Written CEC Testimony January 13, 2021 - Idaho Legislature

Written CEC Testimony January 13, 2021
Good Afternoon. My name is Stacey Saenz, and I live in Boise. I am a Registered Nurse and Surveyor
with the Department of Health and Welfare. However, I am not writing this email representing the
Department or in my official capacity as a Department employee. I am simply a state employee who is
asking for consideration of a wage increase for all state employees. While I understand the State has
spent a great deal of its budget in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic, I still feel that we as employees
deserve a raise in our earnings. I am sure it would be difficult to find a state employee who has not
accepted extra work due to the pandemic, in addition to their normal duties. In addition, I, personally,
have even volunteered to survey at facilities with active COVID‐19 outbreaks, to investigate complaints
of abuse, neglect and exploitation, thereby putting myself in harm’s way in an effort to protect our
vulnerable adults residing in assisted living facilities. With these things in mind, I humbly ask the
Committee to please consider a pay increase for all state employees.

Regards,

Stacey Saenz, RN, BSN

CEC Committee Members:

In mid April 2020, I shared the following with my State Senator, who is on this committee:

[ I’m a resident in your district ‐ married and 4 kids in public school. I work for the State as a
supervisor (12 direct reports). I’m writing today to ask you a question about state employee
compensation. The legislature appropriated a 2 or 3% pay raise for state employees. This pay increase
would go a long way for me but more importantly the 12 staff I supervise who all make between $13
and $16 an hour. But, we’ve received emails from our management which say DHR/DFM (the
Governor) is not going to implement the pay increases. Do you know if these decisions are run
through the legislature at all? Two weeks ago we were told we have a hiring freeze on all positions
and today we find out there will be no pay increases this year. Pretty tough news! By sending this
email I have absolutely no intent of going around our agency management; I respect and admire Our
Directors and Board greatly. I am just wondering if it is really a “flip of the switch” by the Governor
and the raises appropriated by the Legislature are gone? Thank you for your service and I look
forward to hearing back. ]

Today, in early January 2021, my concerns still exist. Will there be a pay increase this year? Will it take
into account that there were no raises in 2020? Does the legislature remember that PERSI dues were
increased in July 2019, thus most employee take‐home pay has actually gone down? Does the
Legislature have any say in whether the Governor implements their own CEC legislation?

My staff has worked tirelessly this year to ensure our department business has remained full steam
ahead, as they say. While we are all very grateful that we work in an agency that is essential, has not
felt a budget crunch, and thus have not missed a paycheck, that does not mean that staff at the lower
pay levels are not hurting. Many staff work multiple jobs because it is nearly impossible to make $14.00
(or less) per hour (gross of course, not net) and live anywhere in the Treasure Valley. All of this, keep in
mind, is with the backdrop of the news of a record State surplus!

My testimony is simple: Idaho state government works due in large part to dedicated staff in the
agencies. Please keep funding the personnel system so we can attract and retain quality public
workers.

Kindly,
Jess Simonds
Boise

Good Morning. My name is Belinda Dalrymple and I live in Kuna, Idaho. I am a team lead at the
Department of Health and Welfare, in the Behavioral Health Division, on the Mobile Crisis Unit. I am
testifying for an increase in compensation for employees. When I interviewed for my promotion from
clinician to team lead in April 2020 it was explained that a raise was attached to the position, but it
wouldn’t be immediate, the program manager would need to request it. I agreed to that, but asked if
the raise was retroactive, to which the response was a chuckle and ‘no.’ I also expected that, which is
quite sad that there is no expectation to be adequately compensated for extra responsibilities, yet we
are encouraged to try for promotions for leadership opportunities. Once the program manager did put
the request in six months later, no update has been given from Central Office to date. This is
unacceptable, to expect employees to work with additional responsibilities and tasks without adequate
compensation‐ at this point nine months, and this is just my experience. I have talked to others in my
position who waited a year or more. This is a prime example of why turnover is so high, why stay with
the State when you can be compensated properly for the same amount of work elsewhere. Benefits is
usually the answer, but there are now positions similar to mine in other government agencies that pay
better with the same benefits which I, and my coworkers, apply for and are offered, so again, the State
lags behind in retaining high quality employees for sake of lean budgets. Thank you.”

Belinda Dalrymple, LCPC, DE

To Whom It May Concern:

   Recently there was a memorandum sent regarding 20 positions that were granted the 2% raise for
2020. Sadly, Mental Health Clinicians were left off of this list. I am saddened that the state does not feel
the services that all the clinicians provide in each and every office is not worthy of a raise. Clinicians go
way beyond their job descriptions with very little praise or thanks. They sacrifice time with their families
and their selves to take care of others. They are called at all hours of the night from clients in crisis or to
just let them vent. They are called a multitude of horrible absence names and told how worthless they
are by said clients. But yet they are not worthy of a little 2% raise. All clinicians are hero’s in by book for
dealing and working through the COVID crisis and putting their selves at risk, and still working through
the COVID crisis. I advocate that the clinicians deserve the 2% raise and even more than that.

Thanks,

Paula Smith

To Whom It May Concern:
   Recently there was a memorandum sent regarding 20 positions that were granted the 2% raise for
2020. Sadly, Mental Health Clinicians were left off of this list. I would argue that their services were
greatly needed in 2020 and time after time I witnessed the clinicians in my office step up and go above
and beyond their call of duty to serve the mental health needs of SE Idaho. It’s a tragedy that these well‐
educated members of our staff get compensated so little for the important work that they do. They are
always advocating for others so today, I will stand up and advocate for them. They are the unsung
heroes of 2020! They have kept the rest of us in check so that we might be able to perform our jobs.
Please consider wage increases for those who tirelessly work to maintain the emotional, and mental
stability of our State.

Rebecca Wood BSN, RN, MSN

I write to you as a private citizen who works for the Department of Health and Welfare (DHW), Division
of Behavioral Health as a Mental Health Clinician regarding pay raises.

First thing’s first. Employees of the DHW are working with the portions of the population that many of
the people wish would simply go away. That’s the truth! People working with: Child Protection,
Medicaid recipients, people with mental illnesses and substance use disorders are the undesirable
portions of the population that by majority are being mandated to work with us via the legal system.
Even Child Support participants are mandated to work with the DHW. Long story short, it is a thankless
job.

The relied upon national standards say that we need a 3% pay raise annually to keep up with cost of
living increases. I feel confidentially that this is a conservative estimate. Housing alone is incredibly
unaffordable. Your average state employee cannot afford to live in the city I work in – Coeur d’Alene, ID.

I have a Master’s Degree and work a side job running my own private practice in order to keep up with
living expenses. I work 60‐hour‐weeks to adequately provide for my family. Now remember, when a
family member of yours is on an involuntary mental health hold at a hospital and needs an evaluation by
an employee of the DHW, they are overworked, underappreciated and legislature tells them that they
have to go up and above doing an ‘exemplary job’ of their usual job duties to get a 3% raise.

That’s right. You can be stellar at doing your job; however, to get the 3% pay raise you must take on
‘extra duties’ outside of one’s usual job duties. Therefore, it is not enough for the legislature of Idaho
that we do a great job in making difficult decisions that saves lives and are unpopular all at the same
time. We have to go sell the DHW Cookies out in front of the stores (figurative statement) to get a wage
increase that not only our counterparts in the private sector get at a minimum, but our counterparts in
County Agencies do as well by simply doing a satisfactory job.

You take these menial wages being earned at the DHW, where a good percentage of the positions
require Bachelor’s or Master’s Degrees, which in turn means staff are paying off student loans. The
underlying message here is that it is not worth it to get these degrees to help the oppressed and
underrepresented populations. This message is undoubtedly clear!

The turnover rate in my office is indicative of these policies and legislature norms not working. Turnover
and constantly training new staff is more expensive than fair market value raises. Start paying the State
Employees because it makes business sense and invest wisely into your Idahoan Citizens and State
Employees.

Jason Bradfish, LCSW

Dear Members of the CEC Committee,

The views written here are mine and mine alone.

       Last year the CEC committee recommended a 2% CEC for state employees, the legislature
        approved that and put it into the appropriation, and the governor passed these into law for
        fiscal year 2021.
       In a memo from the governor dated March 27, 2020 the FY21 CEC was put on hold. “Award
        letters regarding FY2021 CEC should be held until further instruction is provided by DHR/DFM.”
        The tone of the memo suggested a wait‐and‐see approach to how revenues do before we act.
       Revenues have exceeded expectations for the past 5 months. In the November General Fund
        revenue report the revenue for this fiscal year was $168 million year‐to‐date over projections
        and is $251 million above this same time period last fiscal year. Revenue is so high that the
        Governor’s Office on October 9th issued a press release with the heading “Idaho on track for
        historic state budget surplus”. The body of the press release said “Idaho is on track for a $530
        million surplus in the current fiscal year, approximately 10 times what was expected prior to the
        pandemic. If it holds, it will be the largest surplus in state history.”
       However, in a memo from the governor on October 8th, 2020, the governor wrote “Distribution
        of general agency‐wide CEC should be held at this time and will be addressed in the FY22 budget
        recommendation.”

My question is why? Why is the appropriation that was passed and is currently the law not being
implemented in a very healthy revenue environment? I would like to request that the CEC Committee
members recommended that the FY21 CEC be implemented and, if possible, be retro‐active to July 1,
2020.

Here are my reasons including the positive economic impact it will have on the state’s general fund:

       It is in keeping with the law. I know that the Governor has the responsibility to maintain a
        balanced budget when the legislature is not in session, but can he simply refuse to implement
        the current law when revenues are exceeding expectations? I think the legislature can decide
        while in session to direct the Governor and his agencies, DHR and DFM, to implement the FY21
        CEC and that is what I’m requesting you to do.
       We are told each year by the DHR Administrator how far behind state employees are to the
        general working public. This would be a chance to have some small impact to that. For example,
        at current pay rates, most state employees cannot afford to buy a house in Idaho with the huge
        increases in prices in that sector.

   State employees have worked tirelessly through the pandemic enduring untold stresses to
        continue to provide services, even those of us who are not front‐line workers. This would be a
        great morale booster for these dedicated state employees.

        From an economic point of view:

       Most agencies are not 100% funded by the state general fund. For example, IDVR is funded 20%
        general fund and 80% federal funds which means that for every dollar of general fund spent,
        four dollars of federal funds are spent. Another example is the Dept. of Lands which is funded
        only 10% general fund and 90% dedicated funds. Which means that for every general fund dollar
        spent nine dollars of dedicated funds are spent. This means that more money would be put into
        the economy.
       These pay increase will have a positive impact in the long run on the general fund because they
        will raise income taxes and sales taxes which go into the general fund. The increase to income
        taxes will include the non‐general fund monies for even greater impact and the spending by
        employees given a raise, will also increase sales taxes as this money is spent.
       Economically speaking the best way to get out of a recession is to spend. Implementing this
        year’s CEC will aid in the effort to avoid the negative impact that COVID may have on future
        revenues.

If there comes a time when revenues take a significant downturn, you can count on your state
employees to be willing to sacrifice. But that is not the current situation. So please allow us to
implement the current FY21 CEC considering the tremendous revenue we are receiving.

Thank you for allowing me to contribute to the public testimony.

Sincerely,

Kean Miller

Good afternoon Chairman Patrick, Chairman Holtzclaw, and Members of the Employee Compensation
Committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to you today regarding state employee
compensation. My name is Michael Anderson and I am currently the Portfolio Accounting Manager with
PERSI. I have been in my position with PERSI for 1.5 years. Prior to working for PERSI, I worked for the
College of Western Idaho in the student accounts department for almost 7 years. Coming into PERSI, I
brought with me over 20 years of relevant employment history.

I would like to bring to your attention two issues today in regard to the state’s employee compensation
plan.

First, state employee monetary compensation is consistently and significantly lower than the private
sector. While, to a small extent, this is expected, the 26 percent lower than market value average
(according to DHR’s 2020 CEC report) should concern the legislature. The CEC report also indicated that

the state benefits are 9% higher than the private sector. When taken together, this still leaves a large
discrepancy.

Second, the current structure for paid vacation time (PVT) is skewed and unfair to a majority of state
employees. For the preponderance of state employees, the current structure awards vacation accrual
based on a combination of position and years of service as a state employee. However, for those in an
Executive level position there is no years of service requirement, and anyone that works for a University
or Community College there is neither a years of service requirement nor a position requirement.
Executive level positions, and every employee that works in higher education, accrues vacation at 7.7
hours per pay period from the first day of hire. It takes all other state employees 15 years to earn the
same PVT accrual rate.

I would argue that PVT accrual should not be based on position or years of service. Everyone’s time with
their family is just as important and necessary as anyone else’s. Are the family obligations, need for
time off, or the desire to support children’s activities of an executive or a person working in higher
education different than other state employees? Why would being a janitor at BSU necessitate more
time off than a janitor at Health and Welfare? The janitor at Health and Welfare would have to work 15
years to receive the same PVT rate the janitor at BSU would get on his or her hire date with no prior
experience.

Additionally, how PVT is allowed to be used by exempt employees is also different. Currently, if an
executive or person working in higher education needs to leave for a doctor’s appointment or any other
reason, if that person works at least 4 hours that day, they are not required to use vacation or sick time.
This results in being able to close on a house or renew a driver’s licenses without having to use half a
day of vacation time. Other state employees have to use vacation time to take care of necessary things
that can’t be done after work. These types of obligations stack up and pretty soon, the regular state
employee is using all his or her vacation on these things and is unable to take a true vacation. To revisit
the janitor example. The BSU janitor could work most of the day and then go to see his or her child’s
school play that afternoon without using any vacation time. The janitor from Health and Welfare would
have to use vacation time, further reducing the already meager amount of vacation time available. By
the time the janitor met the 15‐year requirement, his or her child could be out of school.

Studies have shown that a good work/life balance is important for mental and emotional health. Having
the ability to take care of those mundane tasks that everyone must do during working hours, and having
the time to truly take a break, brings a piece of mind and allows people to recharge. The benefit to the
state is healthy employees, increased productivity, better retention, and easier recruitment of new,
talented employees.

The cost to implement this change to include all state employees to the “Executive and Higher
Education” PVT plan would be very minimal. As mentioned earlier, the state’s monetary compensation
is significantly lower than the private sector, and this change would go a long way to balance out this
discrepancy. All state employees deserve to be treated fairly and equally.

So, in closing, I ask that you please:

       Implement equitable PVT accrual to all state employees. All state employees should start at the
        same rate of PVT regardless of position or years of service.
       Look seriously at salary averages and adjust accordingly.

Thank you for your time and consideration to these matters. Please call me with any questions or for
clarification.

Michael Anderson

My name is Heidi and I am a state employee. I thank you for taking testimony regarding employee
compensation. My message is brief, as it is to emphasize the need to continue to keep employee
compensation on the forefront.

I have been fortunate to be in service to Idaho for decades. During this time, I have worked with state
employees from across many departments of the state. These individuals work so hard to meet the
needs of their customers. It is for these employees that I ask you to keep their compensation on the
horizon and continue to take measures to increase their pay.

Thank you very much.

Heidi Graham

Honorable Change in Employee Compensation Committee,

I have been an Idaho State Employee for 10 years and enjoy working for the State of Idaho. I strive to
receive an overall 3 on my performance evaluations so I can receive the full CEC. I did not receive a CEC
for FY22. When Boise State University implemented furloughs for classified employees, professional
staff, and faculty, and there were NO CEC added an additional financial burden.

My family made a lot of sacrifices in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014 when there were no CECs. In
2019, my property taxes increased 34% and the cost of living continues to increase at a substantial
rate. Not receiving a CEC causes additional hardships in paying property taxes, paying the mortgage,
paying the utilities, and feeding my family.

Receiving a CEC for FY23 will help my family financially.

Sincerely,
Katy Lightfield

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,

My name is Lauren Hamilton, a City of Boise resident in District 18 and a professional staff member of
Boise State University. I attended K‐12 schools in Boise and was awarded my college degree from the
University of Idaho. I have been a State of Idaho employee for nearly 8 years, at both the University of
Idaho and Boise State University. As a member of these communities, I formally request your review
and support for both an increase in the state’s salary structure and the merit‐based salary component.
Because of COVID‐19, it was decided to cease the FY21 distribution of approved CEC’s, and it remains
suspended. In addition, this summer I was furloughed along with 18% of the state’s total workforce.

 I understand the need to be conservative on spending during a state of emergency, however, the
Idaho General Fund Revenue Report continues to indicate a stronger economy than had been expected
with a fund balance in access of 600 million dollars. In order to advance compensation for state
employees, I respectfully urge you to approve the recommendations for compensation from the
Department of Human Resources, in addition to a 2% across the board increase for all positions be
implemented in FY 2022.

In the FY21 CEC Report prepared by the Idaho Division of Human Resources, the report states that
“Milliman, Inc. conducted the State of Idaho Custom Salary Survey (“Custom Survey”) for a third
consecutive year. The 2019 Custom Survey found state employees’ actual salaries are approximately
11% below the actual salaries in the market.” It would be much more lucrative for me to seek out
employment in the private sector or at another higher education institution outside of the state. Simply
put, I do not want to do that. As a native Idahoan, I know the true value of the people, landscape, and
community within our state and I value my role as a state employee to serve those communities.

As a public servant, I appreciate your support, and efforts to increase the compensation paid
to employees by:

(a) increasing the salary structure by 3% to continue moving toward the market average;
(b) continue current payline exceptions for those job classifications which target specific recruitment
and retention situations;
(c) increase the merit‐based salary component by at least 3%; and
(d) maintain the overall design of the benefits package and percentage contributions for
employee benefits.

As a state of Idaho employee and on behalf of my colleagues, we support the Idaho State Compensation
Policy – Idaho Code 67‐5309A and encourage you to uphold the policy. Monetary support and
commitment should be implemented for all state employees including those in higher education.
Institutions of higher learning provide a unique combination of benefits to the State, which includes
increased consumer spending, development of a skilled workforce, and innovative business solutions to
enhance economic prosperity.

In your position to serve constituents, I urge you to increase compensation and better serve all
Idaho communities. Commit to all those who live and work in Idaho, to attract and retain public

servants, driven by purpose, making a difference through the services we provide to the public by
increasing
employee compensation. I commend you for your commitment to the State of Idaho, and all the
constituents you serve, including the thousands of state employees affected by your decision to
increase employee compensation in a meaningful and impactful way.

Sincerely,

Lauren Hamilton