Human Rights minutes Oct 17, 2018

Publish Date
Committees
Human Rights

MAPE / MDHR MEET AND CONFER MINUTES

October 17, 2018

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

1  Procedural topics

Management and MAPE discussed the following procedural topic:

  • Cathy Bisser (Management) and Pete Marincel (Union) were unable to attend, due to other commitments.

 

2  Hay process / range reassignment

Management and MAPE discussed the following Hay / range-reassignment topics:

  • MAPE noted that Cathy Bisser e-mailed Rowzat Shipchandler on 08-26-18 regarding the “inconclusive” finding of the 08-10-16 Hay session.  MAPE also noted that Management shared that e-mail message with MAPE during the 09-17-18 Meet and Confer.  Shawn Swinson-Stafford asked Rowzat Shipchandler why Management waited until 09-17-18 to share the e-mail message with MAPE.  Rowzat Shipchandler replied that the delay was not a huge delay, that Labor Day weekend occurred during that period, and that Management had questions of its own about the Hay session.  Rowzat Shipchandler affirmed that Management will communicate relevant information to MAPE.
  • MAPE asked Management if any Hay-related developments had occurred between Management and MMB since 09-17-18.  Jodie Segelstrom replied that MMB Enterprise Director Dori Leland said that Dori Leland would look at a request for range reassignment and ask Management for any needed information.  Jodie Segelstrom noted that the Case Processing EO2 positon was the only EO position that the Hay raters actually rated during the 08-10-18 Hay session.  Jodie Segelstrom noted that there are no guarantees that range reassignments will occur.  Jodie Segelstrom also noted that Management will ask for range reassignments for EO2’s in general or just for EO2’s in Case Processing.  
  • Rowzat Shipchandler mentioned the concept of “low-cost implementation” and noted that EO’s who receive range reassignments might see more long-term earnings, but not more short-term earnings.
  • Shawn Swinson-Stafford asked Jodie Segelstrom about the 08-10-18 rating of the Case Processing EO2’s.  Jodie Segelstrom replied that the Hay raters rated the position as being the equivalent of a 12L.
  • Scott Beutel asked Management if the ratings are made in a vacuum or in comparison to other positions.  Jodie Segelstrom explained that the Hay process is not a comparative process and that comparing positions happens after the Hay process.
  • Scott Beutel mentioned efforts by the DHS Human Services Judges to compare their positions.
  • Peter Zuniga noted that there might be confusion about how the DHS situation contrasts with the EO situation because the DHS judges have actually completed their Hay process and the process of range reassignment, whereas MDHR’s EO’s have not completed these processes.
  • Peter Zuniga posited the hypothetical of the Case Processing EO2’s being rated as the equivalent of 12L’s, but later being determined to be the equivalent of 14L’s.  Peter Zuniga then asked Jodie Segelstrom if those EO2’s would move up to 14L.  Jodie Segelstrom replied that those EO2’s would not necessarily move up in range and that whether those EO2’s moved up in range would be up to MMB.
  • MAPE asked Management if Management would be willing to write a joint letter to MMB requesting range reassignments for the EO’s.  Rowzat Shipchandler replied, “Maybe,” noted that Management would not commit to this request right now, and also noted that Management is generally supportive of EO range reassignments. 
  • Jodie Segelstrom mentioned the issue of getting documentation regarding the reasons why EO’s have left MDHR, such as leaving for jobs that offer higher salaries.  Jodie Segelstrom noted that Management can get information as to why EO’s have left MDHR for other positions within the State of MN Enterprise, but that Management will not chase down EO’s who have left the Enterprise for other employers.  Jill Keen asked Jodie Segelstrom if Management gathered such information through exit interviews.  Jodie Segelstrom replied that most individuals who leave the Enterprise do not complete exit interviews.  Jodie Segelstrom added that Jodie Segelstrom will let MAPE know if Jodie Segelstrom needs additional information from MAPE.
  • Scott Beutel asked Rowzat Shipchandler to elaborate on how low-cost implementation would apply to range reassignments.  Jodie Segelstrom fielded the question and replied that an EO’s compensation might not change immediately.  Rather, the EO’s wage would increase via the steps of his/her new range, assuming that he/she had satisfactory performance.  Rowzat Shipchandler echoed that an EO’s wage would depend on which step the EO fell on within his/her new range.  Jodie Segelstrom noted that the steps on an EO’s new range would differ from the steps on his/her former range.  Scott Beutel stressed the importance of communicating to staff members that range reassignments will not immediately result in dramatic pay raises and that instead, pay will go up via receiving step increase in a higher range.  Others present agreed that Scott Beutel was correct.
  • Shawn Swinson-Stafford asked Rowzat Shipchandler if, in the next week or two, Rowzat Shipchandler would let Shawn Swinson-Stafford know whether Management would be willing to join MAPE in writing a letter to MMB requesting EO range reassignments.  Rowzat Shipchandler agreed to let Shawn Swinson-Stafford know within a week or two.
  • Management and MAPE discussed the EO3 position.  Shawn Swinson-Stafford asked if Management saw the creation of an EO3 position as a remedy for the pay inequity EO’s are experiencing, as an avenue for upward mobility, or as both.  Rowzat Shipchandler replied that Management sees it as both.  Shawn Swinson-Stafford acknowledged that work is in progress concerning EO Hay / range reassignment issues and then asked if Management would nonetheless join MAPE in writing a letter to MMB requesting EO range reassignments.  Jodie Segelstrom replied that there has to be “settlement” on what is going to happen to the EO1 and EO2 positions.
    • Rowzat Shipchandler noted that MDHR has promoted 10 individuals.  Rowzat Shipchandler also noted that 18L positions did not exist at MDHR prior to the current management team. 
    • Shawn Swinson-Stafford asked Rowzat Shipchandler if Management would agree to join MAPE in writing a letter to MMB setting forth what Management and MAPE would like to see in an EO3 position, such as a preference for internal candidates.  Rowzat Shipchandler replied that Management will continue to consider such qualifications on a case-by-case basis, and that Management will not commit to setting forth a preference for internal candidates.  Also, Rowzat Shipchandler noted that Management does not necessarily base promotions on seniority.  Peter Zuniga noted that setting forth qualifications is Management’s prerogative and that there is no need to submit a letter at all.  Shawn Swinson-Stafford asked Rowzat Shipchandler if Management would consider writing a letter and allowing MAPE to add a paragraph to the letter.  Rowzat Shipchandler replied that MAPE might want to consider submitting MAPE’s own letter.  Shawn Swinson-Stafford replied that MAPE would leave the ball in Management’s court as to whether Management would be interested in writing jointly with MAPE.
    • Scott Beutel asked if Management wanted to have an EO3 in both Case Processing and Compliance, or in just one of the two units.  Rowzat Shipchandler replied that Management would like to see EO3’s in both units, but that Management will have to wait to see how things settle with the current EO positions.
    • Shawn Swinson-Stafford asked if Management envisioned having the EO3 position absorb some of the higher-level duties that EO1’s and EO2’s currently perform.  Rowzat Shipchandler replied that Management has not yet determined all of the duties that an EO3 would perform.

 

3 Transition

Management and MAPE discussed the following transition topics:

  • Rowzat Shipchandler noted that Management will share transition-related information with MDHR staff as time goes on, but that there will be some information that Management will not be able to share with staff.  Scott Beutel noted that relevant budget information will be available online.  Scott Beutel also noted that MDHR has also proposed 28 initiatives for a new administration.

 

4 Tentative scheduling of next meeting

  • Management and MAPE tentatively agreed to meet from 2:30 PM – 3:30 PM on Tuesday, 11-06-18.