Minutes - 19841003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3? 3 (2) the ability to recruit and retain cualified indivicuals, and (3) equity for the lone~er term employees ir. relationship to what is paid a new employee in that same position. Commissioner Lloyd expressed a concern about the pay study providing increases to some of the high salaried employees after they just received a 10& increase on July 1st. The turnover is not with the higher salaried people but with the low salaried people. He indicated he felt: the lower salaried people would be upset if the pay study is adopted.' Commissioner arshall agreed with the concern for the lower salared employees which needs to be addressed through palicy. She noted that the items listed in her report (copy in permanent agenda file) have no financial impact. She requested a delay on the decision for Department Heads; requested that policy issues be reviewed in early February to be effective next July 1, 19$5. She explained that the County is not on the state pay plan and suggested that the board reaffirm the adoption of the state salary schedule anc, inform the two school boards accordingly. severly t•7hitehead, Director of Personnel, stated that in t!arch of 1976, the County adopted the state salary schedule ir. grade and step. Since then, the Board has adopted the pay plan which includes the salary schedule and rates of pay for intermediate steps for all classes of positions included in the classification plan. The adoption of the state pay plan would pat have a cost impact on the implementation of the study because it calls for the adoption of ranges - minimum and maximum ranges and classificatian assigned to those ranges. The only impact would be in the administration of the pay versus how the state vrould administer pay. There may be cost impact up or down where the State pay plan is different from the County's pay plan but it would not have a dollar impact on the classification and pay plan recommendation under consideration. I~?OTE: A?O ACTIOTd i'7AS TAKEPi. vlith reference to the State Clerical Office i~?anagement Standards in setting clerical grade levels 56 through 60, t^7hitehead explained that the Clerical Dffice Management Standards vrere adopted by the state ir. 1977. They set forth the knowledge, skills and abilities renuired for all clerical and office management classifications under the state system. Since 19II1 an attempt has been made for Orange Cour_ty to conform to that standard which provides a 15~ range difference between the clerical classes. There is a spread between the classes which takes into consideration the quality, skills and abilities of the person. G~rhat is requested is that the Board adopt this standard. After much discussion, motion was mace by Commissioner tarshall, seconded by Commissioner T^~hitted to adopt the standards, and carry out the study as recommended by the personnel director and to consider any recommended from the study at the earliest possible meetin with any pay changes retroactive to any implementation date set. Commissioner Marshall revised the motion to include the adoption of the State Clerical and Office tanagement Standards with all revisions to be submitted to the Board for consideration. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Comr..issicner N.arshall indicated that Dr. Hayman dial not study ary comparables on the Acting programs but suggested that the RSVP Coordinator and Program Assistant go down one grade level. Personnel Office did a full