Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Classification And Compensation Modernization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State HR requests $1.575 million to modernize job classification and pay system
Summary
The Department of Human Resources requested $1,575,000 for a consultant and preparatory work to replace an unsupported point-factor job evaluation tool, reduce an oversized set of job classes and design a modern compensation system; the Appropriations Committee asked questions but took no vote.
The Department of Human Resources asked the House Appropriations Committee for $1,575,000 to design and prepare implementation of a modern classification and compensation system for state employees.
Commissioner Beth Fastygy told the committee the state’s current job-evaluation tool, the Willis point-factor system (in place since the 1980s), is unsupported and outdated and said, “we can't afford to fall any further behind.” She said the department has a preferred vendor from a recent RFP and that the requested funds would be used to hire consulting and project-design services and to plan software and implementation work.
Why it matters: Fastygy said the outdated system produces too many job classes, unpredictable budgetary impacts from on-demand reclassification requests, and apparent inequities in pay. She said Vermont has roughly 1,900 job classes — about four employees per job class — versus an average of about 15 employees per job class in other states, and that the department’s goal is to reduce classifications by roughly 40% to a more manageable 800–1,000 classes.
Committee members questioned cost and timeline. Fastygy said vendors proposed delivery in 12–18 months but she expects broader stakeholder engagement and legislative coordination mean the design phase could take longer; implementation of pay changes would likely take multiple years and require collective bargaining. She said pay-delivery decisions would be subject to negotiation with labor partners and constrained by available budget.
Fastygy described several operational problems with the current approach: the Willis tool is essentially a manual scoring guide that has not been updated in about 30 years; the state has experienced a steady rise in classifications; and the current process produces sudden reclassifications that can push positions into higher pay grades. She said reclassification requests are often handled on demand rather than through a scheduled review cycle, producing unpredictable annualized costs for class reviews (examples cited: FY19 $5.7 million, FY20 $3.4 million, FY21 $2.1 million, FY22 $6.3 million, FY23 $7.1 million, FY24 $5.4 million).
Fastygy also said the classification process has been used informally as a reward for high performance rather than relying on formal merit programs, and that the current concentration of job classes in the middle pay grades (over 90% in pay grades 21–30) has compressed pay ranges.
On next steps, Fastygy said the requested $1,575,000 would fund the consultant contract and preparatory work (including selection of software tools to help write job descriptions and manage classifications), after which the department would present a project timeline with milestones and return to the committee with progress updates. She said the department has completed an RFP (seven responses, four demonstrations) and has a preferred vendor but needs appropriation authority and a contract to proceed.
No formal action or vote was taken on the request during the hearing. Committee leadership scheduled further committee work on the broader FY26 budget and indicated they expect the department to report back next year on progress if funding is secured.
