Members Present: Ted Smith, Chair; Hon. Gail Hagerty; Susan Hoffer; Hon. James Hovey; Hon. Lisa Fair McEvers; Ross Munns; Carolyn Probst
Member Absent: Petra Mandigo Hulm
Others Present: Sally Holewa, Ex Officio
Amy Klein, Staff
Renee Barnaby, Minutes
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Ross Munns, to approve the February 27 and March 26, 2015 meeting minutes. The motion carried.
Proposed Salary Ranges
Chair Smith presented the Board with the proposed pay ranges for July 2015 through June 2016. The changes reflect a 3% increase in all pay grades and steps.
Sally Holewa suggested asking the court to consider when the increases are legislatively approved, the adjustment automatically be sent to the court and bypass the Board.
Justice McEvers recalled in the past, when the state was not in good financial shape, the agencies were asked to reduce their budgets halfway through the biennium. She suggested in those types of situations, a special meeting may be necessary to freeze the salaries.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Ross Munns, to recommend that the Supreme Court adopt the proposed salary ranges reflecting a 3% increase for fiscal year 2015-2016 and 3% for fiscal year 2016-2017. The motion carried.
Employment Status, Personnel Records, and Service and Retirement Awards Policies
Chair Smith stated the Employment Status, Personnel Records, and Service and Retirement Awards policies were sent out to employees for comment. One comment was received supporting the changes.
Carolyn Probst referred the Board to section B.1. of the Service and Retirement Awards policy. She said Donna Wunderlich noted that the proposed language reads as if a regular employee needs to have a minimum of 15 years experience, rather than temporary employee. For clarification purposes, it was suggested that the language under paragraph B.1. of the Service and Retirement Awards policy, be modified.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Carolyn Probst, to approve all of the policies with the following modification to section B.1. of the Service and Retirements Awards policy: “The retirement award will be provided to a regular employee or a temporary employee who works an average of 20 or more hours per weeks and who has a minimum of 15 years of service, and who has not been previously recognized for a retirement by the state, as follows:”. The motion carried.
Administrative Rule 33
Chair Smith stated the draft amendments to Administrative Rule 33 addresses elections. He said Petra Hulm suggested adding the words “at least” before the 10-day requirement under sections 3.C. and 3.D.
It was moved by Ross Munns, seconded by Judge Hagerty, to add the words “a minimum” to the 10-day requirement under sections 3 C. and 3.D.
Sally Holewa mentioned there was an additional concern about not allowing write-ins for this election, and she stated her position remains the same. She said it is important to declare a candidacy (1) because it is a statewide election and employees may be voting for people they have not had a chance to meet; and (2) in order to obtain a bio on the candidate and a statement as to why the candidate is interested in running.
The motion carried.
Citizen Access Paralegal Classification
Chair Smith explained the court system received an FTE from the legislature to assist the Citizen Access Coordinator. A Citizen Access Paralegal job classification has been created and is factored out at pay grade 12.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Judge Hovey, to approve the proposed classification for a Citizen Access Paralegal.
Sally Holewa stated the position seems appropriate when looking at the other positions that are in pay grade 12. Chair Smith added the position is in line with the other paralegal positions in the state system. It also follows the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The motion carried and will be sent to the Supreme Court for consideration.
Citizen Access Coordinator Classification
Chair Smith said the Supreme Court requested the Board consider amending the minimum qualifications of the Citizen Access Coordinator to require a juris doctorate. Other proposed changes include requiring the two years of law practice experience and adding the duty of supervising the Citizen Access Paralegal. The proposed changes have raised the pay grade to 21, which is in line with the other staff attorney positions in the court system.
It was moved by Ross Munns, seconded by Susan Hoffer, to approve the changes to the Citizen Access Coordinator classification. The motion carried and will be sent to the Supreme Court for consideration.
Supreme Court Law Librarian Classification
Sally Holewa said last year when the legal self-help program was created, it was decided that it should be connected to the law library as that is where most of the pro se people would turn to for help. Because the self-help program is a different type of division, the work is unrelated to the work of the law library. It also does not have the same customer base as a law library, and according to our classification matrix, it raises the position to pay grade 22.
Chair Smith said Petra Hulm’s comment indicates that the other directors are at pay grade 21 and moving the Supreme Court Law Librarian classification to a pay grade higher may potentially cause morale or other issues. Chair Smith indicated the position has more duties than the other attorneys and also indicated that supervising someone in the same pay grade is not good policy. He turned the meeting over Judge Hagerty to act as chair and left the meeting.
Judge Hagerty indicated she is unsure someone should be held back because there might be an issue with perception. Ross Munns and Susan Hoffer added that if the matrix is applied and that is how the position scores out, it is appropriate to move it.
Ms. Holewa said with the change to the Citizen Access Coordinator position, if we do not follow the matrix, the law librarian would be supervising someone in the same pay grade, which is not typically what happens.
It was moved by Judge Hovey, seconded by Carolyn Probst, to approve the changes to the Supreme Court Law Librarian job classification. The motion carried and will be sent to the Supreme Court for consideration.
[Ted Smith rejoined the meeting]
Deputy Clerk of District Court I Job Classification
Amy Klein explained said the Deputy Clerk of District Court I and II job classifications have been updated to reflect the current procedures and functions in the clerk’s office.
Sally Holewa said under the General Summary or Purpose section, the second paragraph has been modified to state, “This person who works in this classification...” She said all of the classifications start that sentence by saying “This classification” because it is talking about the classification and not the person who holds the job. She suggested changing it back to the original language.
Carolyn Probst said under the Title of Immediate Supervisor section, some deputy clerk I and II positions report to a deputy clerk III, which is not reflected. She suggested adding the deputy clerk III position under that category.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Ross Munns, to approve the Deputy Clerk of District Court I job classification with the editorial changes suggested above. The motion carried.
Deputy Clerk of District Court II Job Classification
Judge Hagerty suggested the same editorial changes made under the General Summary or Purpose section and Title of Immediate Supervisor section that were made to the Deputy Clerk of District Court I classification also be reflected in the Deputy Clerk of District Court II job classification.
It was moved by Ross Munns, seconded by Judge Hagerty, to approve the Deputy Clerk of District Court II job classification with the editorial changes suggested above. The motion carried.
Juvenile Administrative Assistant I
Amy Klein said the Administrative Assistant I and II classifications most closely reflect the duties of the administrative assistants in the juvenile court. The classifications were updated and renamed Juvenile Administrative Assistant I and II.
Judge Hagerty suggested the word “court” be added to the title to read “Juvenile Court Administrative Assistant I” as well as adding it throughout the classification.
Carolyn Probst suggested under the Department category, the word “varies” be changed to“District Court” and under the Title of Immediate Supervisor category, the word “varies” be changed to “Director of Juvenile Court or Juvenile Court Officer III”. Under the Division category, she suggested the word “Services” be removed.
It was the consensus of the Board to incorporate Judge Hagerty and Ms. Probst’s changes.
Justice McEvers questioned if the administrative assistants in the juvenile court record in court for the referees. Carolyn Probst and Ross Munns indicated that scenario only happens in emergency situations and is not a normal practice. Judge Hagerty added if the person is working for the referee, then they should be in the district court administrator’s office and not identified as a juvenile court employee.
Rod Olson joined the meeting. He indicated in the past one, of the juvenile court secretaries did record for a referee so the person was reclassified to a recorder. He stated most of the requested changes to the deputy clerk and administrative assistant classifications before the Board are from the trial court administrators.
[Rod left the meeting]
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Judge Hovey, to approve the Juvenile Court Administrative Assistant I job classification with the editorial changes noted above. The motion carried.
Juvenile Court Administrative Assistant II classification
Judge Hagerty suggested the Title of Immediate Supervisor, Department, Accountable For, and Division section changes made to the Juvenile Court Administrative Assistant I job classification also be reflected in the Juvenile Court Administrative Assistant II job classification
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Judge Hovey, to approve the Juvenile Court Administrative Assistant II job classification with the editorial changes noted above. The motion carried.
District Court Administrative Assistant I
Amy Klein explained the District Court Administrative Assistant I is a new job classification because the current classification only accurately reflects a couple essential functions of an administrative assistant to a court administrator. The current administrative assistants serving in this capacity completed job data questionnaires.
Sally Holewa stated the pay grade is the same as the other secretaries.
In response to a question from Susan Hoffer inquiring why the Deputy Clerk I is a pay grade lower than the Administrative Assistant I, Ms. Holewa responded a full classification study was performed in 1999 and that is how the jobs scored out after applying the matrix to the job classifications.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Ross Munns, to approve the District Court Administrative Assistant I job classification. The motion carried.
District Court Administrative Assistant II
It was moved by Justice McEvers, seconded by Judge Hagerty, to approve the District Court Administrative Assistant II job classification. The motion carried.
It was moved by Judge Hagerty, seconded by Ross Munns, to add the names of the new positions to the chart in the Salary Administration policy. The policy shall be submitted to the court with the proposed changes to the job classifications. The motion carried.
Family Sick Leave Policy
Amy Klein said that House Bills 1244, 1387 and 1403 were approved this last legislative session. She said House Bill 1387 replaces the 80 hours and additional 10% of sick leave that an employee may take for a parent, spouse or child with a serious health condition and replaces it with 480 hours of an employee’s sick leave to care for a parent, spouse or child with a serious health condition. Ms. Klein said she added the 480 hours to the FMLA policy but did not remove the 80 hours from the Sick Leave policy. The Executive Branch has yet to decide how to handle the matter. The Century Code states 80 hours has to be given for a serious health condition, but under the Executive Branch’s administrative code, they include medical appointments, illness, or other services related to general health or well-being. The Executive Branch only allows leave for a parent, spouse and child, and the court system has a whole list of family members for family sick leave.
Judge Hagerty suggested deferring any changes to the court’s policy until the Executive Branch has made a decision.
Ms. Hoffer questioned if the 480 hours could be taken over a specified time. Judge Hagerty said the legislation states an employee may take 480 hours of leave in any 12-month period.
Ms. Klein stated the way the policy is drafted, an employee would still have available the 80 hours for family sick leave for medical appointments and general health. If there is a serious health condition, it would fall under FMLA and that is when an employee can use the 480 hours.
It was the consensus of the of Board to delay discussion concerning the 480 hours as well as the leave for domestic violence.
Amy Klein provided an update on the compensation study. She said Fox and Lawson indicated they have sufficient data from the surveys that were sent out and are moving forward. The data will be tabulated and sent to the Board members. A special meeting can be called to discuss the results, if necessary.
Sally Holewa indicated there are changes to the federal regulations that allows for FMLA use for a same-sex spouse. It was the consensus of the Board to bring draft revisions to the next meeting.