JFAC fails to pass change‑in‑employee‑compensation package; four CEC options stall

The Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee on Friday considered four competing change‑in‑employee‑compensation (CEC) proposals but failed to approve any of them, leaving raises for state employees, educators and certain public safety classifications unsettled.

All four motions were debated in detail and voted on. Representative Miller moved the motion commonly labeled “Motion 1,” which would have funded a $1.55‑per‑hour adjustment (calculated as $1.55/hour per FTE across state agencies) and additional targeted increases; that proposal totaled $177,429,000. Senator Cook offered a merit‑based substitute that would have provided merit increases of up to 4% (Motion 3); Representative Furness later offered a substitute that combined a $1.55 floor with a 3% minimum (Motion 2). Senator Wintrow presented the governor’s recommendation (Motion 4) — a 5% merit‑based increase equivalent — as an alternative.

None of the motions secured the majorities required under the joint voting letter the committee uses to calculate passage. The committee repeatedly debated the proper voting threshold and at one point located a leadership letter describing the joint voting procedure. Committee staff and members confirmed the letter’s direction that passage requires a majority from each body’s committee delegation; leadership later reaffirmed that the committee would proceed using a requirement of six votes from each side for this session.

Why it matters: The CEC decisions under consideration would change salaries for state employees, public‑school staff, higher‑education employees, and some public safety personnel. The motions also included different distribution mechanisms (flat dollar versus merit) that committee members debated on philosophical and practical grounds.

Highlights of the four motions and outcomes

- Motion 1 (Representative Miller): A $1.55 per hour allocation per FTE with targeted adjustments for community colleges, IT/engineering, troopers, and public schools. Totals read into the record: $177,429,000 (broken down in the packet as $128,354,900 general fund; $34,266,900 dedicated; $14,807,200 federal). Motion 1 did not pass.

- Motion 2 (Representative Furness, substitute): A $1.55 per hour floor plus $611,500 to ensure all state employees received at least a 3% increase (and other targeted adjustments). Totals read: $178,040,500 ($128,643,300 general fund; $34,527,800 dedicated; $14,869,400 federal). The substitute motion failed on roll call.

- Motion 3 (Senator Cook, substitute): Merit‑based increases up to 4% (or $1.55 where applicable), with totals in the packet presented around $180,312,100. That motion failed to obtain a majority in the House delegation during roll call and therefore did not pass the joint committee.

- Motion 4 (Governor’s recommendation, Senator Wintrow): A 5% merit increase distribution (governor’s recommendation) with a recorded total of $180,653,800; committee members and staff noted some transcript and packet numbers appeared garbled and asked staff to reconfirm fund‑source breakdowns before bringing the motion forward again. The governor’s motion also failed in the final roll call.

Members disagreed about distribution method and fairness. Senator Cook and others argued for merit‑based increases to reward high performers; Senator Cook said awarding raises strictly by flat amounts would remove incentives and compared a flat increase to “participation trophies.” Representative Handy and others cautioned that flat payments ensure lower‑paid employees see meaningful increases and argued that many supervisors overestimate employee performance when using merit processes.

Committee staff repeatedly cautioned members against making on‑the‑fly edits to motions because the CEC calculations are complex, affect multiple fund sources and downstream numbers, and are prone to error if changed during the hearing. Analyst Michael Bybee outlined the methodology used to calculate the dollar amounts and stressed that specific language in the packet was tied to each numerical motion; if a motion passed the committee would also have to adopt the corresponding language as written to avoid calculation errors.

A separate procedural dispute also consumed time. Committee members searched for a previously circulated leadership letter that describes how the joint committee tallies House and Senate votes. After review, the chair ruled the committee would proceed using the letter’s counting approach for the day (requiring a majority from each delegation), but members noted that the rule had not been formally voted into committee procedure and said they would take the matter to leadership for clarification.

Next steps: Committee members and staff said they will return to the calculations, correct any packet transcription errors and refile the motions for a later meeting. The chair adjourned the session and apologized to agencies scheduled for later hearings; staff will reschedule those presentations.