Personnel Policy Board Minutes (Unofficial until approved) August 20, 2010 Bismarck, ND
Members Present: Hon. M. Richard Geiger, Chair; Jerrold Arneson; Hon. Gail Hagerty; Hon.
Carol Ronning Kapsner; Kari Landsem; Ross Munns; Rod Olson; and Ted
Smith
Members Absent: Hon. John T. Paulson
Others Present: Sally Holewa, ex officio Amy Klein, staff Renee Barnaby, minutes
Minutes It was moved Rod Olson, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to approve the minutes of May 7,
2010 meeting. The motion carried.
Request for New Classification of Assistant Unit Trial Court Administrator Position Amy Klein said Rod Olson submitted a request to create a new classification titled assistant unit
trial court administrator. It would have broader duties and authority than a trial court manager. It
is suggested to be a career ladder step for employees interested in a trial court administrator
position. Ms. Klein classified the position through our classification system and sent it to Sally
Holewa, State Court Administrator, for review. Ms. Holewa’s concerns are listed in her memo,
which is included in the meeting materials. She was not initially convinced the Court System
would benefit from having two classes so closely related or convinced that a second supervisory
level in trial court administration is necessary or desirable.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Rod Olson, to approve the new classification
of assistant unit trial court administrator.
Judge Hagerty stated the minimum qualifications require five years experience as a trial court
manager within the North Dakota Judicial System or equivalent position in a different state. She
questioned why the equivalent experience has to be in another state. She said it doesn’t appear to
take into consideration a graduate degree or certification by the Institute for Court Management.
She also said a trial court administrator only requires four years of experience wherein the new
classification requires more years of experience. Rod Olson responded if you were a trial court
manager in a different state, you would receive credit for the experience just like if you would
have five years experience in North Dakota. He said he would be open to amending the
proposal.
In response to a question from Chair Geiger as to why the trial court administrators felt there was
a need for the position, Mr. Olson said the trial court manager is more of a project person. The
assistant unit trial court administrator would work more independently than the trial court
manager and would share supervisory authority over employees under the direction of the trial
court administrator.
Chair Geiger questioned the need to create a new classification rather than changing the job
description of the trial court manager. Mr. Olson responded by using the trial court manager job
description, we are limiting people. He said if the new job classification is not approved, he will
have to remove some of the duties that his trial court manager is performing because the duties
are outside the trial court manager’s job description. Judge Hagerty stated that each unit has
different needs. For example, Unit 3 has a large geographical area. Because the unit is preparing
for Odyssey, there is going to be a large demand for someone to work closely with the clerk
offices and supervise the rollout. This task alone will put a lot of demand on the trial court
administrator, and the position will not get enough assistance if it is restricted to the trial court
manager description. She said in addition, the trial court manager position is out of skew with
salaries in other classifications. We may lose the qualified people that we have because those
people could apply for a position with less responsibility or less skill requirements because they
could make more money. Mr. Olson added both the juvenile and clerk offices encompass more
constricted managerial duties than the broad spectrum of issues regularly addressed by the trial
court managers.
In response to a question from Kari Landsem asking if it would be possible for a unit to have
both a trial court manager and an assistant unit trial court administrator, Judge Hagerty responded
it is unlikely there would be funding for both of the positions in a single unit. She thought it
would be viewed as a career ladder advancement.
In response to a question asking if the Odyssey training would be more of a technical support
position, Judge Hagerty responded technical support does the training but the day-to-day
oversight and procedural questions are the responsibility of the trial court administrator. Because
of their lack of day-to-day involvement, some of the rural counties are going to need intensive
training and periodic review.
Ross Munns said he views the trial court manager position as an extension of the trial court
administrator. The oversight not only involves the state funded offices, but also the county
funded. Because he has gained the respect in the unit, the trial court administrator dispatches
him when problems arise; however, his current job description fall short of acknowledging that
level of response. He said part of the disconnect is the trial court manager is currently rated at a
pay grade 17. The juvenile court officer III and clerk of court I positions are rated at pay grade
18 and juvenile court directors are at pay grade 20.
Ms. Holewa explained the clerk of court and juvenile court directors are in a higher pay grade
because they manage of their offices and personnel. It is the trial court administrator’s job to
make sure those offices are functioning appropriately. After reviewing the trial court manager’s
position, she does not believe they are working outside of their job description. Some of the
duties listed are: provides technical assistance and support to the clerks of district court, juvenile
court and county offices; and oversees the implementation and monitors the consistent
application of policies and procedures within the administrative unit. She questioned what new
duties have been given to the trial court managers that would meet the duties described in the
new description. She also said that after reviewing the core responsibilities of the proposed
position, she does not believe the new classification should be equivalent to a state director
position. The decisions of the state directors have much greater ramifications than decisions that
would be made by a trial court manager or trial court administrator.
In response to a question concerning the amount of authority a unit trial court administrator has
over a contract clerk, Mr. Olson responded he does not supervise the contract clerk but he
supervises their work. However, the clerk doesn’t always recognize that authority. He said that
he will work with them to correct an issue and six months later he will find out they have
reverted back to doing things the way they were. Mr. Munns agreed with the aspect that we have
oversight of their work procedures, days of court, case filings, etc. He said we need to make sure
they understand procedures and expectations because when judges arrive for court, things need to
be ready.
Kari Landsem said from her perspective as clerk of court in Ramsey County, if there was an
issue, she would go directly to the trial court administrator. She said there are 13 counties in her
unit, and all 13 clerks try to meet on a regular basis to provide assistance and guidance to each
other. She views the trial court manager as more of a technical assistant.
Ms. Holewa said trial court managers should be making decisions on day-to-day issues that
arise. However, she would question any sort of binding management action without consulting
the administrator or someone in the state court administrator’s office, whether it is personnel or
finance or something beyond.
In response to a question from Chair Geiger asking who would be responsible for Mr.
Olson’sduties if he were out of the office, Mr. Olson responded the trial court manager.
In response to a question asking if a title change was necessary, Mr. Olson responded a title
change is needed. He said most people do not know what a trial court manager does. He
believes the title assistant unit trial court administrator is more descriptive.
Judge Kapsner suggested Ms. Klein go back and analyze the levels and degrees of the position.
She said what the administrators are looking for is a position that has more authority but not the
level of authority that will move them up to a director position.
Ms. Klein said if the position is set up as a career ladder, she would like to see it extended to be a
career ladder for any of our management positions.
Judge Hagerty also suggested it be broadened so it would not require the five years experience as
a trial court manager.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Ted Smith, to table for the purpose of
assigning a task force to review the proposed classification and present alternatives at the
next meeting. Judge Hagerty, Rod Olson and Kari Landsem volunteered to work with Amy to
come up with a proposal. The motion carried.
Proposed Changes to the Director of Juvenile Court and Juvenile Court Officer III
Minimum Qualifications Ms. Klein presented draft changes to the minimum qualifications for the director of juvenile
court services and the juvenile court officer III classifications. She said the proposed changes
provide additional flexibility in hiring qualified applicants without compromising the integrity of
the current pay grade assigned to the classifications. The changes are not intended by any means
to bypass any internal candidates. It is meant to be there so if we do not have any interest or
qualified applicants, we do not have to seek special permission.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Rod Olson, that the changes to the minimum
qualifications for the director of juvenile court and juvenile court office III be approved.
Rod Olson said the trial court administrators support the proposed changes.
The motion carried and it will be sent to the Supreme Court for consideration.
Request to Underfill the Court Reporter Position Amy Klein explained the Court Report Task Force is requesting the Court System consider
approving a supplement to the policies allowing the Court System to advertise and hire court
reporters who graduate from an approved program in court reporting when no applicants meet the
minimum qualifications. In this situation, the successful applicant would be hired at a training
wage, which would be one step below step one of the current grade. The probationary period
would be extended from six months to one year to allow the employee to gain the minimum
qualifications required to be at step one of the grade. She said members of the Task Force have
been participating in career fairs in an attempt to intrigue the interest and educate high school
students about the profession of court reporting. Ms. Klein added special permission was
received from the Chief Justice to hire court reporters in Minot and Grand Forks at the training
wage. Ms. Klein said implementing the supplemental policy would allow the Court System to
include a statement in the initial job announcement thereby avoiding the extra time it would take
to request the special permission from the Chief Justice for every court reporter vacancy.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Kari Landsem, to adopt the Court Reporter
Underfill statement as Supplement II.
Ms. Holewa stated she does not have any issues with the policy but requested additional training
or assistance be provided to the court reporter during the probationary period. Ms. Klein
suggested developing a mentorship program specific to the first year of employment.
Ted Smith questioned if other policies would need to be amended if changes were made to the
probationary period. Ms. Klein responded this is an exception to those policies similar to the
technology supplement.
The motion carried to adopt the Court Reporter Underfill statement as Supplement II and
it will be forwarded to the Supreme Court for consideration. Ms. Klein will work with the
Court Reporter Task Force to develop a mentorship program to be used during the probationary
period.
On-Call Policy Amy Klein explained with the implementation of Odyssey, certain Information Technology (IT)
Department employees have been on-call to respond to emergency or unforeseen circumstances
outside the employee’s regularly scheduled work hours. This has resulted in some frustration
including burnout and an uneven distribution of workload among employees. This is evidenced
by the amount of compensatory hours worked. The proposed On-Call policy provides structure
and guidance to not only the supervisors, but also to the employees involved.
Judge Hagerty distributed a revised version of the On-Call policy.
It was moved by Rod Olson, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to adopt the On-Call policy as
revised by Judge Hagerty.
In response to a question from Rod Olson as to whether a similar policy will be needed for the
juvenile court officers, Ms. Klein responded she did speak to some of the appointing authorities
and juvenile directors and according to them, juvenile officers are not technically on-call. If
something arises, law enforcement will call, but they continue calling down the list until they
find someone available. The juvenile officers are not told that they have to be on-call and
available. She said it does not appear to be an issue.
Ms. Holewa said one of the IT employees currently has more than 500 hours of comp time. She
said she doesn't think it is solely attributable to Odyssey. Jerrold Arneson added the Court
System has over 40 servers plus an additional 18 for Odyssey. All of the repairs have to be made
after hours because we cannot pull the system down while people are on it Monday through
Friday, 8 am to 6 pm.
After some brief discussion, it was moved by Ross Munns, seconded by Judge Hagerty, to
make the following modifications: under section B4, line 2, the word “spend” should be
changed to “spent”; under section B5, line 2, the capital "A" should be removed from the
word "Alcohol" and be replaced with a lowercase "a"; and under section B3, line 2, strike
the words “the employee’s regular pay for”. The motion carried.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Ross Munns, to strike the words “Overtime
compensation will be paid” in section B4, line 3, and insert the words “Compensatory time
is available”. The motion carried.
The motion carried to adopt the On-Call policy as modified and send it out to employees
for comment.
Policy Overview Ms. Klein distributed a chart showing the Board’s progress in its review of the policy manual.
The Board requested page numbers be added to the chart for future use.
Review of Policies
Mission and Vision Statements Ms. Klein said the Mission and Vision Statements describe what the Court System does and what
the Court System want to become. She said the proposed Mission and Vision Statements were
drafted by the Judicial Planning Committee.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Rod Olson, to include the Mission and Vision
Statements as part of the handbook that will be forwarded to the Supreme Court for
consideration. The motion carried.
Definitions Ms. Klein said at the Board’s request, she developed a definitions page from terms included in
the current or the proposed policies.
Judge Hagerty distributed a revised version of the Definitions page. She said the defined words
are the same, she just reworded the sentences.
Chair Geiger noted it is important that the terms contained within the policies match those
defined on the Definitions page.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Ted Smith, to include the Definitions
statement as submitted by Judge Hagerty as part of the handbook that will be forwarded to
the Supreme Court for consideration.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Kari Landsem, to amend the motion to drop
the articles in front of the words. The motion carried.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, under section T, to strike
the words “When an employee is on call the” and insert the words “On-call means an”.
The motion carried.
It was moved by Jerrold Arneson, seconded by Justice Kapsner, under section GG, to
change the word “Saturday” to “Sunday”. The motion carried.
It was noted that some businesses start their work week on Friday.
The motion carried to adopt the Definitions statement as amended and include it as part of
the handbook that will be forwarded to the Supreme Court for consideration. Staff was
directed to review the policies to confirm that the terms contained within match those defined on
the Definitions page.
Corrective Action Amy Klein recalled the Corrective Action policy was tabled at the May meeting to allow Judge
Hagerty to review the language proposed by Justice Kapsner. Judge Hagerty indicated she was
comfortable with the language as proposed.
It was moved by Rod Olson, seconded by Kari Landsem, to include the Corrective Action
policy as part of the handbook that will be forwarded to the Supreme Court for
consideration.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Rod Olson, under section B1a(1)(a), to
strike the word “behavior” and insert the word “conduct”. The motion carried.
The motion carried to adopt the Corrective Action policy as amended and include it as part
of the handbook that will be forwarded to the Supreme Court for consideration.
Criminal Background Checks Ms. Klein explained the Criminal Background Checks policy is from the current Filling
Vacancies policy (118). She said at the present time, all criminal background checks are handled
through Ralph Mowder, Court Security Consultant.
It was moved by Kari Landsem, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to include the Criminal
Background Checks policy as part of the handbook that will be forwarded to the Supreme
Court for consideration.
Chair Geiger stated currently the background check are only performed on external candidates
and questioned whether there is a need to perform background check on internal candidates. Ms.
Klein stated the Ethics policy requires employees to report any violations of the law, however, if
an employee did not comply with the Ethics policy, the Court may not be aware of any
violations. She stressed the importance of stating clearly in the policy when background checks
would be required so we do not discriminate. Rod Olson suggested background checks be
performed on any offer of employment, whether internal or external.
It was moved by Rod Olson, seconded by Justice Kapsner, to strike the word “external”
from the first line in section A. The motion carried.
As an editorial change, the word “applicant” will be changed to “candidate” in paragraph B, line
2.
The motion carried to adopt the Criminal Background Checks policy as amended and
include it as part of the handbook that will be forwarded to the Supreme Court for
consideration.
Filling Classified Position Vacancies Amy Klein said the proposed policy combines the current Veterans’ Preference and Filling
Vacancies policies (120 and 118). She said she combined the policies because they go hand in
hand in the recruitment section of the policy manual. The proposed policy does not apply to non-classified positions. Ms. Klein stated the policy will not be included in the handbook policies but
will be included in the recruitment section.
Sally Holewa said the policies do not need to be separate because veterans’ preference only
applies when you are filling a vacancy and does not apply in any other situation.
Judge Hagerty stated that veterans’ preference may be difficult to find in the manual if someone
was specifically looking for it. Justice Kapsner suggested the title be amended or the index could
refer to veterans’ preference.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to include the Filling
Classified Position Vacancies policy as part of the handbook that will be forwarded to the
Supreme Court for consideration.
Ted Smith stated in section A, the subsections go from 1 to 3. Then, in 3, we have an “a” but no
“b”. He questioned whether we need the “a” if we do not have a “b”. The same scenario
happens in section B. By consensus, the subsections in section A were renumbered correctly.
Justice Kapsner suggested section A2a be combined with section A2.
Ted said there is another formatting issue under section D4. The subsections should be
numbered “a” and “b” rather than “1" and “2".
It was moved by Rod Olson, seconded by Ted Smith, that paragraph A Veterans’
Preference be inserted as paragraph D and all of the other sections moved up. The motion
carried.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Justice Kapsner, to combine the new section
D2a with section D2 so it is all one paragraph. The motion carried.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Ross Munns, to combine the new section A2a
with section A2 so it is all one paragraph. Subsections (1) and (2) shall be renumbered
sections “a” and “b” and subsection (a) will be combined with subsection “a” as follows:
“2. The Human Resource Director shall assist the appointing authority or designee in
providing internal notice. The notice must allow 10-30 days for applications. After
reaching the deadline for internal applications, the appointing authority or designee
may:
a. determine that a wider pool of candidates is needed and open the position
externally. Alternatively, the appointing authority or designee is not
required to make a determination about the qualifications of internal
candidates prior to opening the position externally. Internal applications
will be considered with any external applications received.
b. interview the internal candidates and fill the vacancy or open the position
externally.”
The motion carried.
Ross Munns referred the Board to the last sentence in the new section D2 stating a wartime
veteran also includes an individual who died in the line of duty. He said while he does not
disagree that the statement is true, he in uncertain why it is needed in the policy. Justice Kapsner
responded the statement is needed because of the spouse provision.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Justice Kapsner, to combine the new section
C2a with section C2 so it is all one paragraph. Subsections (1) and (2) shall be renumbered
“a” and “b”. The motion carried.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Justice Kapsner, to rewrite the new section
A2 as follows:
“2. The Human Resource Director shall assist the appointing authority or designee in
providing internal notice. The notice must allow 10-30 days for applications. The
appointing authority or designee is not required to make a determination about the
qualifications of internal candidates prior to opening the position externally. After
reaching the deadline for internal applications, the appointing authority or designee
may:
a. determine that a wider pool of candidates is needed and open the position
externally. Internal applications will be considered with any external applications
received.
b. interview the internal candidates and fill the vacancy or open the position
externally.”
The motion carried.
Mr. Olson referred the Board to section C3 and 4. He said the term “Certificate of Eligibles”
sounds biblical and suggested it be renamed.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Justice Kapsner to delete the following
sentence under the new section C3: “The names on the list through the cut-off score are
called the Certificate of Eligibles.” The last sentence shall be modified to read as follows:
“If a disabled veteran is on the list, the veteran’s name will be moved to the top of the list
regardless of score.”
Ms. Klein said if we just refer to the list, it is unclear which list we are referring to, the whole list
or the list through the cutoff score. She said although she is uncertain if the term is used in the
Century Code, it is commonly used in human resources in the Executive Branch.
With the consent of the second, the motion was withdrawn.
The motion carried to adopt the Filling Classified Positions Vacancies policy as amended
and include it as part of the handbook that will be forwarded to the Supreme Court for
consideration.
Recommended Policy Transfers Ms. Klein stated the following policies are currently included in the personnel (100) series of the
Administrative Policy Manual: Duties-Juvenile Court Officer (112); Marriage Ceremonies
(123); Assisting Self-Represented Parties (125); and Professional Development and Education
Policy for District Court Judges (126). She is recommending that the policies be transferred out
of the personnel series and into other series in the policy manual.
It was moved by Rod Olson, seconded by Jerrold Arneson, to transfer policies 112, 123, 125
and 126 from the personnel section to other sections in the administrative policy manual
and be renumbered accordingly.
Ms. Holewa stated she supported removing the Assisted Self Represented Parties policy (125)
from the 100 series because it is not directly related to employment the way the rest of the
policies are.
Ted Smith said under Ms. Klein’s proposal, policy 125 will be removed from the 100 series and
placed in the Trial Court (500) series. He stated the policy has a little broader application than
just the trial courts. He said the Law Library and the Supreme Court clerks also follow that
policy. He suggesting it may appropriate to leave the policy in the employee section because
there are some ramifications if an employee violates the policy. Chair Geiger noted there are
other policies under the Trial Court series where an employee would be subject to discipline if
they violate or do not follow the policy such as clerk of court attendance in the courtroom or
procedures for accessing tapes. Justice Kapsner said because the policy applies to all court
personnel, she is hesitant to move it to the trial court section.
It was moved by Justice Kapsner, seconded by Judge Hagerty, to delete the Assisting Self
Represented Parties from those policies that are proposed to be removed from the 100
series. The motion carried.
The motion carried as amended to transfer policies 112, 123, and 126 from the personnel
section to other sections in the administrative policy manual and be renumbered
accordingly.
Policies Finalized to be Included in the New Handbook Amy Klein stated that the Board has reviewed the entire draft manual and it is ready to be sent
out for comment.
Discussion was held on how the manual should be sent out for comment. It was decided a
summary chart should be developed similar to the chart Ms. Klein had developed for the policy
overview. Links to the proposed policies and current policies will be included in the chart along
with a brief explanation of the changes. A hard copy of the proposed manual and changes will be
made available in each unit for employees to review.
The Board will review the comments at the December 10 meeting.