Minutes Members Present: Hon. Mikal Simonson, Chair; Hon. M. Richard Geiger; Hon. Ronald Hilden; Hon. Carol Ronning Kapsner; Kurt Schmidt; Gladys Schmitt; Judy Slotto-Susie; and Dion Ulrich. Others Present: Mike Sandal, Staff
Chair Simonson called the telephonic meeting to order 9:00 am. The minutes of the June 21, 2004 meeting were approved as distributed. I. Policy 122 Service Awards Mike Sandal reminded the members that at the last meeting, there was a request from Paulette Reule, Stark County Clerk of District Court, to review the inequity in the service award program. The Board reviewed the inequity and suggested that changes be made to the policy which would provide for consistency in the recognition of years of services with that
of the retirement recognition. Mike modified Policy 122 moving the sentence “Service may include a combination of current employment with the state-funded judiciary, the county court, or the clerk of court’s office” from the subheading of Retirement Recognition into the first paragraph of the policy so that the statement would then apply to both recognition for years of service as well as retirement recognition. It was confirmed that this would include every employee who had prior work experience in the county court system before they came
aboard. Kurt Schmidt inquired as to the intention of the term “state-funded judiciary”. Mike said his intent was to simply move existing terminology to a position in the policy so that it applied
to both years of service and recognition. Whatever the initial intent of state-funded judiciary was, remains unchanged. The language gives a good historical clarification of what is being included, because when we moved in to this system in 1995 and this issue came up, that is
exactly what we were considering--should we consider just the state-funded judiciary experience or the experience in the county court or the clerk of court’s office. Considering
you have to look at this time line that goes back prior to 1995 to allow the counting of time, that is a fair description to have in there. Judge Geiger moved to approve the modification in Section A and B of Policy 122. Judy Susie seconded. There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously. Policy 122 will be forwarded to the Supreme Court for consideration. II. Review of New Classification/Reclassification Process Mike Sandal introduced the following new forms to coincide with the new classification and compensation plan. These forms go hand-in-hand with the revisions to Policy 107, Classification Reviews, under Item 4 on the agenda. Mike introduced each of the following forms: A.Request to Fill Vacancy Position This form is a process which follows our existing Policy 514 identifying certain elements necessary when we begin to recruit for new or vacant positions. Mike asked the Board to focus on the three middle sections: 1.Justification to Fill Position. This category looks at the needs of the district in the unit by doing an analysis of whether or not we need to fill the position or if the duties and responsibilities could be reassigned to other existing personnel. 2.Impact if Position is Not Filled. Identifies what the impact will be if the position is not filled, how it would affect court operations, etc. 3.Alternatives to Filling Vacancy. Do we continue to need to have the work done, etc. This form gives us an opportunity to realign the work assignments in a work unit when filling the position. Whenever duties are shuffled from one position to another or responsibilities associated with a position are changed, there is potential impact on classification. This is one of the reasons the form is included in the classification process. Depending upon what is done, there may be an impact on other positions,
or depending on what we need to have this position do, we might find that the classification that it is currently in, may or may not be correct. This form also gives us a benefit when we defend our budget to the Legislature. One of the first questions asked at every legislative session is, what are you doing with your vacant positions and do you need to fill those positions? If we have a formal process in place whereby we closely evaluate the need for a position, the reassignment of duties associated with that vacancy, and also the impact of not filling
the vacancy, we can defend how we are currently using our positions and position vacancies to the best benefit of the judiciary. If we can show we have a good process in place and we are closely scrutinizing vacancies, if and when the time comes that we need additional FTEs, it will help us defend and substantiate to the legislature the
need for those additional positions. B.Classification/Reclassification Request This form provides a mechanism to implement or initiate the classification review process. The form needs to be approved by the unit director or supervisor and action is also required by the human resource director. C. Job Data Questionnaire This is the document that would be completed if an employee wants to have their position reclassified. This goes along with the Request for Reclassification form. It simply gathers relative information on the duties and responsibilities associated with that position. The instruction sheet is self-explanatory. Mike pointed out that
in Section B, Working Environment, the check boxes are based upon the quantifiable factors established in the CMS (classification matrix system) that Mr. Bjorklund has provided. The intent of this document is to help in the classification decisions and
the job evaluation process where we begin to weigh the duties, responsibilities, accountability, etc., of the job to the factors as identified in the CMS. The second part of this document is extremely valuable to the evaluation team when we begin to look at classifications for pay grade determination. D. Classification Appeal Request If, after we go through these processes and an employee or their supervisor feels that the classification decision or the pay grade determination was made in error, this is the document that would be used. There is also a section on the form for the Board’s action. All of these forms were developed so they could be easily placed on the website. Judge Geiger pointed out that on the Request to Fill Vacant Position form, under signatures, Trial Court “Manger” should be changed to Trial Court “Manager”. Under “Number of
Authorized FTE in Unit” and “Number of Current Vacancies”, he wanted to confirm it referred to the administrative unit. He stated in the past, we have looked more at the need
for a particular office than the whole district or the whole unit. For example Fargo could be short with the number of needed positions in the clerk of court’s office, but Jamestown could have one more than they need. He suggested that it would be equally important to look at
what was authorized in the Fargo office and number of current vacancies there as much as what it is over the whole unit. It was his thought that the form emphasized the whole unit more than the office. Kurt Schmidt also asked why the number of authorized FTEs needs to be on the form at all considering the information is readily available. Mike responded that the reason he is requesting the information on the form is so we have it available if we need to present it to the legislature. Judge Geiger also had a question on the Job Data Questionnaire. He stated that if all we wanted to do was correct or slightly modify the description of the work tasks or things of that nature without seeking a job classification change or grade change, this does not seem to
accommodate that. Mike responded that the form was not intended to identify any change to the class specifications, the Board could simply choose to do that. Kurt Schmidt asked if we need both the court administrator’s and the trial court manager’s signatures. Mike responded that the process now is for the court administrator to approve all requests to fill vacancies. Mike gave an example of if we have a position vacancy in
Jamestown, we would certainly want the trial court manager to also approve it before it goes into the court administrator. Kurt next stated he felt that the word “Agency” should be removed from the signature line on the Classification/Reclassification Request form. Also, on page 6 of the Job Data Questionnaire, in the signature section, the words Position Information Questionnaire should
be changed to Job Data Questionnaire. The Board thanked Mike for his work on the forms. III. Policy 107 Classification Reviews Mike Sandal redrafted the entire policy to clearly define the difference between classification review and pay grade review. His proposal was broken down as follows: A. Classification Review. 1. Definitions. Clearly identifies the following terms: classification, class descriptions, job descriptions, pay grade, salary range, and reclassification. 2. Official Class Title. States the official class title must be used when entering information on payroll and personnel records. 3. Classification or Reclassification Request. Identifies the reasons for which a position can be reclassified and the specific process for classification. 4. Classification Appeal. Gives an employee the right to appeal a reclassification decision. The Board will have the final decision on classification appeal action. B. Pay Grade Review. 1. Definitions. Clearly identifies the following terms: class evaluation system, and job evaluation. 2. Class Evaluation Process. Defines the human resource director’s role in maintaining the process 3. Pay Grade Review Requests. Identifies the criteria for which we allow pay grade reviews and the process for which we use to review pay grades. 4.“Classification Appeal” should be changed to “Pay Grade Appeal.” Defines the review process of pay grade appeals. The Board will have the final decision on classification appeal action. 5.Pay Grade Exceptions. Due to market conditions, we need the ability to pay higher salaries than that which is identified by the classification evaluation system. This will allow the opportunity to identify certain classifications as pay grade exceptions based on market data without compromising the integrity of our class evaluation system. This section lays out criteria for which that process works. Judge Simonson stated it seems that the policy is gray about covering a situation where we are seeking to review a particular employee’s ability to perform the functions of a job position they are currently in. Mike stated that issue can occur within this policy. Whenever you change duties or responsibilities associated with a position for whatever reason, that position can be reviewed for classification. Justice Kapsner stated she generally liked the policy but wanted to comment on Pay Grade Exception. In the first sentence where it states, “The director of human resources may assign a pay grade that is higher...”, she suspects the Court will look at that very carefully to decide whether it is appropriate that it reside at the level of director of human resources and whether it might not be better that the director of human resources may recommend a higher pay grade so that the Court is aware both of the fact that the study seems to be out of line with the market and so that our budgeting process is one that is controlled a little more closely. Judge Simonson suggested the Board look at the language under Classification Appeal #2, on page 5, wherein it states,“The Board may limit the appeal to an appeal on the existing record.” His concern about that sentence is that it seems somewhat confusing because when you see something that refers to the existing record, you think of a transcript. Will everyone understand that the existing record refers to documents only? Mike responded by saying that all of the forms and documents that we have reviewed today are considered to be the existing
record. That is where all of the arguments are going to occur as to why it should be a higher or lower classification. We need to develop a process whereby we look at the documentation and accept it, or if we felt something more was necessary, we could go to the next step. The
intent of the policy is not to require oral presentations before the Board. Judge Hilden suggested it should be changed so that there is some authority to bond the existing record and listen to people who come in and argue. Judge Geiger stated he was comfortable with the language Mike suggested because it is comparable to the language used when we have a review from a referee’s decision to a district judge It was moved by Judge Geiger, seconded by Gladys Schmitt, that the changes to Policy 107 be adopted and sent to the Supreme Court for approval. There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously. IV.Policy 106 Personnel Policy Board Mike Sandal outlined the proposed changes to Policy 106. Under Section B, paragraph 1, he suggests adding the term “pay grade appeals” to the duties and responsibilities. Mike also
suggested deleting paragraph 3, under Section B, because with the new system and plans to update it based on CPI annually, he did not feel there was a need for the Board to submit a salary administration plan to the chief justice on an annual basis. The system will update
itself. However, if the Board felts it was important, it could be left in. Mike further explained that we have a classification system and a pay range structure where everyone is on a certain step and our step increases are automatic. They happen based on years of service. Our pay ranges are designed so that they are maintained annually based on
CPI. Essentially, that is our salary administration plan and that is what our people will be budgeting on automatically. There is not a lot that this Board would do differently than what the system has already established and put it place. He felt it was not necessary to
recommend an annual salary administration plan to the chief justice because he was not sure exactly what that would be. Judge Geiger asked if there was a potential for it even though it is something that might not be needed annually? He suggested it might be better to strike
the words “on and annual basis” and insert “as needed”. Justice Kapsner stated she felt it was more important to go through the normal budgeting process than looking at the letter
itself on an annual basis. She agrees that this should become pretty pro forma with our new pay plan. Judge Simonson stated if the letter did not mean much or say much, it probably is no longer needed. Judge Simonson had some minor changes under Section A, paragraph 2: • 1 judge elected by the Council of Presiding Judges Administrative Council; • 1 justices/judge appointed by the Chief Justice; • 2 district court employees elected by the district court employees; Judge Geiger moved, seconded by Gladys Schmitt, to approve the revisions to Policy
106 with the changes recommended by the chair under 2A. There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously. V.Update on Implementation of New Classification/Compensation System A. Memo of Understanding Mike reviewed that at the last meeting we had some questions about our agreement with Bjorklund and our ability to establish an outside and independent class evaluation team. He referred the members to the Memorandum of Understanding, which was the end result of negotiations with the Governor’s Office and Mr. Bjorklund. The agreement is between Mike and the Director of Human Resource Management Services Division of the Office of OMB and allows us to use some of
their trained class evaluation experts as we review pay grades for new and existing positions within the judicial system in exchange for some of Mike’s time if and when it became necessary (i.e. holding hearing, internal investigations, etc.) Mike also referred the Board to correspondence he has had with Mr. Bjorklund whereby Mr.
Bjorklund agrees, under the conditions identified in the letter, to the use of outside personnel on the evaluation team. Mr. Bjorklund is scheduled to come to Bismarck on October 11 to do some work with the evaluation team. He is very accepting of this process and is very pleased to see that the Court has adopted his study and is now
proceeding with its implementation. B. Salary Ranges Discussion then focused on the pay ranges that will be implemented effective October 1, 2004. Mike explained that four additional steps (D-A) have been added to the bottom of each range moving people into the minimum of these new steps and than transitioning them up at a minimum of four years or a maximum of eight years. Because our step system moves every two years, theoretically, in two years we can just drop off step D and in another two years, drop off step C. This was done for
certain fiscal limitations and concerns that the Mike and the justices had with the legislative process. With state employees as a whole not having received any increase over the past two years and only minimal increases prior to that, they were concerned that if we had some double digit percent increases for some of our employees, that it might not fair well in our upcoming legislative session. Mike stated that the old pay grades do not correlate to the new pay grades and no one is going to lose money. For example, if your current salary is $2,123 per month, and your new pay grade is a grade 9, you will be moved to the next closest step that is higher. So, with a current salary of $2,123, under the new system, the new salary would be $2,210. However, if your salary was $2,209, you would get $2,210 as my
new salary. One person might get $1 and another might get a substantial increase. This is not an implementation where everyone gets an across-the-board percent increase. If an employee is outside the range, he or she will not receive a salary reduction, but, as we are handling the situation today, the salary will be frozen until the structure catches up. Also, every employee will move at least to the minimum
of the new pay grade, so there will be some fairly large jumps just to get them to the minimum. That is why four steps have been added to the bottom to ease the transition. New employees will enter their pay grade at level D. Because of this, we will have an issue with some compression on the low end. This is one of the compromises we have to make in order to get this transition to work. Mike has been traveling around the state and presenting the new classification system to each of the major cities. The info will be available on the web in October. Once the information is on the web, people will have access to their new classification, their new pay grade, and also the range associated with that pay grade. Individual
letters will be sent to all employees identifying for them what their new salary will be. This becomes effective October 1 and you will see it on your pay check November 1. The Board thanked Mike for his professionalism and background in putting together all of the information. Judge Simonson mentioned that there are certain members of the Board whose term will expire at the end of the year so we need appointments or elections so people can replace them. The next meeting will be held telephonically on November 18, 2004, commencing at 9:00 a.m. It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 am. Respectfully submitted,
Renee Barnaby (scribe)