The Utah Advisory Commission to Optimize State Government presented their recommendations to Governor Herbert on August 19. Fraser Bullock, the Commission’s Vice Chair, presented a summary of the report to the Legislative Executive Appropriations Committee September 14, 2010.
The report highlights 56 recommendations that present reducing or eliminating waste and restructuring state government. Bullock noted that “the Commission recognized it is more difficult to optimize with $700 million already eliminated. How far and deep can you cut, when a lot has already been done effectively?” Therefore the Commission recommended the need to:
1. Restructure state government to drive continue efficiency improvement; and
2. Systematically change the mix between state employees’ salary and benefit to better reflect private sector practices.
Bullock suggested aligning incentives through a pay for performance plan in state government, similar to how the private sector uses pay to reward employees.
Senate President Michael Waddoups commented that State Government is not intended to run like a private business. Bullock responded, “while you don’t run state government for profit…the same principles of the private sector can be applied for effective service delivery. By finding savings through an efficient delivery of service, the state is able to use the excess money and apply it elsewhere.”
Sen. Daniel Liljenquist said state government already works like a business through its revenue sources. Liljenquist continued to say “the report is a good starting point for the Executive and Legislative Branches to come together and find ways to optimize our social objectives.”
In addition to restructuring state government, Bullock recommended “systematically changing the mix between state employee salary and benefits to better reflect the private sector.” The report stated that the average salary of state employees is 16.8% below private sector employees, while state employees’ average benefits are 19.5% greater.
Accurate compensation comparison data is required to better analyze the differences between the private and public sector. UPEA supports a more realistic compensation design that will enhance the state’s ability to attract and retain highly educated and trained employees.
UPEA has met with legislative leadership, Governor Herbert, and DHRM to garner support for UPEA’s proposed Compensation Commission. These policymakers will work with the Association in crafting appropriate legislation to make UPEA’s compensation proposals a reality.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
UPEA is hard at work – Protecting your Rights
On June 8th, 2010, UPEA staff and representatives presented at a DHRM Hearing that UPEA requested regarding proposed rule changes that are to go into effect on July 1st.
UPEA shared concerns regarding rule changes including modifications to the recruitment, highly sensitive position, employee development, and discrimination and harassment policies.
UPEA staff insisted that employees are concerned that job positions continue to be recruited through a "competitive" and transparent process as this is a core merit principle.
UPEA and DHRM staff held a healthy discussion on the highly sensitive positions and information regarding "household composition" being added. UPEA requested that this term either be removed or defined as it is vague in nature.
While no changes were made immediately, DHRM staff expressed a willingness to look at and change a few items that were discussed. It will remain to be seen what actually gets some attention.
As an additional note, because of the efforts of UPEA - with regard to the DHRM rule changes, a section was added into the rule that allowed RIF’d employees that were rehired within a year to reinstate their Program I Sick Leave hours rather than having them all go back to Program II Sick Leave. This benefits employees as they will be able to use earned Program I hours upon retirement.
UPEA shared concerns regarding rule changes including modifications to the recruitment, highly sensitive position, employee development, and discrimination and harassment policies.
UPEA staff insisted that employees are concerned that job positions continue to be recruited through a "competitive" and transparent process as this is a core merit principle.
UPEA and DHRM staff held a healthy discussion on the highly sensitive positions and information regarding "household composition" being added. UPEA requested that this term either be removed or defined as it is vague in nature.
While no changes were made immediately, DHRM staff expressed a willingness to look at and change a few items that were discussed. It will remain to be seen what actually gets some attention.
As an additional note, because of the efforts of UPEA - with regard to the DHRM rule changes, a section was added into the rule that allowed RIF’d employees that were rehired within a year to reinstate their Program I Sick Leave hours rather than having them all go back to Program II Sick Leave. This benefits employees as they will be able to use earned Program I hours upon retirement.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Retirement and Independent Entities Committee Meeting 2/10/10
Opposing sides gave little ground during today's Senate Retirement and Independent Entities Committee meeting at the capitol. Utah Public Employees' Association has made their arguments clear through Saturday's rally and a year's worth of work leading up to today.
There wasn't much left for Liljenquist's presentation except to rehash his proposals and the dire circumstances behind his proposals. UPEAadded voices to the economic impacts families face in light of retirement changes. Sheri Watters testified that her family has a long history of public service and that the retirement system has served their family fairly.
Senator Brent Goodfellow raised questions about Utah's current retirement system. He addressed the scope of SB 63 in light of an improving economy and improving stock market.
Goodfellow said, "Yes we have problems, but they're not the same problems we had when the DOW was at 6500."
SB 63 assumes the worst case scenario for our retirement system over the long run.
Liljenquist added that employees will defer compensation increases well into the future because of the retirement downturn. However, he did not say how any savings in the retirement system will go toward compensation.
Under the pro tem chairmanship of Senator Bramble, the committee opted to continue hearing testimony on Friday, at noon, before taking action on the three senate bills.
UPEA will update you soon!
There wasn't much left for Liljenquist's presentation except to rehash his proposals and the dire circumstances behind his proposals. UPEAadded voices to the economic impacts families face in light of retirement changes. Sheri Watters testified that her family has a long history of public service and that the retirement system has served their family fairly.
Senator Brent Goodfellow raised questions about Utah's current retirement system. He addressed the scope of SB 63 in light of an improving economy and improving stock market.
Goodfellow said, "Yes we have problems, but they're not the same problems we had when the DOW was at 6500."
SB 63 assumes the worst case scenario for our retirement system over the long run.
Liljenquist added that employees will defer compensation increases well into the future because of the retirement downturn. However, he did not say how any savings in the retirement system will go toward compensation.
Under the pro tem chairmanship of Senator Bramble, the committee opted to continue hearing testimony on Friday, at noon, before taking action on the three senate bills.
UPEA will update you soon!
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Update on HB 140
UPEA staff met with DHRM about HB 140 yesterday (2/9/10). In the meeting, DHRM explained that the intent for changing the pay system was to try to encourage more merit pay increases by removing the steps from the pay plan. If only 1% is available, the legislature could grant a 1% merit step increase rather than being limited to 2.75%. UPEA is in the process of researching the plan, and will be meeting with DHRM again next week to discuss UPEA’s viewpoint on this plan.
The changes to the grievance process as explained were due to conflicts that have been found with the Attorney General’s Office and costs associated with the grievances handled at the Career Service Review Board.
UPEA has scheduled a meeting for Thursday (2/11/10) with the sponsor of the bill, Representative Brad Dee.
The changes to the grievance process as explained were due to conflicts that have been found with the Attorney General’s Office and costs associated with the grievances handled at the Career Service Review Board.
UPEA has scheduled a meeting for Thursday (2/11/10) with the sponsor of the bill, Representative Brad Dee.
Monday, February 8, 2010
HB 140
Late Friday evening a new bill became publicly available that deals with State Employees. HB 140, Human Resource Management Amendments, was introduced to the House on 2/8/10. It has been sent to the Rules Committee for assignment.
HB 140 is something high on UPEA’s radar, because it deals with several public employee issues, including:
· Taking the merit steps out of the pay scale
· Changing the language related to the post-retirement sick leave benefit
· Changing the grievance process
· Changing the grievable actions that may be taken to the Career Service Review Office
On 2/8/10, UPEA met with legal counsel to ensure that staff understood what was being presented. UPEA staff also has a meeting scheduled with the Department of Human Resource Management on 2/9/10 to discuss the intent behind the proposed changes.
UPEA will continue to update members as to what is happening with HB 140 as more information becomes available.
HB 140 is something high on UPEA’s radar, because it deals with several public employee issues, including:
· Taking the merit steps out of the pay scale
· Changing the language related to the post-retirement sick leave benefit
· Changing the grievance process
· Changing the grievable actions that may be taken to the Career Service Review Office
On 2/8/10, UPEA met with legal counsel to ensure that staff understood what was being presented. UPEA staff also has a meeting scheduled with the Department of Human Resource Management on 2/9/10 to discuss the intent behind the proposed changes.
UPEA will continue to update members as to what is happening with HB 140 as more information becomes available.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Executive Offices & Criminal Justice Appropriations Subcommittee 2/3/10
The committee heard from County Sheriffs, the Board of Pardons, and Department of Corrections. The fiscal analyst went over the budget brief on each department.
Tom Patterson, the Executive Director of the Department of Corrections, presented on the budget of DOC. Some of the items that were discussed to address the 5% total budget reduction were to close the Parole Violator Center which would save $7.6 Million, eliminate meals for Correctional Officers which would save $400,000, and close two prison housing units which would save $3.8 Million.
Corrections discussed the risks involved with closing Special Services Dorm and OQuirrh 5 housing unit. If these two pods were to close the Utah Prison would be over maximum capacity by 215 beds. This would mean releasing 215 inmates early, and the prison would still be at maximum capacity. Tom discussed the risks involved to staff and also to the
Tom Patterson, the Executive Director of the Department of Corrections, presented on the budget of DOC. Some of the items that were discussed to address the 5% total budget reduction were to close the Parole Violator Center which would save $7.6 Million, eliminate meals for Correctional Officers which would save $400,000, and close two prison housing units which would save $3.8 Million.
Corrections discussed the risks involved with closing Special Services Dorm and OQuirrh 5 housing unit. If these two pods were to close the Utah Prison would be over maximum capacity by 215 beds. This would mean releasing 215 inmates early, and the prison would still be at maximum capacity. Tom discussed the risks involved to staff and also to the
CURE, ULELC - Retirement Legislation
UPEA has been very involved at the capitol with various law enforcement groups.
CURE - Cops United for Retirement Equity also known as Utah Law Enforcement Coalition
2/1/10
On Monday, February 1st, CURE (of which UPEA is a member) met to discuss ways in which the group can help defeat the retirement bills that are currently being presented at the legislature. The group decided the best course of action is to work through a coordinated grassroots effort to contact legislators (call and email), ask friends, family members, and neighbors to contact their legislators, and attend the organizing event on Saturday February 6th. By following these actions CURE intends to create a grassroots groundswell that will help defeat any retirement legislation that is on the table.
CURE's stance is the same as UPEA's. They are asking for an independent actuarial study to be conducted prior to any legislation passing.
ULELC - Utah Law Enforcement Legislative Committee
2/1/10
CURE sits on the board of the ULELC. The ULELC is committed to provided position statements to the legislature regarding law enforcement related legislation. On Monday, February 1st, the committee discussed the retirement legislation (SB 42, SB 43, and SB 94). The committee took the position (although not unanimous) to oppose changes to the retirement legislation until the issue can be examined further through an independent study.
For information on the positions ULELC has taken regarding law enforcement related legislation go to http://ulelc.org/.
CURE - Cops United for Retirement Equity also known as Utah Law Enforcement Coalition
2/1/10
On Monday, February 1st, CURE (of which UPEA is a member) met to discuss ways in which the group can help defeat the retirement bills that are currently being presented at the legislature. The group decided the best course of action is to work through a coordinated grassroots effort to contact legislators (call and email), ask friends, family members, and neighbors to contact their legislators, and attend the organizing event on Saturday February 6th. By following these actions CURE intends to create a grassroots groundswell that will help defeat any retirement legislation that is on the table.
CURE's stance is the same as UPEA's. They are asking for an independent actuarial study to be conducted prior to any legislation passing.
ULELC - Utah Law Enforcement Legislative Committee
2/1/10
CURE sits on the board of the ULELC. The ULELC is committed to provided position statements to the legislature regarding law enforcement related legislation. On Monday, February 1st, the committee discussed the retirement legislation (SB 42, SB 43, and SB 94). The committee took the position (although not unanimous) to oppose changes to the retirement legislation until the issue can be examined further through an independent study.
For information on the positions ULELC has taken regarding law enforcement related legislation go to http://ulelc.org/.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Retirement Update
I just wanted everyone to be made aware that 3 of the 4 retirement bills that Senator Liljenquist is proposing are now online. I have linked the information below for your information.
SB0042 Retirement Eligibility Modifications - Liljenquist, D.
SB0043 Post-retirement Employment Amendments - Liljenquist, D.
SB0094 Supplemental Benefit Amendments for Noncontributory Public Employees - Liljenquist, D.
If you have any questions, please contact UPEA at (801) 264-8732.
SB0042 Retirement Eligibility Modifications - Liljenquist, D.
SB0043 Post-retirement Employment Amendments - Liljenquist, D.
SB0094 Supplemental Benefit Amendments for Noncontributory Public Employees - Liljenquist, D.
If you have any questions, please contact UPEA at (801) 264-8732.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Retirement Proposal
The UPEA State Board arranged a meeting with Senator Liljenquist and retirement system stakeholders, including the Utah School Employees Association, Utah Education Association, and Cops United for Retirement Equity. Liljenquist discussed potential legislation at the January 4th meeting and answered questions about changes to the retirement system. His proposed legislation should amount to four bills.
His first bill would require employees hired after July 1st, 2011 to either a)contribute 8% into a 401(a) plan administered by URS or b) go to a hybrid defined benefit/defined contribution plan. The new defined benefit component is expected to cost 5% of the 8% total retirement contribution. This would be a contributory system with a 35 year minimum retirement, 1% service credit per year, with a 5 year final average salary calculation.
His second bill would eliminate the 1.5% salary contribution into current employees’ 401(k) and put that money into the pension system to help address the current 2.1% contribution rate increase.
His third bill would increase the years of service for retirement using the following schedule:
Employees in the big retirement system
UPEA is working toward a better solution that will keep retirement whole for all employees. UPEA has also called for an independent actuarial analysis and more time to educate stakeholders on the issue.
His first bill would require employees hired after July 1st, 2011 to either a)contribute 8% into a 401(a) plan administered by URS or b) go to a hybrid defined benefit/defined contribution plan. The new defined benefit component is expected to cost 5% of the 8% total retirement contribution. This would be a contributory system with a 35 year minimum retirement, 1% service credit per year, with a 5 year final average salary calculation.
His second bill would eliminate the 1.5% salary contribution into current employees’ 401(k) and put that money into the pension system to help address the current 2.1% contribution rate increase.
His third bill would increase the years of service for retirement using the following schedule:
Employees in the big retirement system
- 24-30 years of service would see no change
- 20-24 years of service would be eligible to retire after 31 years
- 16-20 years of service would be eligible to retire after 32 years
- 10-16 years of service would be eligible to retire after 33 years
- 4-10 years of service would be eligible to retire after 34 years
- Less than 4 years of service would be eligible to retire after 35 years
- 18-20 years would see no changes
- 15-18 years of service would be eligible to retire after 21 years
- 12-15 years of service would be eligible to retire after 22 years
- 9-12 years of service would be eligible to retire after 23 years
- 6-9 years of service would be eligible to retire after 24 years
- Less than 6 years would be eligible to retire after 25 years
UPEA is working toward a better solution that will keep retirement whole for all employees. UPEA has also called for an independent actuarial analysis and more time to educate stakeholders on the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
