Human Rights minutes Sep 17, 2018

Publish Date
Committees
Human Rights

MAPE / MDHR MEET AND CONFER MINUTES

September 17, 2018

 

 

For the Union:           Scott Beutel, Jill Keen, Pete Marincel (Business Agent), Christina Schaffer, Shawn Swinson-Stafford (chair), and Lenora White (guest)

 

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

 

 

1  Procedural topics

Management and MAPE discussed the following procedural topics:

  • Today is Christina Schaffer’s last day on the Meet and Confer Committee.
  • Brianne Lucio is unable to attend, due to the press of work.

 

2  Hay-related topics

Management and MAPE discussed the following Hay-related topics:

  • Regarding MDHR’s 08-10-18 Hay session, Cathy Bisser reported that the session was “inconclusive.”  Cathy Bisser also reported that the Hay raters asked questions, but made no formal submission to MMB. 
  • Management shared an August 26-18 e-mail message in which Cathy Bisser had shared this information with Rowzat Shipchandler. 
  • Cathy Bisser described the Hay process as including a formal presentation focusing on know-how, accountability, and problem-solving.  Cathy Bisser further described the Hay process as resulting in a point total that translates to a salary grid.
  • Rowzat Shipchandler addressed the issue of next steps.  Rowzat Shipchandler that Management will push back on the lack of Hay ratings.  Also, Management will address adding an EO3 or some other third level of classified EO. 
  • Pete Marincel asked Management why the raters were not able to form conclusions.  Cathy Bisser replied that the raters saw changes in the position of Case Processing EO2.  Cathy Bisser added that the result was “inconclusive” because the Case Processing EO1 position and Compliance EO1 position have to be considered the same, and the Case Processing EO1 position and Compliance EO1 position have to be considered the same.
    • Jill Keen asked Management when were these positions considered the same job.  Cathy Bisser replied that they are considered the same classicization, not the same job.
    • Jill Keen asked Management if the raters were saying that MMB needed to create a new classification.  Cathy Bisser replied that the raters do not determine that.
    • Lenora White, referencing the aforementioned 08-26-18 e-mail message, asked Management the meaning of the sentence, “The raters did not see work in the Enforcement unit that is comparable to the compliance unit and therefore did not feel the rating for the EO1 job class was supported.”  Cathy Bisser replied that the raters did not see distance between the EO1 position and the EO2 position.
    • Scott Beutel asked who consistency is applied throughout the State of MN Enterprise and noted that it is as though MDHR, e.g., hires a person as an EO2 and then decides whether to assign the person to either Case Processing or Compliance.
    • Cathy Bisser noted that the EO classes were created for MDHR.
    • Peter Zuniga that at MDNOT, there is the TPS series.  MNDOT uses the series for compliance, but also uses the series for engineers.  Peter Zuniga and Cathy Bisser then discussed that MNDOT management varies the use of the TPS series by division.
    • Rowzat Shipchandler noted that Rowzat Shipchandler is optimistic that that Hay situation will turn out well.
    • Peter Zuniga asked what the process is for creating new classes.  Cathy Bisser replied that it is necessary to go through the rating process.  MMB must determine whether there is a suitable existing class or whether a new class must be created.
    • Peter Zuniga noted that part of the frustration is that there are comparable positions throughout State of MN government.
    • Pete Marincel asked Management if the raters came up with a new Hay number.  Cathy Bisser replied that the raters did not officially come up with a new Hay number.

 

3 MSRS Presentation on Deferred Compensation

Management and MAPE discussed the following topics related to MAPE’s request that Management have someone from MSRS present deferred-compensation information to MDHR employees:

  • Shawn Swinson-Stafford thanked Management for putting an MSRS presentation on the agenda for the July 2018 all-staff meeting.  Shawn Swinson-Stafford then asked Management if Peter Zuniga is willing to make this a recurring annual event.  Peter Zuniga replied that he is willing to make this a recurring annual event, and that he will put it on his Outlook calendar, but that he would appreciate a gentle reminder.
  • Rowzat Shipchandler noted that Management will work to schedule a date for an MSRS person to return to MDHR after the July 2018 all-staff meeting and hold one-on-one sessions with interested employees.

 

4 Performance reviews

Management and MAPE discussed the following topics concerning the disposition of comp time:

  • Shawn Swinson-Stafford thanked Management for completing the outstanding performance reviews of Tom Barnette, Christina Schaffer, and Shawn Swinson-Stafford, which were overdue by six to eight months.  Shawn Swinson-Stafford then noted that the completion of performance reviews is key to employees receiving and incorporating Management’s performance feedback.
  • Rowzat Shipchandler noted that Management is committed to conducting quality performance reviews in a timely manner.  Rowzat Shipchandler further noted that she is addressing this issue with MDHR’s supervisors, that Management is holding itself accountable on this issue, and that performance reviews are important. 
  • Rowzat Shipchandler asked MAPE how MAPE would feel about having all of MDHR’s MAPE personnel receive annual performance reviews at the same time every year, as opposed to having performance reviews coincide with individual step increases.  Rowzat Shipchandler then noted that doing so would appear to be permissible under the MAPE contract, as the MAPE contract merely calls for each employee to have a review every 12 months.  Shawn Swinson-Stafford replied that he would want to ask MDHR’s MAPE personnel for their thoughts on the matter, but that as an individual, he could go either way.  Shawn Swinson-Stafford then asked fellow MAPE Meet-and-Confer participants for their thoughts.  Christina Schaffer replied that she prefers having her review coincide with her step increase, as it gives her an opportunity to receive and incorporate any performance feedback that Management has for her.
    • Shawn Swinson-Stafford asked Rowzat Shipchandler if she wanted him to put this topic on the next Meet-and-Confer agenda.  Rowzat Shipchandler replied that doing so would be unnecessary and that it would be okay for MAPE to approach her with informal feedback.
    • Rowzat Shipchandler noted that if MDHR did move to perform all MAPE annual performance reviews at the same time, MDHR would use a committee system to plan that change.

 

5 Tentative scheduling of next meeting

  • Rowzat Shipchandler noted that regarding the proposed meeting time / date of 2:30 PM to 3:30 PM on August 2, 2018, starting at 11:30 AM on August 2, 2018 would work better for her, and that Shawn Swinson-Stafford can work with Office and Administrative Specialist Senior Tessa Lara on scheduling the meeting.