Minutes
Personnel Policy Board Members Present: Staff: Carla Kolling Chair Miller called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. and immediately drew the Board's attention to the minutes of the September 1, 2000 conference call. Motion was made by Judge Jahnke, seconded by Judge Simonson to approve the minutes as drafted. The motion unanimously carried. Chair Miller drew the Board's attention to the minutes of the June 30, 2000 meeting. Motion was made by Judges Simonson, seconded by Dion Ulrich to approve the minutes as drafted. The motion unanimously carried. Chair Miller directed the members' attention to the amendment to the Substance Abuse Policy 117 and requested Carla Kolling to explain the purpose for the amendment. Carla explained that under the Worker's Compensation Risk Management Program agencies receive discounts for implementing workplace safety programs. She said that as a result of the last legislative session, Worker's Compensation is awarding agencies a 3% discount in their premium if they implement a substance abuse program. She explained that the Supreme Court, during a recent administrative conference, elected to participate in the substance abuse program causing the current policy to be amended in order that it reflect an alcohol component. Judge Simonson suggested eliminating the use of the words "dispensing", "distributing" and "selling" in the body of the policy and replace them with the word "delivery" in order that it mirrors state statute. A few other minor revisions were made to the draft. Chair Miller requested Carla to incorporate the suggested changes and circulate them by email for members' review and vote. Chair Miller informed the members that since Carla Kolling did not support the reclassification request, the Board has no further involvement unless there is an appeal. Chair Miller drew the members' attention to Robert Bjorklund's pay grade assignment and Carla Kolling's letter of recommendation and asked her to provide the background information that led to her recommendation. Carla explained that Mr. Bjorklund rated the juvenile court officer I at a pay grade 6; juvenile court officer II, pay grade 9; juvenile court officer III, pay grade 11; director of juvenile court I, pay grade 13; and director of juvenile court II, pay grade 14. She said that the pay grades appear to be in line with the duties and responsibilities of the job, however, after reviewing the director I and II and their placement compared to other professional positions within the system, they appeared overrated. She went on to explain that the I and II's are being compared to classifications that have not been reviewed in ten years and that if reviewed today by Mr. Bjorklund their pay grade may be different. She stressed the fact that it is impossible to infer that the position ratings are, in fact, unreasonable compared to others in their pay grade proximity when the classifications being compared to are extremely outdated. Carla also presented comparisons to other agencies within State Government such as county social service directors, social workers, and the Division of Juvenile Services. She explained that the pay grades assigned to the lower positions were comparable, however the rating for the director I and II were 2 pay grades higher than their comparable positions. Carla encouraged the Board to consider recommending to the Supreme Court that monies be invested in conducting a thorough review and analysis of our current classification and compensation plan prior to taking any action on the juvenile court job descriptions and restructuring proposal in order that a fair assessment of the positioning of the classifications can be made. Carla explained that she received a proposal from Robert Bjorklund to perform the services necessary to accomplish our objective. Mr. Bjorklund's proposal was provided to Mr. Nelson for review and funding options. Mr. Nelson stated that he supported Mr. Bjorklund's proposal and that there were sufficient monies in the Court's budget to cover the expense of the project. As concerns the rating of the court officer I classification, Carla explained that history has demonstrated that we cannot retain court officer I's at a pay grade 6. She said once they receive experience, they move on to other agencies such as the Division of Juvenile Services. She recommended to the Board that they approve elevating the court officer I to a pay grade 7 due to market conditions. As relates to the restructuring of the juvenile court, Carla explained that at the last meeting the Board requested the Directors of Juvenile Court to develop a procedure relating to the movement of a court officer II to a court officer III under the proposed plan before the Board. She informed the Board that the directors met on September 6-7, 2000 and are proposing that a statewide performance evaluation system be implemented in the juvenile courts. She said that the evaluation would be used as a tool for determining whether a court officer II's performance warrants movement to a III. She explained that the directors would then serve as a screening board to review all requests for movement. After reviewing a request, the directors would make a recommendation to the presiding judge who would then make the final decision. Carla stated that the procedure appeared to be well thought out and encouraged statewide consistency. Her only concern lied with ensuring that the reviews could be performed in a timely fashion. She supported the directors' willingness to serve as a test group for implementing the use of performance evaluations in assisting with their decision as well as its effectiveness as a statewide initiative. Rita Hannesson inquired whether a time frame has been established for the review of the classification and compensation plan. Carla informed the Board that Mr. Bjorklund estimated that the classification review could possibly be done by the end of the year with the compensation portion following the early part of 2001. Dion Ulrich questioned how the judiciary would fund the positions if a large number come back from the consultant indicating that they need an upward pay grade adjustment. Carla explained that the inequities would be addressed as the monies become available. She said Mr. Bjorklund would also be submitting a recommendation on how to address inequities. Rita explained that the consultant rated the juvenile court officer III at a pay grade 11 which is lower than its current pay grade. Her question was whether those employees currently at the higher pay grade are going to be grandfathered into their current pay grade or are they going to be lowered into pay grade 11 and their salaries frozen. Carla explained that the Board has not made a decision on that issue. She said that if the Board supports the restructuring that issue will have to be addressed at that time. Chair Miller commented that it may be a good idea to explore other compensation plans before we make a decision to continue with the current. Carla explained that as part of the evaluation of the current system, Mr. Bjorklund will be presenting alternatives that may better suit our needs. Justice Maring had some concern about holding up on making a decision on the juvenile court positions until after Mr. Bjorklund's review. Carla stressed the fact that there is opposition to approving those positions in their recommended pay grade due to the fact that they are rated higher than other comparable positions within the system. She said by holding off until Mr. Bjorklund has completed his review will allow the Board to see from current data where the juvenile court classifications are positioned compared with others in the system. Chair Miller said she had concerns with a judicial referee being rated equal to or lower than a director of juvenile court especially since the judicial referee has control over the outcome of the juvenile court cases. Carla agreed and stressed that it is for that concern that we need to evaluate the judicial referee position and others to determine where their positions are positioned compared to the juvenile court prior to making any decisions. Carla reminded the Board that it has been nearly ten years since many of the classifications have been reviewed, and as a result, there are going to be some that are undoubtedly under ranked, the judicial referee possibly being one. Judge Bohlman inquired how other agencies review their positions. Carla explained that Central Personnel recently performed a major overhaul of their classification system. She said that they went through a process very similar to ours by assigning a value to each classification. She explained that the value assigned to the classification ultimately determined its pay grade. She further said that one of their objectives was to collapse the number of salary ranges into fewer broad bands. Dion expressed concern over the number of directors allocated to those districts with small offices. If implemented he said that there would be two districts that would be entitled to three director of court services I, two would be supervising two and one-half positions and the other would be supervising three. Carla explained that the director of juvenile court I and II are expected to carry out the same functions, the only significant difference between the two being the volume and number of employees each supervises. Chair Miller agreed with Dion in that the restructuring seemed to be heavy on the number of supervisors. A motion was made by Judge Bohlman, seconded by Rita Hannesson that the Board refrain from taking any action on the proposed pay grades until Mr. Bjorklund completes his review. As relates to the director's proposed procedure on the movement of a court officer II to a court officer III under the proposed restructuring, Dion objects to the creation of another board to determine whether an employee is eligible for a promotion. He questioned how a supervisor from another district can make a decision on the work performance of an employee that they do not supervise. Carla explained that the goal of the directors was to ensure that fairness was given to all employees eligible for a promotion. They believed that one way to accomplish that was to form a committee, which in this case would be the directors, to screen the applications that come from the districts. She said that the committee would review the documentation submitted by the director from the requesting district then forward their recommendation to the presiding judge. Penny questioned whether this proposal was brought before the Council of Presiding Judges. Carla informed the members that to the best of her knowledge it had not. The above motion passed unanimously. A motion was made by Justice Maring, seconded by Rita Hannesson to refrain from taking any action on the proposed procedure for movement of a court officer II to a III until a decision is made on the pay grades. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Miller requested Carla Kolling to inform the members of the concerns Jana Thielges had relating to the rating of the supervisor of accounting position by Robert Bjorklund. Carla explained that two areas posed concern. The first dealt with the number of employees that were affected by the work performed by the supervisor of accounting. Carla explained that Mr. Bjorklund rated the factor based on the number of employees under the position not on the number of employees in the system. She said the reason being the director of finance has the ultimate responsibility over the work product of that position, therefore the director of finance would receive the additional points not the supervisor of accounting. The other area of concern related to the level of diversity with the position. Carla explained that Robert Bjorklund rated that factor on the basis that the fiscal department is one of many independent areas of the court system and that it was narrowly defined in responsibilities. She said that Mr. Bjorklund was willing to reconsider the rating of the factor if Jana could provide documentation that would support her argument. Carla explained that Jana was unable to assemble the information and provide it to Mr. Bjorklund to review, therefore the factor remained as originally rated. Carla informed the members that if a review is undertaken of the entire classification program that factor will be raised with Mr. Bjorklund at that time. A motion was made by Judge Simonson, seconded by Justice Maring to approve the consultant's recommendation to elevate the pay grade for the supervisor of accounting position to a pay grade 11. The motion unanimously carried. Carla Kolling informed the members that Robert Bjorklund rated the account analyst position at a pay grade 9 which appears to be in line with the duties and responsibilities of the job. A motion was made by Rita Hannesson, seconded by Judge Jahnke to approve the consultant's recommendation to establish the account analyst position at a pay grade 9. The motion unanimously carried. Justice Maring requested Carla Kolling to explain the consultant's recommendation. Carla explained that since our current classification system does not have a classification entitled deputy clerk of supreme court III, Penny Miller's request constitutes the development of a new position and not necessarily a reclassification request as submitted. She said that upon the receipt of Ms. Miller's request, she contacted her to determine the number of employees she intended to promote into this position. Ms. Miller informed her that it is not intended to be included in a career ladder series and therefore only one employee could be promoted into the position. Judge Bohlman inquired whether this position would be third in line to hers in her absence, and what was the frequency of her absences which would warrant the necessity of adding another supervisory level in her office. Penny informed the members that it is happening quite frequently since her chief deputy is in the courtroom. She further explained that her office has taken on many special projects which has taken her chief deputy away from her routine duties. She said these special projects have occupied 85-90% of the chief deputy's time making her unavailable to answer questions. Judge Jahnke expressed concern with moving forward with this position without considering the responsibilities of the calendar control clerks. He said that in addition to scheduling 2,500 cases a year, these clerks are supervising other employees. He emphasized the fact that it was not that he disagreed with the pay grade assigned, only that the members should refrain from taking action until Mr. Bjorklund has had a chance to review all the positions. A motion was made by Judge Jahnke, seconded by Judge Bohlman to table the request until Mr. Bjorklund has completed his study. The motion unanimously carried. Penny inquired how this position was different from the deputy clerk of court III created for the clerk of court office. She said the clerks office is allowed one supervisor for each four people, and she sees this position being a combination of a calendar control clerk and a deputy clerk of court III. Judge Jahnke explained that there may be district calendar control clerks that are supervising clerk of court people as well. Judge Bohlman commented that he did not know if there was a difference, his concern is that special projects come and go and is it necessary to promote someone to a supervisory position who may or may not supervise? Penny explained that the employee supervises work and supervises other employees in the office in the absence of her and the chief deputy. Carla Kolling explained that the revision to the leave policy entitled Family and Medical Leave With Pay resulted from a request from Judge Jahnke to research whether paid sick leave could be used for adoption purposes, more directly the bonding of the parent and child. Carla said that paid sick leave could be used for attending preadoption appointments but could not be used for bonding purposes. She informed the members that some agencies have established a separate bank of hours entitled administrative leave that could be used for adoption. She said the administrative leave could also be used for care of a family member once the other sick leave benefit had been exhausted. Carla explained that the Attorney General's Office provides this benefit to their employees, and it has proven to be extremely helpful to those employees who have experienced a family member who has required extended care due to a severe illness. Chair Miller had concern that those employees who are not parents or are beyond child bearing years being upset with this policy. Carla explained that it is not only directed towards employees with children, the leave could be used for many different medically related situations that may be incurred by themselves or their family members. Judge Jahnke stated that the ability to use this leave to care for family members, especially parents, will be very helpful. Rita Hannesson inquired whether the administrative leave would be taken from the employees annual or sick leave balance. Carla explained that it would not come out of either, it would be a separate benefit. Chair Miller questioned whether the administrative leave could replace the sick leave for employees section. Carla said that the administrative leave permits time to be taken for situations that the sick leave policy does not. Judge Simonson suggested including language that in order for the employee to be eligible to use administrative leave for a step child, the child must reside in the home of the employee. It was the consensus of the Board that if an employee requests the use of leave to attend to the needs of a stepchild, it is assumed that the stepchild is under the care of the employee. Dion commented that our current record keeping practices for leave does track the amount of time taken under FMLA and could not keep track of the administrative leave if it is not monitored on a calendar year basis. A motion was made by Judge Jahnke, seconded by Rita Hannesson to forward the proposed amendment to the leave policy to the Supreme Court with a recommendation to approve the amendment as drafted. The motion unanimously carried. Carla Kolling explained that the proposal consists of a two-phase process. She said that during the first phase, Mr. Bjorklund will examine existing procedures, processes and methods pertaining to classification and salary administration. Included in that will be an analysis of the policies, job descriptions, pay setting practices, current distribution of pay across the system and the pay implications for promotion, transfer, demotion and market premiums. She said each job description will be rewritten to ADA requirements and in sufficient detail to evaluate the relative content of the work. Carla explained that during phase II, Mr. Bjorklund will conduct a market salary survey which will cover selected benchmark positions and identified comparable organizations and courts to assure salary range minimums and maximums are competitive within the geographic area and markets. Judge Bohlman inquired whether phase I and II could be completed this biennium and if so what would be the time frame. Carla explained that Keithe Nelson approved Mr. Bjorklund's proposal and stated that there are sufficient monies available this biennium to complete phase I and II. She said that Mr. Bjorklund anticipates the entire project to be completed within five months. Dion Ulrich questioned whether we should invite other consultants to bid for the job. Carla urged the members to seriously consider Mr. Bjorklund because of his experience and his familiarity with our system. She said going with a consultant other than Mr. Bjorklund could delay the process considerably. A motion was made by Judge Bohlman, seconded by Rita Hannesson to forward the consultant's proposal to the Supreme Court for consideration. The motion unanimously carried. Carla Kolling explained that there are three job classifications, the data input operator, clerk typist and court analysis that are not being used and therefore asked that they be removed. A motion was made by Justice Maring, seconded by Judge Jahnke to approve Carla Kolling's recommendation to eliminate the three job classifications. The motion unanimously carried. Carla Kolling explained that the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that an employer can tell an employee that they must use their banked comp time. She said up until this point an employer could not tell an employee when they had to take their comp time. The amendment to Policy 113 is reflective of the action taken by the Supreme Court in their recent decision. A motion was made by Judge Bohlman, seconded by Rita Hannesson to submit the amendment to the Supreme Court for consideration. The motion unanimously carried. Carla Kolling explained that the amendment to this policy provides an employee up to five days per year to attend an educational program that is related to the employee's job but is unfunded by the judiciary. She said the five days would not be charged against annual leave. Carla said the amendment requires the employee to receive authorization from the appointing authority prior to attendance. Judge Simonson disagrees with the amendment, he does not believe its necessary. Carla explained that the amendment surfaced as a result of a inquiry from the Northwest Judicial District. She said Wally Kowitz sought permission from Keithe Nelson to allow an employee in his district paid administrative leave to attend a job-related education program. The members suggested making the appointing authority responsible for tracking the number of days used by the employee. Judge Jahnke stated that it is important for an employer and employee to know whether the employee is attending a conference as a representative of the Court in the event an employee is injured while attending a conference or seminar. He said that the type of benefits the employee would be eligible for would depend on whether they were attending as a representative of the Court or not. A motion was made by Judge Bohlman, seconded by Judge Jahnke to approve the amendment with the changes outlined by the members and then forward it on to the Supreme Court for consideration. The motion carried. Judge Simonson dissented. Carla Kolling explained that Judge Christofferson was looking for a way to promote those administrative assistants who possess a four year degree and have completed the Court Executive Development Program. She said he was suggesting those administrative assistants could be promoted to a district court administrator I. Carla informed the members that the Council of Presiding Judges directed the assistant state court administrators for trial courts to develop a recommendation identifying the number of district court administrators necessary to efficiently operate the judiciary. She said their recommendations were to be discussed at the meeting of the Council on September 21. Carla distributed Ted Gladden's response to the Council's request. Judge Bohlman commented that until the Supreme Court makes some decisions about the administrative structure of the trial courts, it is going to be very difficult to make any recommendations about the number of district court administrators that will be needed. Judge Jahnke questioned whether any one is looking at the issue of redistricting and the administrative structure. Justice Maring commented that Court Services was studying those issues but tabled any further work on it. A motion was made by Judge Jahnke, seconded by Judge Bohlman that based upon the action taken by the Council of Presiding Judges at their June 14 meeting, the Board decided not to take any action at this time. The motion unanimously carried. Chair Miller asked the Board for a point of clarification as to the processing of future reclassification requests. The members agreed that the Board will not consider any future reclassification requests until Mr. Bjorklund has completed his review of the classification and compensation program. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carla Kolling
September 21, 2000
Bismarck, North Dakota
Penny Miller, Chair
Justice Mary Muehlen Maring
Judge Lawrence Jahnke
Judge Bruce Bohlman
Judge Mikal Simonson (via conference call)
Rita Hannesson
Dion Ulrich
Staff