Minutes
July 9, 2003
Heritage Center
Bismarck, ND
I. Opening Business
A.The meeting convened at 1:10 p.m. Members present included: Hon. Mikal Simonson, Chair; Hon. M. Richard Geiger; Rita Hannesson; Hon. Mary Muehlen Maring; Kurt Schmidt; Judy Slotto-Susie; Dion Ulrich; and Carla Kolling, Staff. Guests: Robert Bjorklund (via conference call) and Ted Gladden. (Members absent: Hon. Gerald Rustad).
B.The minutes of the June 19, 2003 conference call were reviewed and one correction was requested. Chair requested that the minutes reflect that the vote taken on a motion was performed by a roll call vote. The change was noted.
II.Old Business
Chair Simonson welcomed, State Court Administrator Ted Gladden to the meeting and invited him to proceed with his comments on the proposed classification plan.
Mr. Gladden stated that he had some concerns about how certain classifications were rated in comparison to others. He said the structure presented creates a vertical laddering of positions which, in his opinion, is not defensible and is going to lead to immediate reclassification requests. He said when he looks at jobs, he looks at them from the perspective of complexity of the job, significance of error on the organization, scope of authority, and responsibility of the position, and when he reviewed the jobs, he cannot see why they would be graded at different salary ranges. He stated that his primary concern is directed to those positions rated at a pay grade 20 and higher. Ted commented that he sees the same problems that were present in the current system embedded in the proposed plan.
Robert Bjorklund said that job evaluation is an objective process, it involves making subjective decisions against objective criteria, and that there isn't always a right and wrong answer. Bob explained that there is a very high correlation between current ratings and former ratings and that is to be expected in the job evaluation system when assessing very similar kinds of criteria. He said the ratings should match how business is done in an organization and, to that extent, one would expect a high degree of correlation.
As concerns the laddering effect of positions, Bob stated that the ratings are reflective of what is and not what should be or what is desirable. He stated that after reviewing Ted's comments and those received by the employees and managers, there appears to be a disconnect between the two sources of information.
Ted stated that he would reduce the number of pay grades between 19-23 to two. He does not believe that the level of responsibilities in the classifications that fall between those pay grades are that significant to warrant five different pay grades. Bob responded by saying that those issues arise when you develop a point spread. He said to avoid subjectivity, he applied a constant percent difference in points across jobs reflecting the least amount of points the plan would support to the highest amount of points would support then broke them down into pay grades. The classifications were then placed based upon their outcome. He said he believes this to be a much more objective process of assigning classifications to pay grades.
There being no further comments, Chair Simonson thanked Ted for attending.
Chair Simonson drew the members’ attention to Consultant Bjorklund's June 18, 2003, letter outlining his recommendations concerning the 9 classifications forwarded to him for review.
Mr. Bjorklund stated that after reviewing the comments, he recommended the following:
Law Library Assistant: Consultant proposed raising the pay grade from 6 to 9.
Motion was made by Justice Maring, second by Dion Ulrich to approve raising the pay grade from 6 to 9. The motion passed unanimously.
District Court Administrator: Consultant proposed raising the pay grade from 21 to 22. Members discussed the current responsibilities of the Court Administrator II and reviewed the Consultant’s recommendation. The members determined that the original recommendation by the consultant should remain keeping the classification at a pay grade 21. The Chair directed Carla Kolling to amend the documentation to reflect the original rating for the position.
Calendar Control Clerk: Consultant believed the classification was rated accordingly, therefore, the pay grade remained the same. Consultant Bjorklund stated that he recognizes the complexity of the job, however, the education required to do the job as compared to classifications listed in higher pay grade does not support elevating the position to a higher pay grade.
Chief Deputy - Clerk of the Supreme Court: Consultant believed the classification was rated accordingly. Therefore the pay grade remained the same.
Deputy Clerk II - Clerk of the Supreme Court: Consultant stated that the supervisor is requesting that a new job title be created. Bob said the creation of a new classification title is a decision that needs to be made by the organization, not himself. He said he does not support or believe that a classification structure should be developed based on performance issues, tasks performed by individuals with knowledge and skills beyond the minimum requirements set by the organization, or a structure so narrow that almost every employee has their own job description.
Further, he said he does not believe that a department of 4-5 employees needs 3 job descriptions to address supervision.
The Board agreed to submit the request for a new job title to the Supreme Court for consideration.
Secretary - Central Legal: Consultant informed the members that the supervisor is requesting that a new job title be created. Bob repeated his position saying that the creation of a new classification title is a decision that needs to be made by the organization not himself. He believed the classification was rated accordingly. Therefore, the pay grade remained the same.
The Board agreed to submit the request for a new job title to the Supreme Court for consideration.
Judicial Secretary to the Justices: Consultant informed the members that he has revisited the ratings and believes the ratings are appropriate and consistent with the changes in the job descriptions that were originally submitted.
Step System
Chair Simonson informed the members that the Supreme Court is requesting that the Board forward a recommendation, in the way of a motion, supporting the continuation of the step system. A motion was made by Rita Hannesson, seconded by Dion Ulrich, motion unanimously carried.
Judicial Secretary to a District Judge
A motion was made by Judge Geiger, seconded by Justice Maring, to amend the Judicial Secretary to a District Judge job description to include the following language to "perform clerking duties in the courtroom, administer oaths and mark documents, maintain log and complete bond orders and other forms." The motion unanimously carried. Chair Simonson requested that the change also be incorporated into the Court Reporter job description.
Legal Assistant
Carla Kolling informed the members that a request was made by Marilyn Moe that the title of the job description be changed to Administrative Legal Assistant. She further requested that budget preparation be added to the essential functions of the position. A motion was made by Judge Geiger, seconded by Dion Ulrich, that the requested information be incorporated into the job description, motion unanimously carried.
Deputy Clerk of Supreme Court I & II
Carla Kolling informed the members that Penny Miller requested that the experience requirement be changed to reflect one year of experience in a court or closely related setting. Carla explained the change is consistent with other positions with similar responsibilities and does not require a pay grade adjustment. A motion was made by Rita Hannesson, seconded by Justice Maring, to amend the job description to reflect the change, motion unanimously carried.
Administrative Secretary
Carla Kolling informed the members that Connie Schneider expressed concern that the experience requirement for the Administrative Secretary was too low. Carla explained that her comment was supported by her supervisor, Ted Gladden. Carla informed the members the proposed experience requirement is in line with other positions with similar job duties. The Board took no action.
A motion was made by Judge Geiger, seconded by Judy Slotto-Susie to send the classification plan, and job descriptions, and all approved amendments to the Supreme Court for consideration, motion unanimously carried.
A motion was made by Justice Maring, seconded by Rita Hannesson, to lift the moratorium on reclassification requests, motion unanimously carried.
Chair Simonson requested Carla to prepare a letter to employees notifying them that the moratorium on reclassification requests has been lifted. The Board will consider all pending classification requests at their upcoming meeting.
III.New Business
Leave Policy 102
Carla explained that OMB has installed a software program which will require that the cutoff date for annual leave be the same for all agencies. She said this change requires us to change our leave policy to reflect the new cutoff date, that being April 30 of each year. A motion was made by Kurt Schmidt, seconded by Rita Hannesson, that the amendment be adopted, the motion unanimously carried.
A motion was made by Judge Geiger, seconded by Dion Ulrich, that the meeting be adjourned, motion unanimously carried.
Respectfully submitted,