Minutes I. Opening Business A. The meeting convened at 1:07 p.m. Members present included: Hon. Mikal
Simonson, Chair; Hon. M. Richard Geiger; Rita Hannesson; Kurt Schmidt; Judy
Slotto-Susie; Dion Ulrich; and Carla Kolling, Staff. Guests: Consultant Robert
Bjorklund and Susan Sisk. (Members absent: Hon. Mary Muehlen Maring and Hon.
Gerald Rustad). B. Minutes of the July 9, 2003 meeting were approved by consensus. II. Old Business A. Chair Simonson drew the members’ attention to Carla Kolling’s recommendations concerning a series of reclassification requests. Secretary II. Carla explained that the consultant reviewed the reclassification request submitted by the Secretary II’s. She explained that his analysis of the job did not warrant a reclassification of the position. The members discussed Mr. Bjorklund’s analysis in detail and the item was tabled until the November 5 meeting. Technical Support Specialist. Carla explained that the consultant reviewed the reclassification request submitted by Kurt Schmidt. She explained that his analysis of the job did not warrant a reclassification of the position. The members reviewed Mr. Bjorklund’s analysis and the item was tabled until the November 5 meeting in an effort to allow Mr. Schmidt to assemble additional information for the committee’s review. Administrative Assistant. The Board reviewed the consultant’s analysis of the job classification stating that the Administrative Assistant classification is rated appropriately. A motion was made by Kurt Schmidt, seconded by Rita Hannesson, to accept Mr Bjorlund analysis. The motion carried. Administrative Legal Assistant. The Board reviewed the consultant’s analysis of the job classification stating that the classification is rated appropriately. A motion was
made by Rita Hannesson, seconded by Judy Susie, to accept Mr. Bjorklund’s
analysis. The motion carried. Court Officer Job Series. Carla reviewed the series of events that led to the review and analysis of the court officer job series before the members. She explained that prior to the development of the proposed classification and compensation plan, the Personnel Policy Board had requested the juvenile court to review their current job descriptions to ensure the job duties and responsibilities currently being performed were adequately reflected in the descriptions. She said that during the process, the
members of the working committee assigned to review the descriptions proposed that the current Court Officer III classification be categorized as a career officer position and one that a Court Officer II could move into if the employee demonstrated exemplary performance over a period of time. Carla said that the proposed Court Officer III classification would grandfather those current employees holding the III position that are assistants to the director of a large office and the heads of a small office would be removed and a new classification would be developed, namely, Director of Juvenile Court I. Carla explained that once the classification was developed, it became time to identify the criteria that would be used to determine which Court Officer II would be promoted to a III. She said Greg Wallace attempted on several occasions to reduce the criteria to writing but could not come up with a
method that would be defensible, therefore, Mr. Wallace asked that the request for consideration of a Court Officer III (career officer) position be withdrawn. The Board members accepted the request and moved forward with reviewing Mr. Bjorklund’s analysis of the classifications based on the current operations of the juvenile court. Court Officer I. The Board reviewed the consultant’s analysis of the job classification stating that the classification should be lowered to pay grade 6. Carla explained that when the position was originally rated, it was also rated at a pay grade 6, however, the judiciary was unable to retain court officers once they received experience. She explained that the Supreme Court, at the request of the Personnel Policy Board, elevated the pay grade to a 7 in an effort to be competitive with the Division of Juvenile Services and Human Services. A motion was made by Judge Geiger, seconded by Dion Ulrich, to elevate the pay grade for the court officer I to a pay grade 7. The motion carried. Court Officer II. The Board reviewed the consultant’s analysis of the job classification stating that the classification is rated appropriately at a pay grade 8. A motion was made by Judge Geiger, seconded by Dion Ulrich, to accept the consultant’s analysis. The motion carried. Court Officer III. The Board reviewed the consultant’s analysis of the job classification stating that the classification is rated appropriately at a pay grade 12. Carla explained that this classification included those employees who serve as an assistant to the director of a large office. A motion was made by Judge Geiger, seconded by Judy Susie, to accept the consultant’s analysis. The motion carried. Director of Juvenile Court I & II. The Board reviewed the consultant’s analysis of the job classification stating that the Director of Juvenile Court I classification should be elevated from a pay grade 12 to a 13 and the Director of Juvenile Court II be elevated from a pay grade 13 to a 14.. Carla explained that the Director I classification would include those Court Officer III’s that are heads of a small office and that under the current system, they are now included with the assistants to the directors of a large office. She reminded the members that these classifications are being proposed per the new restructuring proposal developed by the working group,
and the job descriptions are reflective of how offices are currently being managed. Concern was expressed that the classifications were rated too high. Bob Bjorklund commented that even though it is a manager or supervisor engaged in professional level managerial responsibilities, we have a tendency to not be as fair or objective of this position as it might if it were more of a legal related position. He stated he believes these positions are evaluated appropriately. A motion was made by Rita Hannesson, seconded by Judge Geiger, to approve Mr. Bjorklund’s analysis. The motion failed to pass for lack of support. (Ayes: Judge Geiger and Rita Hannesson; Nays: Kurt Schmidt, Dion Ulrich, Judy Susie.) As a result of the failed motion, the Director of Juvenile Court I will be folded into the Court Officer III classification and the Director of Juvenile Court II will be renamed to Director of Juvenile Court. III. New Business State Court Administrator Job Description. Carla Kolling explained that the Supreme Court modified the wording of the education and experience requirement. She said the education and experience requirements did not change. The next meeting is scheduled for November 5, 2003. The meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
Personnel Policy Board
Carla Kolling, staff