% increase in salary in one year if they receive both a 2% to 3% COLA increase as well as a merit increase of 2.5%. Butler said an employee paid above 115% of scale will never get anything more than the COLA despite their level of performance, and she asked if receiving a lower performance score could result in a reduction of their COLA. Greufe said that is a good point. The system is based on performance, and an employee receiving a performance score of one to 1.99 would receive a salary reduction of 1.5%. Based on market data, 115% of scale is the most that a position will be paid within Johnson County. He thinks employees with a good work ethic will continue to work hard after hitting 115%. Greufe said employees work hard because they have good work ethics and not simply to receive a $500 longevity bonus.
Sullivan said he thinks the Board previously made a mistake by not evaluating positions on an ongoing basis. The last salary survey was done in 1997 which has resulted in red and green circle positions. He said if the process is continuous, positions should not get that far out of balance again. If the market changes, they should be able to account for that.
Butler said there is a State regulation that currently requires her to hold four licenses that were not required for her position when she completed her questionnaire. The Physical Plant could no longer function if someone did not hold those licenses. She asked if raising these issues with the compensation team would potentially raise the top of the scale for her position and/or for that of other positions. Greufe said the top of the scale would not increase, but Butler's position could be reclassified. Sullivan agreed. Greufe said a change of salary scale would not immediately impact her salary, but she could potentially change from being at 115% of the current scale for her position to only 85% of the new scale for her position. Butler asked if she would then have the potential to move towards the top of the new scale for her position. Greufe said yes. Rettig said Butler previously stated that someone at 115% of scale may never earn an increase in salary. Rettig clarified that salary ranges would potentially change each year based on the COLA.
Environmental Health Specialist Bruce Hudson asked for an explanation of how multiple jobs were ultimately placed into one salary range. Greufe said once they felt they had a solid understanding of what the position required, they placed it into the compensable factor list. The list was sorted from low to high and from high to low. He said by doing that, they were able to determine if there were groupings of positions that were close together. They saw that there were several positions within one point of each other and looked at the external comparability factor to help determine if it made sense for them to be in a particular range.
Hudson asked if an employee holds specific qualifications not required by the position, would they be entitled to move up on the pay scale. Greufe said no; the salary range is based on required qualifications. Hudson asked if those are set by Human Resources. Greufe responded that they are likely set by department heads. He said department heads generally let Human Resources know what level of education and experience are required. That information is based on past practice. The range could be reconsidered if the job requirements for the position changed. Hudson asked when the minimum qualifications were last updated and if that was taken into consideration with the current study. Shramek said the minimum qualifications for a position are reviewed every time a job description is updated. At a minimum that occurs every time there is a vacancy, and ideally more often. Hudson asked if it is possible that, for some positions, minimum qualifications have not been reviewed for five to ten years if the same employee has been working in the position for that long. Greufe said questions about minimum job qualification were included in the current job audit questionnaire. Hudson said he is asking if the related information from the job audit questionnaire was factored into the study. Greufe replied yes.
Hudson asked how much the study cost and said the question is not his own. Shramek said approximately $38,000. Hudson asked if this system is geared to save an abundant amount of money. Greufe said his understanding is that the Board did not initiate the study for the purpose of cost savings, but because they thought there was a need to fix the system. Greufe said he does not think the Board knew what the outcome of the study would be. Hudson asked if it appears that the changes will save money. Neuzil, Stutsman, and Greufe said they don’t think so. Stutsman said the actual results came as a surprise to her. She thought there would have been more employees in the green circle area but instead, there were more in the red circle area. Neuzil said the Board budgeted $200,000 for the study over a period of years. He said the actual cost was under $40,000. The money for salary increases for employees in green circle positions will likely come out of the remaining money that was set aside for the study. Neuzil said they are anticipating that the change in the merit process will potentially increase salaries, although longevity will no longer be paid out. That is how the system was set up.
Hudson asked if experience will be factored into the evaluation process, since it is not considered under the new system. Greufe said experience is factored into the system. Hudson clarified that he meant time on the job. He asked if time on the job will be factored into the yearly evaluation. Greufe said it will be based solely on merit; it will be based on performance rather than the length of time in the position. Neuzil clarified that it is based on performance per year. Greufe agreed. Rettig said each performance raise will be built into the next year’s salary. Employees currently receive a maximum longevity payment of $900. If an employee is paid $40,000 per year and earns a 3% increase for the next year, it will amount to a $1,200 raise. The $1,200 raise becomes part of the base salary for the next year. If the employee then earns a 2% salary increase for the following year, the raise will amount to 2% of $41,200. As a result, raises could increase over time because there is a broader range to move through, and an employee can potentially move through the range faster.
Hudson said that depends on whether the employee’s supervisor likes them. Stutsman said no, it depends on whether or not the employee does their job and how well they do it. Hudson said there are no set standards. Stutsman said the evaluation does have standards. Hudson said there is not standardization within the policy. Sullivan said it is true that some supervisors may give higher scores than others, but part of the Board of Supervisor’s job is to make sure that department heads who report to them do not give everyone the same number. Sullivan thinks that would also be a responsibility of the Board of Health when reviewing Public Health Director Doug Beardsley, and the Conservation Board when reviewing Conservation Director Harry Graves; to make sure they don't give everyone a score of two or five. He said that management employees are reviewed in part on how well they manage, and managing does not include giving everyone the same number.
Harney said he wants to make it clear that the Board has been planning this study for over four years but didn’t have the funds to complete it sooner. The reason for the study was to make sure that everyone is fairly compensated for the work they are doing. They did not know how many people would be over the appropriate salary range and how many people would be under it.
Maintenance Superintendent Kevin Hackathorn said he has been working for the County for a long time. He said retirement is based on the three highest years of salary. The proposed changes will affect people who retire in the next couple of years since their longevity pay is being eliminated. Hackathorn said he thinks longevity pay is earned and should not be eliminated. Rettig asked if longevity is added into the three year total for the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System (IPERS). Neuzil said yes, all income is included. Greufe said he thinks the new system could make an employee’s next three years their best, depending on their position. He thinks that was Rettig’s point. The previous longevity pay is built into the salary range, which is based on performance. Many employees have the potential to earn far more than they could under the current system. Hackathorn said employees who are already at 115% of range will not receive an increase comparable to their previous longevity payment. Greufe said that depends on the employee’s position. Greufe said he understands Hackathorn’s point regarding the impact on IPERS. However, he assumes it will have a very positive impact for many people; they will have the ability to earn more than they do now.
Neuzil said one of his concerns regarding the current system is the potential percentage raise employees can obtain in a one year period. Using this year as an example, an employee could receive a 3% to 3.5% COLA, a 2% to 3% performance raise, and longevity pay. He thinks the community would be fairly alarmed to know that some County employees are receiving 5% to 7% raises. Neuzil said that is one reason he is interested in eliminating longevity pay and using a performance merit system instead.
Sullivan said the Board has also discussed that, among employees in the same position, some work harder and achieve more than others, and they should be paid more than the employees who don't work hard and achieve the same level. Hackathorn said though, that an excellent employee at the top of their pay bracket may get nothing in return if longevity is eliminated. Sullivan said employees who retire in the three years following the change will probably be most significantly impacted as a result; however, no matter what change is made some employees are going to be more affected than others.
Graves asked if changing the pay range for a particular position would necessitate the position being advertised, since it would essentially be a new job. Greufe said he thinks it would be a reclassification of a position and that would not have to be advertised. That type of information will be included in the corresponding Human Resources policies that will be developed.
Neuzil said if people do not feel comfortable speaking up now, they can contact their department head, Human Resources, or the Board of Supervisors to communicate their questions. The Board is still in the process of collecting questions, obtaining answers, and determining how the appeal process will work. There is a learning curve for Board members, and he anticipates that the Board will make an official change in January or February of 2010.
Butler asked if the performance evaluations will be based on the July first date or the employee's seniority hire date. Neuzil said the evaluation will be based on the hiring date. He said he and Shramek have been asked questions regarding the phasing out of longevity and the potential for some employees to receive longevity pay after June 30, 2010. Neuzil asked how that will work. Shramek responded that no one will earn longevity after June 30, 2010, but one more longevity payment will be pro-rated for everyone who qualifies based on their date of hire. It will be pro-rated the same way it currently is when someone terminates employment with Johnson County. It will be based on date of hire and service through June 30, 2010. She said that money for that purpose has been budgeted and incorporated in the budget for Fiscal Year 2011. Neuzil asked if that makes sense to people. Harney added that an employee must have worked for the County for five years in order to qualify for a longevity payment. Anyone who is qualified will get that payment.
Neuzil said this has been a somewhat awkward situation for the Board. They have had to compromise collectively to agree on a new system and then find a way to communicate the information to County employees. He said as many employees are aware, a newspaper reporter attended some meetings during which the changes were being discussed. That resulted in some employees reading about the changes in the newspaper rather than having them explained by the Board. Neuzil said that had to be very alarming for people in red circle positions. He doesn’t know how else to do this other than to provide the information now. Neuzil said he thinks the appeal process will be extremely important. People who are in red circle positions or question whether they are close to 115% of range have the ability to ask questions and to appeal. Neuzil said he hopes these changes also lead to the development of better relationships between employees and their supervisors.
Freidhof asked where the reports regarding salary ranges will be located. Neuzil said they will be handed out now. Greufe said to note that the report is labeled as being a draft because they are aware that people can ask for a review of it. He said it is a first draft and does not incorporate any changes. Rettig asked Greufe to explain the meaning of entry, midpoint, and maximum, as used in the report. Greufe said entry equates to 85%, midpoint equates to 100%, and maximum equates to 115%. The handout provides information regarding the salary ranges for positions, and employees can then determine where they fall within the ranges. Greufe said they expect that some employees will ask for their positions to be reassessed prior to the June 30, 2010, date of implementation, so the final document will not be distributed until after that time.
Environmental Health Specialist Tamara Ewoldt asked what happened with the Austin Peters Group and why Greufe was involved in the study. Shramek said the County initially had a contract with Austin Peters, and they quit the contract for two reasons. One reason is that they were upset that the scope of the project had changed. When the RFP was initially sent out, the County had indicated that more positions would be surveyed than actually were. At that time, there had been some interest in including positions in the Sheriff’s Office and in the offices of some other elected officials. Subsequently, there was not Board support to do so, however. Now they are back at the same level. Shramek said the County indicated they would make those up, because they pay for the evaluation by the job title. Shramek said the second reason Austin Peters quit deals with a disagreement they had regarding an issue of confidentiality. She said the Austin Peters Group had told a group of County employees that information reported on the position analysis questionnaire would be kept confidential, however Austin Peters knew that was not the case. Shramek said she personally has a problem with misrepresenting something as confidential when it will not be confidential. The questionnaire indicated that it should be turned in to employees' supervisors or department heads and then it would be turned over to Human Resources. Furthermore, an independent job evaluation team would also have access to the questionnaire during the appeal process. Shramek said with this process, at least ten or more people will have access to the position analysis questionnaire.
Neuzil said the 115% maximum salary level listed in the report is as of the current year. If there is a COLA increase, the numbers in the salary ranges move along with it. Building Inspector III Bret McLaughlin noted that the report is a draft and asked if the numbers could potentially change prior to the adoption of the new system. Neuzil said yes. Sullivan said another possibility is that some positions will be reevaluated following adoption of the new system.
McLaughlin asked if the request to serve on the compensation team was sent to only specific department heads rather than all department heads. Neuzil said yes. Shramek said the Board delegated that task to her, and she is currently in the process of contacting department heads. She has not heard back from all those she contacted. Butler asked Shramek if she has contacted all department heads. Shramek said no. McLaughlin said that was his question. Shramek said there cannot be a representative from every department on the compensation team.
Neuzil said he thinks the Board will later determine if an additional meeting regarding the proposed compensation system is needed before addressing it at future Informal Meeting in 2010.
Adjourned at 3:51 p.m.
By Nancy Tomkovicz, Recording Secretary