Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation Cec topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee deadlocks on change‑in‑employee‑compensation plans after multiple failed motions
Summary
The Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee debated four competing CEC proposals Jan. 31 — a flat dollar‑per‑hour approach, a governor's 5% merit plan, a minimum‑3% hybrid, and a merit‑based up to 4% plan — but could not pass any of them and deferred further action.
Members of the Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee spent much of Jan. 31 debating four competing approaches to change in employee compensation (CEC) for fiscal 2026 but failed to adopt any motion before adjourning the agenda item.
Committee staff, represented by Mr. Bybee, outlined four packaged motions that differed in distribution method and total cost: a flat dollar proposal based on $1.55 per hour (widely described as "$1.55/$1.55" or "dollar 55" in the packet); a hybrid that added funding to ensure a 3% minimum for all employees; a merit‑based plan providing up to 4% tied to performance; and the governor's recommendation that equated to a 5% merit increase.
Representative Miller offered the packaged $1.55‑per‑hour motion (motion 1), which staff calculated at $84,411,000 for the base dollar‑per‑hour funding and a total of $177,429,000 across all affected funds (including $128,354,900 from the general fund, $34,266,900 from dedicated funds and $14,807,200 from federal funds). Senator Cook presented a merit‑focused substitute motion (motion 3) that included a 4% component; staff presented totals for that motion as roughly $180,312,100. Representative Furness later offered a different substitute (motion 2) combining the dollar amount with a guaranteed 3% minimum; the motion record shows totals of roughly $178,040,500. Senator Wintrow moved the governor's 5% merit recommendation (motion 4), which staff listed with a total near $180,653,800 on the record.
Committee debate centered on distributing increases by flat amounts vs. merit, the effect on lower‑paid employees, the ability of supervisors to reward high performers, and practical constraints when school districts and other local entities receive support unit calculations rather than per‑FTE dollars. Senator Cook argued forcefully for merit‑based raises, saying, "what America was built on was built on merit," and urging legislators to consider rewarding high performers; Representative Handy and others noted that uniform increases simplify administration and help lower‑paid workers.
The committee also spent time resolving how joint committee votes are tallied. A letter from House and Senate majority leadership — which committee staff located during the hearing — directed that the committee use a joint voting procedure that records separate House and Senate tallies and requires a majority in each house's quorum for passage. Members disagreed about whether "majority" meant a majority of all committee members or a majority of those present; staff explained how the ballot is programmed to require a majority of the quorum present in each chamber.
Several motions were put to roll call votes and failed to secure the required support. Senator Cook's merit substitute failed to achieve a House majority and was declared to have failed; subsequent substitute and original motions also failed when called. Committee members and staff agreed the motions were "too complex to calculate on the fly" and deferred further action; agencies waiting to present were told they would be rescheduled.
The outcome: no change‑in‑employee‑compensation motion was adopted on Jan. 31. Committee members asked staff to refine the calculations and bring clearer, technically identical motions back for a future vote.
