Question:
How is impeaching Ernie Fletcher the same as the Bush Administration over-turning Roe V. Wade?
Answer:
Both are things that will never happen.
The Democrats in the Kentucky House of Representatives have the power to impeach the Governor.
“63.020 Impeachment and removal by address.
Proceedings for impeachment or removal by address may be instituted by the House of Representatives without a petition from any person.”
They will never do this because the train wreck of the Ernie Fletcher administration gives all the democratic candidates in Kentucky an issue for the 2006 and 2007 election cycles.
For the same reason, an issue to run on, the Bush administration that holds the Executive branch, majorities in both houses of Congress, and soon a decided majority on the Supreme Court will never address the abortion issue.
If they actually changed the law, they would remove a major motivator to vote Republican in their conservative Christian voter base.
Doing the right thing is often not politically desirable.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Blue Ribbon Pig
A pig may win a Blue Ribbon at the state fair, but no matter how you look at it, it's still a pig.
Some thoughts on Blue Ribbon Task Force for Merit System select proposed recommendations from a former merit system employee.
RECOMMENDATION 2:
The Selection Sub-committee recommends adoption of the proposals contained within the “Proposed Future Hiring Processes” from the Personnel Cabinet dated September 2005, with the exception of the need for a clarification of the proposal under “C – Register” concerning “eliminating registers for career path promotions and promotions”. The Sub-committee recommends maintaining an employee promotion system that provides career path opportunities through families of job classes based on merit, experience, excellent performance and evaluation. This provides for the capability for internal promotions without requiring external competition. This change will actually enhance the ability of a classified employee to promote within the existing system. A need exists for promulgation of a comprehensive Personnel Board regulation that defines process, procedure, and implementation. (101 KAR 1:400 merely reiterates the statutory requirements without any guidance for agency implementation). “Seniority” as defined in KRS 18A.005(35) for an internal promotion shall not be a controlling factor.
Since the “Proposed Future Hiring Processes” document comprises 12 pages of documentation I’ll consider it in a separate post. Although it does set off alarm bells that a one paragraph recommendation is really a 12 page manual.
RECOMMENDATION 4:
Request Personnel Cabinet to study the feasibility of establishing a comprehensive regulation for implementing procedures regarding background checks, including but not limited to NCIC checks, and employment references for all executive branch applicants.
When did the Personnel Cabinet become a criminal justice agency?
From the FBI National Crime Information Center (NCIC):
“PURPOSE: The purpose for maintaining the NCIC system is to provide a computerized database for ready access by a criminal justice agency making an inquiry and for prompt disclosure of information in the system from other criminal justice agencies about crimes and criminals. This information assists authorized agencies in criminal justice and related law enforcement objectives, such as apprehending fugitives, locating missing persons, locating and returning stolen property, as well as in the protection of the law enforcement officers encountering the individuals described in the system.”
I assume this panel is in favor, in the name of full disclosure, of publishing the results of such inquiries for all non-merit system employees, like the Governor.
RECOMMENDATION 6:
It is recommended that “burrowing,” the act of switching from a non-merit position to a merit position late in an administration to get special merit protections, be limited by statute for those without reversion rights under 18A.005 by increasing the probation period to one year.
I have no problem with changing the probationary period to one year, but change it for all hires. Also if a person is reverting to a previously held position why is a probationary period needed at all? The only reason would be to give the person a raise at the end of six months to soften the financial paid of reverting.
RECOMMENDATION 7:
KRS 18A.990, the penalty section of the civil service law, should be amended to apply to the traditionally criminal acts set out in KRS 18A.145. As currently written, the broad application of penalties to all acts within KRS 18A.005 through 18A.200 criminalizes such actions as the failure to maintain accurate records (i.e. KRS 18A.015); failure to document employee misconduct (i.e. KRS 18A.020); or the failure of the Secretary to attend all meetings. This overbroad reach of the statute trivializes the protections from criminal acts, by not distinguishing them from the day to day activities of the Commonwealth, including decisions concerning employment. Furthermore, it is recommended that acts of discrimination outlined in KRS 18A.140 be subject to civil penalties including fines and prohibition of future civil service when the board determines circumstances warrant referral to the Attorney General for enforcement of these civil penalties.
Wrong, just plain wrong, the penalties should be increased for violating merit system laws. The misdemeanors should be made felonies.
RECOMMENDATION 8:
As presently enacted, KRS 18A.040 requires that “… rules, regulations and practices meeting merit system standards shall, where such standards apply as a prerequisite for federal grants-in-aid, be in effect continuously, notwithstanding any other provision of KRS 18A.005 to 18A.200. “The federal guidelines are set forth in 41 CFR 60 at pages 121-148. As stated, the purpose of the guidelines is to “incorporate a single set of principles which are designed to assist employers, labor organizations, employment agencies, and licensing and certification boards to comply with requirements of Federal law prohibiting employment practices which discriminate on grounds of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.” The guidelines’ focus is upon the procedures prospective employers utilize in making employment decisions regarding all aspects of the employment relationship. A procedure which has an adverse impact upon the employment relationship of any protected class is deemed discriminatory and in violation of the federal regulations.
This statutory attempt to ensure compliance with federal regulation creates potential conflicts with regard to selection and affirmative action. Changes to selection procedures of employees must be in compliance with federal guidelines set forth in 41 CFR 60. While it is not mandated, federal regulations allow for the establishment of voluntary affirmative action programs. After reviewing KRS 18A, it is apparent that if the Commonwealth utilizes a person’s race, religion, sex or national origin as a factor in selecting an employee, it would be in violation of state law as currently written. Therefore, the current statutes should be amended to clearly permit an affirmative action program.
Only one change here the last line should read “Therefore, the current statutes should be amended to clearly mandate an affirmative action program.”
RECOMMENDATION 12:
Final written decisions of the Personnel Board should be made available for review electronically, organized by the statutory basis for appeal.
I agree, the more transparency in government the better.
RECOMMENDATIONS 14:
Make a progression of options available for merit employees to address work-related complaints or disciplinary actions. At the beginning of the process, the employee may choose between filing a grievance, or requesting mediation where the agency is required to participate. If mediation is unsuccessful, or the grievance procedures fail to address the employee’s concerns to his satisfaction, the employee may have his concern heard by a peer review committee (to be established according to Personnel Cabinet guidelines). If the peer review committee action fails to address the employee’s concerns to his satisfaction, the employee may appeal the decision of the peer review committee to the Personnel Board.
Require the Personnel Board to monitor all grievances and mediations filed. This additional duty, along with information showing that the Personnel Board is underfunded in its implementation of existing statutory duties, makes it necessary to recommend that the Personnel Board be properly funded to perform all of its duties, both old and new.
This recommendation inserts additional levels of bureaucracy for the employee to wade through when filing a work-related complaint. The current system is designed to discourage the employee from pursuing a complaint. All this recommendation does is increase the difficulty of reaching a final decision.
RECOMMENDATION 15:
Require the Personnel Board members to be subject to the Executive Branch Ethics Code, and require the Board to report annually to the State Government Committee. In their annual report, the Board should address the following:
a. the number of merit state employees at the beginning and end of the reporting period;
b. the number of grievances filed and mediation requests made by merit employees during the reporting period;
c. a tabulation of the types of grievances filed during the reporting period – suspension, fine, demotion, dismissal, discrimination, job conditions, or other penalization;
d. a tabulation of the types of mediation requests filed during the reporting period -- suspension, fine, demotion, dismissal, discrimination, job conditions, or other penalization;
e. a comparison of the number of grievances and mediations filed by merit employees in previous reporting periods, including a comparison in the categories listed above;
f. a tabulation of the stages in which employee complaints were resolved during the reporting period;
g. the average amount of time taken to resolve employee complaints during the reporting period, by stage;
h. a comparison of the amount of time taken to resolve employee complaints during the reporting period, by stage, and the amount of time taken during the previous reporting periods.
Again, I agree.
RECOMMENDATION 17:
Implement a drug testing program for Executive Branch employees to include post offer/pre-employment drug testing, reasonable suspicion drug/alcohol testing, and random drug/alcohol testing.
I can only quote my friend Gatewood Galbraith “Did my father's generation hit the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima so their children would have to pee in a cup to hold a job in America?” Gatewood '95
I find this recommendation personally and professionally insulting, as should every past, present, and future state employee.
RECOMMENDATION 20:
Conduct a disparity study of Executive Branch employees to determine if there is a disparity between the qualified work force of Kentucky citizens in protected classes, and Executive Branch employees in protected classes. The study should break down the numbers for each job category. [Implementation would require the Personnel Cabinet to request appropriate funding through the budgetary process.]
If this study is ever done and the finding show that state workers are compensated less than comparative workers in the private sector the whole thing will be ignored. This has been done in the past, particularly with employees in the technology areas. If the study happens to show that state employees are compensated at a higher level than workers in the private sector, an unlikely event, then the study will be used as justification for reducing state employee pay. Bottom line, state employees at best get nothing from this recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION 21:
Update the State Affirmative Action Plan consistent with federal requirements and industry best practices. The updated Affirmative Action Plan should provide tools to state agencies to assist them with reaching affirmative action goals established in the plan. The updated Affirmative Action Plan should contain provisions for accountability of agencies in the form of penalties for those agencies that do not make progress toward affirmative action goals and rewards for those agencies that make progress toward affirmative action goals.
How about, we tie continued employment of Cabinet Secretaries, Commissioners, and Directors to progress toward affirmative action goals. This would be a greater motivator than sanctioning the agency.
RECOMMENDATION 23:
Seek a reduction in the number of classifications of between 40 and 60 percent.
• Currently there are 1,657 classifications and 708 of them have no more than five employees.
• There are 200 inactive classifications.
• Many classifications are specific to one cabinet and should be broader.
Yes, this needs to be cleaned up. But the danger here is the employee career paths will be sacrificed in the name of streamlining government. Also making classifications broader necessitates make qualifications broader. Therefore, you can make individuals without the necessary skill sets eligible for employment.
RECOMMENDATION 24:
Maintain an annual increment in conjunction with the establishment of a minimum, mid and maximum pay grade for each salary.
• Pursue a current market survey and anticipate annual adjustments to the minimum, mid and maximum pay grades.
• When maximum salary conflicts with annual increment, consider alternate methods to award annual increments, for example lump sum payments.
• Further evaluate use of ACE and ERA awards.
• Consider impact of the establishment of maximum salary on longterm, senior employees to ensure they are not inadvertently hurt as they approach retirement.
How many times have I heard this type of proposal? Every administration since Julian Carroll’s has done its best to screw the merit system employees out of benefits. The words in this recommendation are the ground work for doing it again.
All in all, if these recommendations are enacted as they stand, then the Commonwealth of Kentucky will have a more difficult time recruiting competent merit system employees. But maybe that’s the idea, as long as they voted Republican in the last election, qualifications be damned.
Some thoughts on Blue Ribbon Task Force for Merit System select proposed recommendations from a former merit system employee.
RECOMMENDATION 2:
The Selection Sub-committee recommends adoption of the proposals contained within the “Proposed Future Hiring Processes” from the Personnel Cabinet dated September 2005, with the exception of the need for a clarification of the proposal under “C – Register” concerning “eliminating registers for career path promotions and promotions”. The Sub-committee recommends maintaining an employee promotion system that provides career path opportunities through families of job classes based on merit, experience, excellent performance and evaluation. This provides for the capability for internal promotions without requiring external competition. This change will actually enhance the ability of a classified employee to promote within the existing system. A need exists for promulgation of a comprehensive Personnel Board regulation that defines process, procedure, and implementation. (101 KAR 1:400 merely reiterates the statutory requirements without any guidance for agency implementation). “Seniority” as defined in KRS 18A.005(35) for an internal promotion shall not be a controlling factor.
Since the “Proposed Future Hiring Processes” document comprises 12 pages of documentation I’ll consider it in a separate post. Although it does set off alarm bells that a one paragraph recommendation is really a 12 page manual.
RECOMMENDATION 4:
Request Personnel Cabinet to study the feasibility of establishing a comprehensive regulation for implementing procedures regarding background checks, including but not limited to NCIC checks, and employment references for all executive branch applicants.
When did the Personnel Cabinet become a criminal justice agency?
From the FBI National Crime Information Center (NCIC):
“PURPOSE: The purpose for maintaining the NCIC system is to provide a computerized database for ready access by a criminal justice agency making an inquiry and for prompt disclosure of information in the system from other criminal justice agencies about crimes and criminals. This information assists authorized agencies in criminal justice and related law enforcement objectives, such as apprehending fugitives, locating missing persons, locating and returning stolen property, as well as in the protection of the law enforcement officers encountering the individuals described in the system.”
I assume this panel is in favor, in the name of full disclosure, of publishing the results of such inquiries for all non-merit system employees, like the Governor.
RECOMMENDATION 6:
It is recommended that “burrowing,” the act of switching from a non-merit position to a merit position late in an administration to get special merit protections, be limited by statute for those without reversion rights under 18A.005 by increasing the probation period to one year.
I have no problem with changing the probationary period to one year, but change it for all hires. Also if a person is reverting to a previously held position why is a probationary period needed at all? The only reason would be to give the person a raise at the end of six months to soften the financial paid of reverting.
RECOMMENDATION 7:
KRS 18A.990, the penalty section of the civil service law, should be amended to apply to the traditionally criminal acts set out in KRS 18A.145. As currently written, the broad application of penalties to all acts within KRS 18A.005 through 18A.200 criminalizes such actions as the failure to maintain accurate records (i.e. KRS 18A.015); failure to document employee misconduct (i.e. KRS 18A.020); or the failure of the Secretary to attend all meetings. This overbroad reach of the statute trivializes the protections from criminal acts, by not distinguishing them from the day to day activities of the Commonwealth, including decisions concerning employment. Furthermore, it is recommended that acts of discrimination outlined in KRS 18A.140 be subject to civil penalties including fines and prohibition of future civil service when the board determines circumstances warrant referral to the Attorney General for enforcement of these civil penalties.
Wrong, just plain wrong, the penalties should be increased for violating merit system laws. The misdemeanors should be made felonies.
RECOMMENDATION 8:
As presently enacted, KRS 18A.040 requires that “… rules, regulations and practices meeting merit system standards shall, where such standards apply as a prerequisite for federal grants-in-aid, be in effect continuously, notwithstanding any other provision of KRS 18A.005 to 18A.200. “The federal guidelines are set forth in 41 CFR 60 at pages 121-148. As stated, the purpose of the guidelines is to “incorporate a single set of principles which are designed to assist employers, labor organizations, employment agencies, and licensing and certification boards to comply with requirements of Federal law prohibiting employment practices which discriminate on grounds of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.” The guidelines’ focus is upon the procedures prospective employers utilize in making employment decisions regarding all aspects of the employment relationship. A procedure which has an adverse impact upon the employment relationship of any protected class is deemed discriminatory and in violation of the federal regulations.
This statutory attempt to ensure compliance with federal regulation creates potential conflicts with regard to selection and affirmative action. Changes to selection procedures of employees must be in compliance with federal guidelines set forth in 41 CFR 60. While it is not mandated, federal regulations allow for the establishment of voluntary affirmative action programs. After reviewing KRS 18A, it is apparent that if the Commonwealth utilizes a person’s race, religion, sex or national origin as a factor in selecting an employee, it would be in violation of state law as currently written. Therefore, the current statutes should be amended to clearly permit an affirmative action program.
Only one change here the last line should read “Therefore, the current statutes should be amended to clearly mandate an affirmative action program.”
RECOMMENDATION 12:
Final written decisions of the Personnel Board should be made available for review electronically, organized by the statutory basis for appeal.
I agree, the more transparency in government the better.
RECOMMENDATIONS 14:
Make a progression of options available for merit employees to address work-related complaints or disciplinary actions. At the beginning of the process, the employee may choose between filing a grievance, or requesting mediation where the agency is required to participate. If mediation is unsuccessful, or the grievance procedures fail to address the employee’s concerns to his satisfaction, the employee may have his concern heard by a peer review committee (to be established according to Personnel Cabinet guidelines). If the peer review committee action fails to address the employee’s concerns to his satisfaction, the employee may appeal the decision of the peer review committee to the Personnel Board.
Require the Personnel Board to monitor all grievances and mediations filed. This additional duty, along with information showing that the Personnel Board is underfunded in its implementation of existing statutory duties, makes it necessary to recommend that the Personnel Board be properly funded to perform all of its duties, both old and new.
This recommendation inserts additional levels of bureaucracy for the employee to wade through when filing a work-related complaint. The current system is designed to discourage the employee from pursuing a complaint. All this recommendation does is increase the difficulty of reaching a final decision.
RECOMMENDATION 15:
Require the Personnel Board members to be subject to the Executive Branch Ethics Code, and require the Board to report annually to the State Government Committee. In their annual report, the Board should address the following:
a. the number of merit state employees at the beginning and end of the reporting period;
b. the number of grievances filed and mediation requests made by merit employees during the reporting period;
c. a tabulation of the types of grievances filed during the reporting period – suspension, fine, demotion, dismissal, discrimination, job conditions, or other penalization;
d. a tabulation of the types of mediation requests filed during the reporting period -- suspension, fine, demotion, dismissal, discrimination, job conditions, or other penalization;
e. a comparison of the number of grievances and mediations filed by merit employees in previous reporting periods, including a comparison in the categories listed above;
f. a tabulation of the stages in which employee complaints were resolved during the reporting period;
g. the average amount of time taken to resolve employee complaints during the reporting period, by stage;
h. a comparison of the amount of time taken to resolve employee complaints during the reporting period, by stage, and the amount of time taken during the previous reporting periods.
Again, I agree.
RECOMMENDATION 17:
Implement a drug testing program for Executive Branch employees to include post offer/pre-employment drug testing, reasonable suspicion drug/alcohol testing, and random drug/alcohol testing.
I can only quote my friend Gatewood Galbraith “Did my father's generation hit the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima so their children would have to pee in a cup to hold a job in America?” Gatewood '95
I find this recommendation personally and professionally insulting, as should every past, present, and future state employee.
RECOMMENDATION 20:
Conduct a disparity study of Executive Branch employees to determine if there is a disparity between the qualified work force of Kentucky citizens in protected classes, and Executive Branch employees in protected classes. The study should break down the numbers for each job category. [Implementation would require the Personnel Cabinet to request appropriate funding through the budgetary process.]
If this study is ever done and the finding show that state workers are compensated less than comparative workers in the private sector the whole thing will be ignored. This has been done in the past, particularly with employees in the technology areas. If the study happens to show that state employees are compensated at a higher level than workers in the private sector, an unlikely event, then the study will be used as justification for reducing state employee pay. Bottom line, state employees at best get nothing from this recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION 21:
Update the State Affirmative Action Plan consistent with federal requirements and industry best practices. The updated Affirmative Action Plan should provide tools to state agencies to assist them with reaching affirmative action goals established in the plan. The updated Affirmative Action Plan should contain provisions for accountability of agencies in the form of penalties for those agencies that do not make progress toward affirmative action goals and rewards for those agencies that make progress toward affirmative action goals.
How about, we tie continued employment of Cabinet Secretaries, Commissioners, and Directors to progress toward affirmative action goals. This would be a greater motivator than sanctioning the agency.
RECOMMENDATION 23:
Seek a reduction in the number of classifications of between 40 and 60 percent.
• Currently there are 1,657 classifications and 708 of them have no more than five employees.
• There are 200 inactive classifications.
• Many classifications are specific to one cabinet and should be broader.
Yes, this needs to be cleaned up. But the danger here is the employee career paths will be sacrificed in the name of streamlining government. Also making classifications broader necessitates make qualifications broader. Therefore, you can make individuals without the necessary skill sets eligible for employment.
RECOMMENDATION 24:
Maintain an annual increment in conjunction with the establishment of a minimum, mid and maximum pay grade for each salary.
• Pursue a current market survey and anticipate annual adjustments to the minimum, mid and maximum pay grades.
• When maximum salary conflicts with annual increment, consider alternate methods to award annual increments, for example lump sum payments.
• Further evaluate use of ACE and ERA awards.
• Consider impact of the establishment of maximum salary on longterm, senior employees to ensure they are not inadvertently hurt as they approach retirement.
How many times have I heard this type of proposal? Every administration since Julian Carroll’s has done its best to screw the merit system employees out of benefits. The words in this recommendation are the ground work for doing it again.
All in all, if these recommendations are enacted as they stand, then the Commonwealth of Kentucky will have a more difficult time recruiting competent merit system employees. But maybe that’s the idea, as long as they voted Republican in the last election, qualifications be damned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)