JFAC fails to adopt any change‑in‑employee‑compensation plan; voting rules cause confusion

The Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee considered four competing change‑in‑employee‑compensation (CEC) motions Friday but failed to adopt any of them, leaving the issue unresolved for future committee action.

Committee analysts presented four distinct proposals: (1) an adjusted CEC recommendation that funds a $1.55 per hour per FTP allocation and specified increases for colleges, community colleges and public schools (motion total shown as $177,429,000); (2) a hybrid $1.55 per hour plus a guaranteed 3% minimum for higher‑paid employees; (3) a merit‑based plan providing up to 4% implemented by merit; and (4) the governor’s recommended 5% merit distribution (motion total shown on the table in the packet). Mr. Bybee, the committee analyst, laid out the methodology and fund splits for each motion and explained where special adjustments (IT/engineering, troopers, nursing) were included.

Why it matters: CEC decisions affect state employee pay across agencies, community colleges and public schools and carry substantial state spending implications. Committee members repeatedly said the motions are complex and affect downstream calculations for agencies and schools.

What happened in committee: The meeting recorded multiple motions and substitute motions. Representative Miller initially moved the $1.55 per hour motion with specified allocations (motion 1). Senator Cook later offered a merit‑focused substitute motion (motion 3). Representative Furness and Senator Wintrow also offered alternate motions. The committee took votes on substitute and original motions in sequence; several votes failed to reach the necessary majority in either the House or the House portion of the joint vote. On multiple roll calls, the committee chair and members sought guidance from staff and cited a previously circulated leadership letter about how joint committee votes should be tallied. That letter — provided to members during the meeting — indicates the joint voting procedure used in past years and states majority support from the joint committee is required while announcing House and Senate committee votes separately; members debated whether “majority” meant majority of members present or the majority of the full committee membership.

Members’ positions: Supporters of merit‑based increases, including Senator Cook and Senator Woodward in remarks, argued merit provides supervisors a tool to reward performance. Supporters of flat or hybrid approaches emphasized cost‑of‑living needs and lower‑paid employees who lack local reserve funds (Senator Ward Engelking and others noted school districts may not have reserves to buy down premiums). Representative Furness and others raised actuarial concerns about projected reserve balances and argued some projections have been conservative in the past.

Vote outcomes and next steps: Committee roll calls repeatedly failed to produce a passing motion. After further review and procedural discussion, the chair ruled that for the meeting the precedent and the leadership letter would control — effectively requiring a majority based on the letter’s method — but the committee did not adopt any CEC motion and agreed to revisit the matter at a later date. Agencies scheduled to appear at the hearing were excused and will be rescheduled.

Committee members and staff signaled the calculations are complex and that the committee will return to the issue with clearer procedure and corrected motion language on a future date.