Chair Hagerty called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
Minutes It was moved by Rod Olson, seconded by Judge McEvers, to approve the March 16, 2012,
minutes.The motion carried.
Review Proposed Salary Ranges for July 2012 - June 2013 Amy Klein presented the Board with the proposed pay ranges for July 2012 through June 2013.
The changes reflect a 3% increase in all pay grades and steps based on the provision in Senate
Bill 2015, which provides a 3% increase in employee salaries. It was moved Judge McEvers,
seconded by Ted Smith, to approve the proposed salary ranges and forward it to the
Supreme Court for consideration. The motion carried unanimously.
Review Proposed Amendment to Administrative Rule 33 Sally Holewa said there are many instances where policies are amended to comply with changes
in law, changes in the benefits offered by the state, or changes in dollar amounts, as well as
instances where the wording is changed to clarify a policy without effecting the substance of the
policy. As a matter of practice, these changes have been sent directly to the court for action and
the court has taken final action on them without seeking comment. Ms. Holewa drafted proposed
language to be included in Admin. R. 33, section 6.A.(1). In addition, there are two clerical
corrections that need to be made: 1) section 2(B) refers to nine voting members, however there
are only eight members on the Board; and 2) section 2(B)(5) and (7) also refers to “trial court
administrators,” however those job titles were changed to “court administrator.”
Petra Hum submitted a written comment regarding the proposed amendment to section 6.A.(1).
She said if it is Ms. Holewa’s intent to only address wording changes or punctuation, the word
“clerical” is sufficient. However, if her intent was to encompass more, Ms. Hulm proposes the
following language: “Except for amendments to comply with changes in law, change the
benefits offered by the state, change dollar amounts, or to clarify a policy without effecting the
substance of the policy...”
Chair Hagerty stated that putting the exception before the requirement can make it difficult to
read and suggested Ms. Hulm’s language be included at the end of the paragraph.
Justice Kapsner said instead of “change the benefits offered by the state”, language be included
to say “to increase the wages or benefits offered by the state”. She said that way if benefits are
decreased, employees would receive notice.
It was moved by Ted Smith, seconded by Rod Olson, to change the number of voting
member from 9 to 8. The motion carried.
With regard to the amendment is to remove the word “trial” in section 2B (5) and (7), Ted Smith
suggested leaving the word “trial” in to have some designation as to the level of court we are
It was moved by Rod Olson, seconded by Judge McEvers, to remove the word “trial” from
5 and 7. The motion carried.
It was moved by Ted Smith, seconded by Rod Olson, to amend paragraph 6A(1) to read as
follows: The Personnel Policy Board may recommend to the Supreme Court a new policy
or an amendment to an existing policy. Before forwarding the recommendation, the board
will elicit comment by notifying the judges and personnel of the judicial system by sending
copies of the recommendation to each judicial district on the District Court level and each
department head on the Supreme Court level at least 15 days prior to forwarding the
recommendation. However, notification is not required for amendments to comply with
changes in law, to increase wages or benefits offered by the state, to change dollar amounts,
or to clarify a policy without effecting the substance of the policy. The motion carried and
the policy will be sent out to employees for comment.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.