Chair Geiger called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.
Minutes It was moved Ted Smith, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to approve the minutes of
November 10, 2009 meeting. The motion carried.
Grievance Appeal The second item on the agenda was a salary administration grievance appealing a decision of
Sally Holewa, State Court Administrator. The grievance was filed jointly by three employees.
Ms. Holewa denied the grievance stating, among other things, that, "Your grievance is with the
compression in salaries that occurred due to the application of the compensation plan. To my
knowledge, the compensation plan has been applied consistently to all classified employees. The
plan was not altered or misapplied to deliberately disadvantage you. While I can understand your
feelings, there is no provision in the compensation plan that would allow for an adjustment of
your salary for the purpose of creating a greater disparity between your salary and that of another
employee." The employees appealed Ms. Holewa's decision to the Personnel Policy Board,
pursuant to Policy 108.
It was moved by Ted Smith, seconded by Chris Myers, to affirm Sally Holewa's decision.
After further discussion, the Board determined there was no evidence provided showing any
action by an official or an employee that either violated or inequitably applied the classification
system and compensation plan adopted by the Supreme Court. A roll call vote was taken and the
motion to affirm the decision of the state court administrator passed by unanimous vote.
Review of Proposed Revisions to the Current EEO Policy Amy Klein explained that on November 21, 2009, Title II of the Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) became effective. Title II of GINA protects applicants and
employees from discrimination based on genetic information in employment. Ms. Klein said the
GINA provision should be added to the Court System's Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
policy, which is essentially an adoption of the federal mandate. She said with the addition of
GINA, she is recommending the Board review the entire EEO policy and submit it to the
Supreme Court for approval at the earliest convenience instead of waiting until the new
handbook is submitted.
Justice Kapsner noted that if the policy is already federal law, the Court is already bound by it.
It was moved by Jerrold Arneson, seconded by Chris Myers, to substitute Policy 124 for
what was included in the packet at the last meeting.
Ms. Klein said she received a comment via email from Judge Hagerty prior to the meeting
wherein Judge Hagerty stated she is in favor of including genetic information in the policy but
suggested a definition be included defining the term or phrasing it as "genetic information,
including family medical history." Ms. Klein responded that none of the nondiscrimination
terms listed under section A are defined in the policy. The terms are defined on the EEOC
poster, which is posted in all locations. She said the policy simply states we will not discriminate
on any of those factors. Ms. Klein said she liked Judge Hagerty's suggestion to include the
words "including family medical history."
Ted Smith suggested adding a comment referring employees to the EEOC website if they have
questions on the definitions of the terms. Justice Kapsner commented that because websites
frequently change, it may not be wise to include links in the policy, unless it is our own website
where we have some control of the content.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to rephrase section A. 8 to
read "Genetic information, including family medical history". The motion carried.
The motion carried to substitute the proposed policy, as amended, and include it as part of
the packet.
Ms. Klein recommended that the Board apply the same changes to the current EEO policy and
proceed to have the Supreme Court review it at the earliest possible time instead of when the
entire new handbook is submitted. Justice Kapsner suggested it would be more beneficial to
submit the new policy manual in its entirety, not one policy at a time. No action was taken with
regard to the current policy.
Review of Proposed Revisions to the Harassment Policy Amy Klein said changes to the Harassment Policy consist of the approved changes to the new
policy as well as other proposed changes. She said she added language stating the harassment
policy applies to employees throughout the Court System and to all individuals who may have
contact with any employee of the Court System. She also added language stating the Court
System shall investigate all complaints promptly, thoroughly, and impartially in as confidential
matter as possible and allowed by law.
It was moved by Chris Myers, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to substitute Policy 119 for
what was previously approved as part of the packet.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to remove the language
under section A and replace it with section A of the existing policy 119 with the addition of
generic information and sexual orientation. Section A would read as follows: "In order to
maintain a positive work environment for all court employees, sexual harassment or
harassment on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, age, race, color, religion, national origin,
genetic information including family medical history, or disability is prohibited."
Ted Smith questioned the relationship between genetic information and harassment. Ms Klein
said the EEOC stated "Title II of GINA does not directly address the issue of harassment claims.
However, in describing the prohibited practices under Title II, Congress adopted language similar
to that used in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other equal employment opportunity
statutes, evincing its intent to prohibit discrimination with respect to a wide range of practices,
including harassment." The motion carried.
The motion carried to substitute policy 119 as modified for what was previously approved
as part of the packet.
Review of Proposed Revisions to FMLA Policy Amy Klein explained she removed everything related to the family authorized absences and
related material from the current policy 102 and created a new policy entitled Family and
Medical Leave Act. The new policy contains all of the current changes under the federal law.
The only exception is the Court's policy allows 16 weeks of leave and the federal law allows 12
weeks.
It was moved by Chris Myers, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to substitute the proposed
outline for what was included in the packet at the last meeting.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Chris Myers, to insert the word "continued"
before the word "leave" in the last line of section D.2.a. The motion carried.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Chris Myers, to rephrase section D.2.a.(1) as
follows: "For medical certifications the Court System may require a second or third
opinion (at the Court System's expense) and a fitness-for-duty report to return to work."
The motion carried.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Ted Smith, to rephrase section D.2.b. to
read as follows: "Certification forms may be obtained on the intranet under the human
resource page." The motion carried.
It was moved by Ted Smith, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to delete the words "may be" in
the first line under section D.6.c. and insert the word "are". The motion carried.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to add the words "military
family" after the words "weeks of" in the second line of D.6.c.
Ms. Klein said the leave is not just for the military family, it is referring to the combined total of
all FMLA leave.
With the consent of the second, the motion was modified to insert the words "as military
family leave" after the words "is taken" in the third line of section D.6.c. The motion
carried.
In response to a question from Justice Kapsner asking why a section entitled Outside
Employment is included in the policy, Ms. Klein responded it is included under FMLA to
prevent an employee from engaging in similar employment if they are on family medical leave.
Chair Geiger stated the way the language is written, the only condition that precludes an
employee from engaging in outside employment is if it interferes with the proper and complete
discharge of the employee's responsibility and duties to the Court System.
Chris Myers noted the Ethics Policy states except as provided by law or court rule, an employee
shall not engage in any business activity or secondary employment that meets a list of criteria that
minimizes a conflict of interest.
It was moved by Chris Myers, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to rephrase the first sentence
of section D.7.a as follows: "An employee may not engage in similar outside employment,
while on FMLA leave, if it interferes with the proper and complete discharge of the
employee's responsibilities and duties to the Court System." The motion carried.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Chris Myers, to remove proposed section F.
The motion carried.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Chris Myers, under section C.1.b.(b), to end
paragraph (iii) with a period after the word "condition," delete the word "or" and delete
paragraph (iv).
Ms. Klein stated the purpose of (iv) is to let the employee know there are more conditions than
what is listed.
Justice Kapsner said if (iv) remains in the policy, it would need to be reworded.
It was moved by Ted Smith to amend the paragraph (iv) to read "for other conditions that
require continuing treatment." Justice Kapsner suggested the amendment is too broad. The
motion died for a lack of a second.
Chair Geiger noted the conditions listed under section (b) are not restrictive because it states
"subject to certain conditions, the continuing treatment includes any one or more of the
following:..". Therefore, removing paragraph (iv) would not eliminate any other conditions.
The motion carried to delete (iv).
The motion carried to substitute the policy, as amended, for what had earlier been included
in the packet.
Americans With Disabilities Act Policy Ms. Klein explained the American with Disability Act policy is a new policy. The Court System
does not currently have a policy that explains the employer and employee responsibilities under
ADA.
Ms. Klein referred the board to section B.2. which states applicants requiring accommodation
must inform the Court System of the need for accommodation as early in the application process
as possible. She asked the Board to consider whether or not the information should be included
in the policy because it is for applicants rather than current employees. No action was taken to
remove the language.
It was moved by Jerrold Arneson, seconded by Chris Myers, to substitute proposed policy
128 for what was included in the packet at the last meeting.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to delete the last phrase of
section C.2.e., "that cannot be eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level with reasonable
accommodation." The motion carried.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Ted Smith, to eliminate the first sentence in
section C.2. The motion carried.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to delete section A.1., and
renumber the paragraphs. The motion carried.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Ted Smith, to eliminate the words "as
defined by the ADA" in section A.2.; and amend section A.3. to read as follows: "A
qualified individual is an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodations, can
perform the essential functions of the employment position that the individual holds or
desires." (Eliminate the quotes). The motion carried.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Chris Myers, to modify sections B.1. and
B.2. to read in the singular sense, as follows:
1. An employee with a disability who believes the employee needs a reasonable
accommodation to perform the essential functions of the job, participate in the application
and hiring process, or to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment must inform
the employee's supervisor as soon as the need for accommodation becomes apparent. The
supervisor will then contact the Human Resource Director.
2. An applicant requiring accommodation must inform the Court System of the need for
accommodation as early in the applicant process as possible.
The motion carried.
It was moved by Ted Smith, seconded by Justice Kapsner, to modify the phrase in section
A.1. to read as follows: "The Court System's policy is to prohibit..." The motion carried.
After brief discussion, the Board decided to leave the reference to "he or she" in paragraph D
because it refers to both the employee and the job applicant.
The motion carried to substitute proposed policy 128, as amended, for what was included
in the packet at the last meeting.
Employee Assistance Program Policy Chair Geiger recalled the policy was tabled at the November meeting to allow staff time to
rewrite the policy.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to substitute the outlined
version for what had been discussed and addressed at the previous meeting.
Ms. Klein said in the policy rewrite, she added a section stating that The Village is our EAP
provider and another section stating an employee may use sick leave for EAP appointments.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to delete the words "as a
way" in the second sentence in section A. The motion carried.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Ted Smith, to change the word "issues" in
sections A and B to the word "problems".
Chris Myers suggested the word "problems" not be used because not everyone who contacts EAP
has a problem.
With the consent of the second, the motion was amended to change the word "issues" in
sections A and B to the word "concerns".
With the consent of the second, the motion was amended to change line 3 in section A to
read, "resolve concerns that may impact their personal lives or their job performance" and
to change the word "issues" in section B to "problems". The motion carried.
It was moved by Ted Smith, seconded by Justice Kapsner, to rephrase the last sentence in
section C to read as follows: "The EAP can be reached by calling 1-800-627-8220 or TTY
1-1-888-510-4733." The motion carried.
It was moved by Ted Smith, seconded by Justice Kapsner, to rephrase section D to read as
follows: "Employees may use sick leave or family sick leave for EAP appointments." The
motion carried.
The motion carried to substitute the outlined version of the policy, as amended, for what
had been discussed and addressed at the previous meeting
It was moved by Chris Myers, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to include the policy as part of
the packet. The motion carried.
Holiday Policy It was moved by Chris Myers, seconded by Jerrold Arneson to substitute policy 129, as
outlined, for what was previously included in the packet at the last meeting.
Ms. Klein said she received an email suggesting the words "paid holiday" be removed from
section D and language be inserted stating an employee does not have to use annual leave during
an office closure.
Jerrold Arneson stated it is coded as holiday pay in PeopleSoft.
Justice Kapsner suggested holiday pay is when an employee is not at work because it is a
holiday. She questioned how leave should be defined when a courthouse is closed.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Chris Myers, to modify the beginning of
section E to read in the singular sense: "An employee may not substitute...". The motion
carried.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Chris Myers, to modify section D to read as
follows: "If a courthouse is closed for a holiday not observed by the Court System,
employees stationed at that courthouse will not be required to take annual leave for the
period of the closure." The motion carried.
It was moved by Ted Smith, seconded by Chris Myers, to add a number 11 to section A to
read as follows: "Every day appointed by the President of the United States or by the
governor of this state for a public holiday." The motion carried.
The motion carried to substitute Policy 129, as modified, as part of the packet.
The next meeting is scheduled for January 22, 2010.