Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Change In Employee Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Joint Finance committee stalls on statewide pay plan; multiple CEC motions fail
Summary
The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee on Jan. 31 debated four Change in Employee Compensation (CEC) options — including a $1.55-per-hour plan, merit-based increases and the governor's 5% recommendation — but none of the motions achieved the joint committee majority and the committee deferred the issue to future meetings.
The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee spent substantial time Jan. 31 debating four competing Change in Employee Compensation (CEC) proposals but failed to adopt any of them, leaving statewide pay adjustments for FY2026 unresolved.
Committee staff presented four motions that differed in method and distribution: (1) a dollar-based approach (roughly $1.55 per hour per full-time employee, presented by Representative Miller), (2) a dollar-based floor plus a 3% minimum (Representative Furness’s substitute), (3) a merit-focused motion providing up to 4% on merit or $1.55, whichever is greater (Senator Cook), and (4) the governor’s recommended 5% merit increase (Senator Wintrow). Staff described how the dollar-per-hour figures were calculated across fund sources, community colleges and K‑12, and the package included other pay adjustments (salary-schedule parity, IT/engineering adjustments, and specified increases for some public safety positions). Mr. Bybee explained the methodology and distributed fund-split calculations by agency.
Representative Miller’s motion would have provided the $1.55-per-hour baseline and included $84,669,500 for public schools and Idaho Bureau of Educational Services for the Deaf and Blind; Mr. Bybee gave a total cost estimate for that motion of $177,429,000 (including $128,354,900 from the general fund). Senator Cook later offered a merit-based motion (merit up to 4%, or $1.55/hour where greater) that carried a different total in the packet; the motion text and numbers were modified during discussion and the packet showed a total near $180.3 million for that substitute version.
Debate covered competing philosophies: proponents of merit-based increases said supervisors need tools to reward higher-performing employees and to help retain staff; supporters of the flat-dollar approach argued it better addresses low-end wage compression and provides predictable cost-of-living relief. Members also raised implementation concerns: whether agency HR centralization reduces favoritism, how the changes interact with school-district funding (districts lack insurance reserves), and the effect of including or excluding trooper pay increases in a motion. Senator Wintrow asked that any motion include specific language and funding for trooper increases; committee leaders said they would not make on-the-fly adjustments to packet numbers to avoid calculation errors.
The committee repeatedly moved between the several motions. Several votes were taken; substitute motions failed to achieve the required joint committee majorities in the House and/or Senate or otherwise failed on roll call. After multiple attempts, the committee chair ruled that the complex motions were not ready to be resolved “on the flight” and that staff should further calculate the impacts. Committee records show the motions failed on the floor of the joint committee and that the issue will be returned for further work at a later date.
Ending: The committee adjourned without adopting a statewide pay plan and asked staff to recalculate and return with corrected motion language and packet pages at a future meeting. Agencies scheduled to appear later were told they will be rescheduled.
