Senate Supports Batt’s Proposal For Pay Raises Dissenters Fear Evaluation Process Would Foster Favoritism

Gov. Phil Batt claimed an overwhelming victory Tuesday when the state Senate endorsed his plan to disburse more than $20 million in state employee pay raises based on the evaluations of their supervisors.

“It has been our system for a number of years that pay raises be given on merit and based on performance,” Senate Human Resources Chairman Dean Cameron told his colleagues.

“There is no perfect pay system,” the Rupert Republican conceded. “This system is the best we can have to bring us more like the private sector. It allows us to reward employees who are satisfactory or better, and if you don’t get a pay raise, that should tell you something.”

The Senate voted 33-2 to send the measure to the House for a final legislative vote. The House Human Resource Committee already has endorsed the plan.

Democrat Lin Whitworth of Inkom and Republican Stan Hawkins of Ucon were the only dissenters. Whitworth reflected concerns of some state leaders that too many supervisors are inadequately trained in making employee evaluations and favoritism becomes a real factor in doling out cash.

“This is too easy to classify someone on a personality basis, and it shouldn’t happen,” Whitworth said.

Cameron rejected any suggestion that pay raises have been awarded strictly on personality. But he reassured skeptics that the Human Resources committees in both houses intended to review the evaluation process late this year after the raises have been allocated.

The governor’s plan took on much greater importance this year after lawmakers decided not to give 16,000 state workers a 2 percent pay hike last winter. The plan focuses merit increases on employees who have been working five years or more and are still not at the midpoint on their pay schedule.

Democratic Floor Leader Marguerite McLaughlin of Orofino supported the plan but raised questions about the fact that in some agencies with large numbers of workers below the midpoint, those above who have satisfactory or better ratings could go without a pay increase for a second straight year.

“There should be at least a cost-of-living (raise) for everyone who is satisfactory or above,” McLaughlin said. “And if you have someone who has worked for you for two years and isn’t satisfactory, you’re not doing your job.”

Budget writers, meanwhile, were again bombarded with pleas from government managers seeking more general tax support for their operations than Batt was able to squeeze out of the least-conservative spending blueprint of his tenure.

The Public Health Districts warned the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee that there could be severe cutbacks on the front line of health promotion and disease prevention if the panel went back on the commitment it made four years ago to cover 70 percent of any employee pay increases.

As he has since taking office, Batt proposed that the state cover only about a fifth of the pay raise cost to the districts, which also get cash from fees, contracts and local property taxes.

Budget writers, who originally were allocating 40 percent of pay raise costs to the state, have consistently rejected Batt’s numbers in favor of the 70 percent figure. But the extra cash this year totals $600,000 from anticipated revenue that still will have to be squeezed tightly by budget writers to make ends meet.

County officials said the 3 percent cap on annual property tax increases has severely limited their ability to support the health districts. And the kind of hike required to cover even a large part of that extra money with fee revenue would have priced many services out of the reach of those who need them.

Without the extra state money that Batt declined to recommend, District VII Director William Bruce Arnell said, “I can safely say it will result in the reduction of staff, the reduction of programs and, in many cases, the elimination of programs.”

But Cameron, who is also vice chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, maintained that the districts could live with the governor’s recommendation.

“There’s an impression out there that Public Health Districts must give a 5 percent pay raise,” he said. “That’s not true.”