Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Stateworkforce Vacancies topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

SB 1510 would force agencies to eliminate long‑vacant positions; lawmakers warn about losing specialized staff

2849866 · April 1, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Bill 15 10 would require state budget units to eliminate full‑time positions vacant 150 days or more, with several agencies exempt; caucus members warned the rule could remove specialized positions that are hard to fill and are necessary for statutory duties.

Sen. Brendan presented Senate Bill 15 10, which would require the Department of Administration to collect from each budget unit a list of all full‑time equivalent positions that have been vacant for at least 150 days and require those budget units to eliminate the identified positions. The proposal would exempt the Department of Corrections, the Department of Public Safety, the Arizona Board of Regents, state universities and community colleges.

Members questioned whether the bill accounts for specialized, non‑entry level positions that are difficult to fill. "Many of these positions that remain vacant for a hundred and 50 days are not entry level positions. They're highly specialized positions, hydrologists, things of that nature that you need to have the correct background for and the correct fit," Brendan said, noting elimination could have implications for essential functions.

One lawmaker said the Department of Revenue, for example, needs staff with specialized skills for sales ratio studies and other statutorily mandated work; eliminating those positions could leave required work undone. Members requested more information about how the bill distinguishes between fillable entry‑level roles and specialized positions that require longer recruitment timelines.

The bill was on the consent calendar at caucus but members asked to pull it for discussion.

No formal motion or vote was recorded in caucus during the presentation; members sought clarification about potential operational impacts on state agencies.