Minutes
Personnel Policy Board
August 28, 2001
Bismarck, North Dakota I. Opening Business: A 1. The meeting convened at 11:45 a.m. Members present included Penny Miller, Rita Hannesson, Judge Mikal Simonson, Judge Gerald Rustad and Dion Ulrich. Guest: Robert Bjorklund B. Minutes of the July 26, 2001 conference call were amended as follows: Page 2. Elimination of paragraph C. Amendments were approved on a motion by Judge Simonson, seconded by Dion Ulrich. II. New Business: Chair Miller invited Robert Bjorklund to provide the members with a recap of the process of revising and re-rating the position descriptions and classifications. Judges Simonson inquired how knowledge differs from education in the rating of the job. Robert responded that generally he does not include both because they have a tendency to overlap and measure the same thing as Factor One, Knowledge of Assignments and Job Complexity. Bob explained that in order to accommodate both Factor One and Factor Five, he simply reduced the weight given to Factor One to offset Factor Five. The Board questioned how the total number of points was arrived at. Bob explained that it is not the total number of points assigned that is important but how much weight is given to one factor versus another factor. The methodology is set up based on geometric progression between each degree within the matrix. What you want to do is assign a certain percent to each factor based upon the analysis of this weighing against the market place to identify a value. Then apply it geometrically across that factor by setting an arbitrary point. As concerns the interview process, the Board inquired how the information was assembled since there were two interviewers. Bob explained that the interviewer that interviewed the employee was responsible for developing that particular job description. He stated that although the interviews were used to expand their knowledge and understandings of the jobs, the main purpose was to assist in creating the position descriptions. Once the job descriptions were completed, Bob applied the methodology to the job descriptions to come up with the job rating. Bob informed the members that the pay scale he developed for the Supreme Court is based on the projected market. The ranges are reflective of the results of the market analysis which encompassed comparable positions from both the private and public organizations. In order to familiarize the Board with the rating process, Bob walked the members through the rating of several positions from certain job series. Certain questions arose concerning the duties and responsibilities listed in certain position descriptions. Bob explained that the information contained in the position descriptions was obtained from the position questionnaires, previous job descriptions and the interviews. He informed the members that if there are duties listed that are incorrect, they should be identified by the supervisor when they are forwarded to them for review. The changes will then be made to the position descriptions. Bob said that he will prepare a form for the presiding judges signature. He explained that the form will be attached to the position descriptions when sent to them for their review to identify significant changes that were overlooked during the drafting of the descriptions. Exempt/Non-Exempt Status Bob explained that his evaluation of the positions determined that the exempt/non-exempt status of certain positions needed to be changed. More particularly the network analyst I, II, III classifications. He said that per the Fair Labor Standards Act in the area of technology, the employer has to demonstrate that the employee has responsibility in their job for designing and creating systems and programs rather than maintaining what is already in place or updating what is already there. He said under that definition, the network analysts are clearly non-exempt whereas programmers are expected to work with user groups, defining the criteria, looking at the requirements and creating new programs as opposed to someone telling them directly what and how to do the job. Carla Kolling expressed some concern that the juvenile court officer I and II have been identified as exempt positions. Bob explained that the positions require a four year degree and work independently. Rita Hannesson commented that they do make independent decisions concerning the welfare of the child especially in after hour crisis situations. It was agreed that the I and II will be looked at more closely before any changes are made in their current status. The Board discussed adjusting the salary ranges for various pay grades. If the Board decided to implement that concept, Bob recommended dividing the pay grades by one-third with the first set having a 30% pay range spread, the second set a 40%, with the third set a 50% spread. The Board requested that Jana Thielges put together two budget proposals. The first would bring every employee's salary within 100% of market and the other 95% of market. She asked that the Board continue its review of the proposal and advise Carla Kolling of any issues to be included on the November agenda by October 15. Meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Director of Human Resources and Development
11:30 a.m.
Carla Kolling