Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Governance Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PT Board agrees to form two-member committee to explore exempt-level increase and executive officer pay
Summary
The Physical Therapy Board formed a two-member committee to review whether the executive officer position should be reclassified or receive a salary adjustment, and staff outlined the DCA/CalHR approval process for exempt-level and incumbent salary increases.
The Physical Therapy Board of California on June 25 voted to form a two-member committee to investigate whether the board’s executive officer position should receive an exempt-level reclassification or a salary increase.
Catherine Richlier, appointments and recruitment specialist from the Department of Consumer Affairs Office of Human Resources, explained two different processes: an exempt salary increase (adjusting the incumbent’s monthly pay within an existing or proposed salary band) and an exempt level increase (raising the salary band for the EO position itself). CalHR is the final approving authority and may approve, modify, or deny requests; the governor’s office and the California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency (BCSHA) also review requests.
Board President Karen Brandon and member Dale Armstrong volunteered to serve as the two-person committee and will work with staff to collect duty statements, program size and complexity metrics, staffing and budget data, and other supporting evidence. The committee’s initial charge is to review the position’s responsibilities, staffing growth and legislative changes since the last review and to prepare a justification letter from the board president if the board decides to seek a level or salary change.
Richlier told the board the justification should address items such as the executive officer’s accomplishments since the last increase, recruitment and retention challenges, program growth, staffing and budget changes, increased statutory complexity, and relevant performance metrics. She also explained that a level change alone does not automatically raise an incumbent’s pay unless followed by a separate salary request for the incumbent.
Board counsel and members discussed comparative pay bands and noted exempt salary bands can overlap (the current level M band overlaps the next higher band). Board counsel advised focusing on whether the position duties align with the higher level equivalent positions (for example a career executive assignment or senior civil-service manager equivalent) and stressed confidentiality around personnel details.
President Brandon instructed staff to support the committee’s work and to return with draft materials and potential timelines. The committee will report back to the full board and may recommend a formal motion to request a level and/or salary increase; any formal request will go to BCSHA and CalHR for review and approval.
