Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Change In Employee Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee deadlocks on Change‑in‑Employee‑Compensation proposals; four pay plans fail to win committee approval
Summary
The Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee considered four competing CEC packages — including a $1.55‑per‑hour across‑the‑board option, a merit‑based 4% plan, and the governor’s 5% merit proposal — but none achieved the required support. Members debated merit vs. flat increases and how reserve usage affects future premiums.
The Idaho Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee on Friday debated four competing Change‑in‑Employee‑Compensation (CEC) packages for fiscal 2026 but failed to approve any single plan.
Legislative fiscal staffer Mr. Mark Bybee walked committee members through four motions in the meeting packet: a CEC‑adjusted proposal allocating a $1.55‑per‑hour increase as a flat dollar amount; a variation that added an explicit minimum 3% for all employees; a merit‑based motion providing up to 4% based on performance; and the governor’s recommendation calculated as a 5% merit‑based increase. The motions differ in how they distribute total dollars across state agencies, institutions of higher education, community colleges and public schools and in where they target extra funding (for example, IT and engineering positions, salary schedule minimum adjustments, nursing/healthcare workers and Idaho State Police troopers).
Key motions and numbers presented on the record included: - Motion 1 (Representative Miller): $1.55 per hour per permanent employee for state agencies and institutions; total estimated cost $177,429,000 (including $128,354,900 general fund, $34,266,900 dedicated and $14,807,200 federal funds). - A variant presented by Senator Cook (recorded in the packet and read into the record) produced a total of about $180,312,100 (packet line items cited in the hearing); the mover asked to remove a specific nursing‑healthcare language without changing the totals. - Representative Furness later offered a substitute motion built around $1.55 with a guaranteed minimum 3% and other targeted adjustments; that substitute was recorded with totals of $178,040,500 ($128,643,300 general fund; $34,527,800 dedicated; $14,869,400 federal). - The governor’s motion, read by Senator Wintrow from the packet, was described as the equivalent of a 5% merit increase; the packet total read on the record was $180,653,800 with a $131,451,900 general‑fund component; one dedicated‑fund figure was garbled on the record and is not specified here.
Committee members debated the policy tradeoffs at length. Senator Cook argued for merit‑based raises — ‘‘our nation was built on merit’’ — and urged members to preserve supervisors’ ability to reward high performers. Representative Handy and others noted the practical advantage of flat increases for lower‑paid workers and expressed skepticism about relying solely on merit increases, with Handy saying many employees self‑assess as high performers and managers must still drive accountability.
Votes on substitute and original motions failed to produce the required majority. At multiple roll calls the committee recorded that motions failed to achieve a majority in the House or failed overall; staff and members repeatedly discussed the joint voting rule (whether a majority of members present in each chamber or a fixed majority is required). The committee did not adopt any CEC motion during this session and agreed to continue the issue at a later date. Several agency hearings that had been scheduled were postponed.
Because no single motion passed, the committee did not finalize state‑level CEC instructions to the Office of Group Insurance or to state agencies; staff will return to calculations and try again on a future day so members can review corrected packet numbers and the consequences of different options.
