Minutes Members Present: Hon. Mikal Simonson, Chair; Hon. Ronald Hilden; Hon. Carol Ronning
Kapsner; Kurt Schmidt; Gladys Schmitt; Judy Slotto-Susie; and Dion Ulrich. Members Absent: Hon. M. Richard Geiger Others Present: Mike Sandal, Staff
Chair Simonson called the meeting to order 10:00 am. The minutes of the April 5, 2004 meeting were approved after correcting a typographic error in the first paragraph, changing the minutes to reflect Judge Geiger was present, and deleting the word “Stenographic” from the first paragraph on Page 3. I. Supreme Court’s Action on Bjorklund’s Classification/Compensation Plan Implementation Costs of Classification/Compensation System Mike Sandal explained to the Board that on June 2, 2004, Ted Gladden, Susan Sisk and Mike met with the Supreme Court and outlined a proposed pay and classification plan. The following recommendations were made to the Court: 1.Adopt the factors identified in Bjorklund’s class evaluation system. If the factors represent the values important to the Court, the compensation and classification system will always reflect the appropriate hierarchy of jobs internally. The Court formally adopted the factors for which we will organize jobs in the judiciary. 2.Move forward and adopt the proposed hierarchy and rating outcomes that
Bjorklund had proposed. After discussion, the Court agreed with the
hirsch provided with minor adjustments and adopted it. 3.Take no action on pending reclassifications under the existing system.
Acting on these requests would serve to complicate transition into the new
classification system. Any future changes to positions should be evaluated
under the newly adopted system. Once the new system is adopted, any
pending classifications will be run through the new process. The Court
approved the request. 4.Adopt the proposed pay ranges for 2004-2005. The ranges maintain the same 50% grade width, 11 steps, and 4.1 percent between steps. The Court
adopted the request. Mike suggested the following: •All employees be paid at least the minimum of the new salary range; •Employees above minimum would move to the next highest step; •Employees above the maximum salary rate would still maintain their
current pay rate. Bjorklund proposed a 3% increase across the board, which the judiciary could not afford. Cost of implementation, as Mike proposed, would be $678,494. Continuing the implementation into the biennium is estimated at $1,402,098. This assumes the 2% per year structural increase. The Court adopted the recommendations. 5.The implementation date should be October 1, paid November 1, 2004. This will bring the first year’s cost down to approximately $508,871, and provides an opportunity to explain the new classification/compensation process to all employees. It is important for all employees to have an opportunity to hear and learn how the new salary structure was determined and will affect them. The Court approved the implementation date. 6.Adopt a budget process that specifically plans for an annual increase in salary structures based on projected increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Maintenance of the system structure based on CPI, in addition to the scheduled step increases, will provide a solid basis to maintain the Court’s salary structure to local/regional market parity over time. The Court approved the request. Mike suggested to the Court that the class evaluation process be done
internally. He recommended we assign a team of evaluations to become
familiar with the classification matrix. The commitment would be long term.
The team would be responsible for making pay grade recommendations to
eliminate the need for the consultant’s resources. The team make-up would be the decision of the Personnel Policy Board. Mike gave three possibilities for processing the evaluations: •Form a subgroup of the Personnel Policy Board; •Form a team consisting of other people within the court system
appointed or assigned; •Form a team using trained evaluators from outside agencies. This and would give an outside, neutral, non-biased look at the evaluation
factors and could be done free of charge. It was suggested that Jim Ganje review our contract with Bjorklund to determine whether or not the use of evaluators from outside agencies would be in violation of the contract. After discussion, a motion was made by Judge Hilden, seconded by Dion Ulrich, to form a team not to exceed four members to provide services at no charge, subject to the restrictions of the Bjorklund contract. The team will consist of trained evaluators from Central Personnel, the University System, and the Judiciary. The motion carried
unanimously. II. Continued Rule of Personnel Policy Board Discussion regarding the continued role of the Personnel Policy Board was held. Some of the topics discussed were:
Renee Barnaby (scribe)
Members Absent: Hon. M. Richard Geiger
Others Present: Mike Sandal, Staff
I. Supreme Court’s Action on Bjorklund’s Classification/Compensation Plan
Implementation Costs of Classification/Compensation System
•All employees be paid at least the minimum of the new salary range;
•Employees above minimum would move to the next highest step;
•Employees above the maximum salary rate would still maintain their current pay rate.
•Form a subgroup of the Personnel Policy Board;
•Form a team consisting of other people within the court system appointed or assigned;
II. Continued Rule of Personnel Policy Board
•Less Focus on Administrative, Detailed Work
•Proactive vs. Reactive Role
•Policy Development and Maintenance
•Reclassification vs. Pay Grade Reviews
•Policies 106 and 107 Revisions
•Maintenance of Ranges and Systems
•Performance Measuring System
It was suggested that Mike prepare a list of topics that need to be addressed and bring it to the next meeting so the Board can review it.
III. Step Request from Mike Levitt
The next item discussed was a letter Mike Levitt sent to Mr. Sandal requesting the Board to consider adding another five percent step to our 11-step compensation advancement chart. Discussion was held.
A motion was made by Judge Hilden, seconded by Gladys Schmitt, not to add another step to our 11-step system to extend past the 11th step and to deny Mike Levitt’s request. After further discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
IV. Service Awards
The Board reviewed a letter to Mike Sandal from Paulette Reule, Clerk of District Court, in Dickinson, addressing what she believes in an inequity in Supreme Court Policy 122, Service Award Program. She states that many clerks and deputy clerks who came into the state system in April 2001 were not allowed credit for their years of service under the service awards program, but, the juvenile court staff and former county court staff that came under the state judiciary earlier were allowed to bring all their years of service into the service award program. She is suggesting that all years of service in the judiciary be applied, not just a portion.
A motion was made by Kurt Schmidt, seconded by Judy Susie, to recognize former county clerk staff for their years of service as they transition from the county into the state system. Motion carried unanimously. The proposed amendment will be forwarded to the Supreme Court for consideration with the suggestion that if the motion is approved, it be prospective to the date the Court approves it.
V. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder-District Judge
Chair Simonson drew the members’ attention to the draft descriptions for Court Reporter and Electronic Court Recorder-District Judge. The descriptions reflect the changes suggested at the April meeting. The following additional changes were made:
The Court Reporter job description was reviewed and the following changes were agreed to:
On Page 1, under Title of Immediate Supervisor, the words “Presiding or” be deleted.
On Page 1, under General Summary or Purpose, the last sentence shall read as follows:
Positions assigned to this classification provide administrative and secretarial support to a district judge and court staff, and assists in calendar control and scheduling, and may serve as a liaison between the district judge and others in matters handled by the judge.
On Page 1, under Duty No. 2, the sentence shall read as follows:
Perform clerking duties in courtroom, administer oath, mark documents, maintain logs, and other forms, and transfer stenographic notes, files and records to the clerk of district court for reference.
On Page 4, under Job Classification History, the last sentence shall be deleted.
Electronic Court Recorder-District Judge
The Electronic Court Recorder-District Judge job description was reviewed and the following changes were agreed to:
On Page 1, under General Summary or Purpose, the last sentence shall read as follows:
Additionally, this position is personally responsible for the production of all required and requested transcripts, unless they are prepared by a third party.
On Page 1, under Duty No. 1, the first sentence shall read as follows:
Accurately record, transcribe, and certify the record of court and jury trial proceedings, unless they are prepared by a third party, by computer aided equipment per state and appellate requirements.
A motion was made by Judge Hilden, seconded by Judy Susie, to approve the job descriptions of Court Reporter and Electronic Court Recorder-District Judge. After discussion, the motion carried with one dissent.
A motion was made by Judge Hilden, seconded by Kurt Schmidt, Court Reporter and Electronic Court Recorder-District Judge be sent to the new team for a pay grade assessment. Motion carried with one dissent.
It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 pm.