Human Rights minutes Feb 13, 2018

Publish Date
Committees
Human Rights

MAPE / MDHR MEET AND CONFER MINUTES

February 13, 2018

 

 

For the Union:           Scott Beutel, Jill Keen, Brianne Lucio, Christina Schaffer, and Shawn Swinson-Stafford (chair)

 

For Management:      Jodie Segelstrom, Rowzat Shipchandler, and Peter Zuniga

 

 

1  Procedural topics

Management and MAPE discussed the following procedural topics:

  • Trevor Boulter is no longer a guest of the MAC Committee, as he (Trevor Boulter) left MDHR for an investigative position with DHS.
  • Cathy Bisser declined the meeting.
  • Peter Marincel was unable to attend the meeting.

 

2  Hay-related topics

Management and MAPE discussed the following Hay-related topics:

  • Shawn Swinson-Stafford gave Rowzat Shipchandler a copy of materials that Shawn Swinson-Stafford and Peter Marincel obtained from MMB’s Employee Classification & Compensation Division last month.  Shawn Swinson-Stafford agreed to make additional copies for Management.
  • Jodie Segelstrom noted that on Friday of last week, she (Jodie Segelstrom) presented Rowzat Shipchandler with a comparative analysis of MDHR’s EO positions vs. comparable position within the State of Minnesota Enterprise.
  • Rowzat Shipchandler mentioned that Management is keeping an eye on the issue of career progression within MDHR.
  • Rowzat Shipchandler mentioned that over the next 3 – 4 weeks, Management will review Jodie Segelstrom’s analysis and determine whether Management is in support of Jodie Segelstrom’s analysis.
  • Jodie Segelstrom mentioned that she (Jodie Segelstrom) went through job specifications and looked at position descriptions as well as job postings.  In doing so, Jodie Segelstrom put EO job specifications and the job specifications of comparable positions into “buckets.”  Then Jodie Segelstrom determined to what percent the EO buckets matched the buckets of similar positions.  Jodie Segelstrom reiterated that she (Jodie Segelstrom) presented her analysis to Rowzat Shipchandler last Friday.
  • Rowzat Shipchandler mentioned the issue of career ladders and pointed out that earlier today, Management posted an EO2 position in Case Processing.
  • Rowzat Shipchandler mentioned that Management and MMB are currently discussing compensation options, but that she (Rowzat Shipchandler) cannot share the details of the discussion at this time.
  • Jodie Segelstrom mentioned that Hay points will have to be counted in comparing MDHR’s EO positions with similar Enterprise positions.  Shawn Swinson-Stafford noted that MAPE is more interested in a range reassignment than in the creation of a new classification.  Jodie Segelstrom replied that range reassignments and classification creations require the counting of Hay points.
  • Rowzat Shipchandler noted that MDHR rewards employees with achievement awards and leadership training.
  • Scott Beutel mentioned that MAPE’s work with Management on getting a range reassignment has been a slow process and that MAPE and Management are near the end of the current administration.
  • Jodie Segelstrom noted that the Hay process is a low priority and that Management is focused on higher priorities, such as filling positions.  However, Jodie Segelstrom believes that it is beneficial for Management and MAPE to check in periodically about the Hay topic. 
  • Rowzat Shipchandler noted that there are political considerations associated with Hay efforts.
  • Jodie Segelstrom noted the importance of the educational requirements of a position.
  • Shawn Swinson-Stafford confirmed with Jodie Segelstrom that Management still has the “churn” (employee turnover) data that MAPE provided to Management.
  • Management and MAPE discussed the dynamics surrounding having both long-term employees and short-term employees.
  • Scott Beutel asked Management if MMB or SMART has done any Enterprise-wide study on the compensation differences between large agencies such as DHS vs. small agencies.  Rowzat Shipchandler replied that there have been studies at the highest levels and noted that Commissioners are not paid the same salary.  Jodie Segelstrom replied that there has been no study of the issue that Scott Buetel asked about, but noted that MDHR is one of the biggest SMART agencies.  Jodie Segelstrom further noted that in contrast to MDHR, there is a SMART agency that has just two employees.

 

3 Sharing of individual data from Enforcement Management Reports

Management and MAPE discussed the following topics related to the sharing of individual performance data during unit meetings and all-staff meetings:

  • Rowzat Shipchandler noted that Management will take MAPE’s concerns into consideration.
  • Jill Keen noted that most EO’s are resigned to the fact that Management shares individual data during unit meetings, but that many EO’s are concerned about the sharing of these data during all-staff meetings.  Jill Keen then expressed the belief that these data are private personnel data.  Peter Zuniga replied that performance data are public data and that as such, case expectations are public data.  Jill Keen replied that if these data are public, they should be accurate.  Then, by way of example, Jill Keen noted that an EO could submit several PC’s and one NPC, and that this would show as just one case for the month, giving the impression that during the whole month, the EO turned in just one case.  Peter Zuniga replied that when an EO’s submits a PC determination, the determination is not complete, as Management responds by directing the EO to perform additional work.
  • Rowzat Shipchandler noted that Management has made no decision on this issue yet.
  • Brianne Lucio noted that there is lag time in Compliance between the completion of audits and Management’s approval of audits.  Brianne Lucio explained that audits are not considered done until Management approves them, even though the Compliance EO’s have completed their work on the audits.  Brianne Lucio then suggested adding a column to Compliance reports staring “Under Management Review,” so that individuals outside of Compliance will see that the Compliance EO’s have completed audit work that is awaiting Management approval.  Brianne Lucio also mentioned that some Compliance EO’s have as many as 10 closed audits under review, but that those EO’s will not receive credit until Management approves the audits.  Brianne Lucio then pointed out that there are variables that are known within Compliance, but not outside of Compliance, and that ignorance of those variables could give a false impression to a non-Compliance employee who is viewing performance data of individual Compliance EO’s.
  • Jill Keen noted that the Case Processing EO’s have concerns that are similar to the Compliance concerns that Brianne Lucio mentioned. 
  • Brianne Lucio noted that there should be a 360-degree of MDHR’s work, in which everyone knows the relevant variables, and in which Management’s performance is shared too.
  • Peter Zuniga mentioned the issue of accountability.  Shawn Swinson-Stafford acknowledged that EO’s should be held accountable, but noted that if EO’s should be held individually accountable during all-staff meetings, then individuals from other units should be held accountable during all-staff meetings too.
  • Rowzat Shipchandler noted that at this point, there appear to be two options:  using aggregate performance data vs. using individual data, but showing the variables that affect individual data.
  • Brianne Lucio noted that Management’s changes to audits are usually minor, such as changes in language, as opposed to directing EO’s to re-do their work.
  • Christina Schaffer mentioned the issue of training and pointed out that historically, Management has given the Case Processing EO’s examples of what not to do, as opposed to giving the Case Processing EO’s examples of what to do.  Christina Schaffer explained that in the past, Management has given trainings in which Management scrutinized determination memos for mistakes, and left names or Ref numbers on the memos (embarrassing the EO’s who drafted the memos).  Christina Schaffer further explained that EO’s have cried as a result and that one EO was so humiliated by this experience that the EO started looking for other jobs that very day and eventually left MDHR.
  • Rowzat Shipchandler noted that the MAC Committee can put this topic on the agenda of the next MAC meeting.
  • Rowzat Shipchandler noted that MDHR Project Specialist Sharon Whitmore is developing tools that will help EO’s.
  • Peter Zuniga noted that teaching what not to do is not something that EO’s will see during his (Peter Zuniga’s) tenure.  Peter Zuniga’s approach is to teach what to do.  Peter Zuniga also noted that MDHR’s legal team will create tools to help the EO’s.

 

4 Miscellaneous

  • Scott Beutel noted that MAPE has a rally scheduled to start at the Capitol at noon on February 20, 2018.  Rowzat Shipchandler noted that MAPE cannot use work time to attend the rally, but that MAPE can use lunch time or vacation time to attend.
  • Management and MAPE agreed to meet again in four weeks.