Joint committee debates multiple CEC pay proposals; no change approved Friday

The Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee spent the bulk of its Jan. 31 meeting debating competing approaches to change‑in‑employee‑compensation (CEC) for fiscal year 2026 but failed to approve any of the motions presented.

Analysts presented four detailed CEC proposals that differed by distribution method (flat dollar per hour versus merit percentage), eligibility rules, and targeted supplements for categories including IT/engineering staff, troopers, and public‑school employees. Representative Miller moved the first proposal (a $1.55‑per‑hour approach and related allocations); Senator Cook and others later proposed substitute motions that emphasized merit (one substitute provided up to 4% merit increases). Representative Furness later offered a different substitute that combined a $1.55 floor with a 3% minimum above a salary threshold. Senator Wintrow presented the governor’s recommendation, a 5% merit‑based increase, as a separate motion.

Throughout the debate members pressed on distribution philosophy, lower‑pay compression, and technical effects on downstream budgets. Senator Cook and others argued for merit‑based increases to preserve supervisory ability to reward high performers. Representative Handy and other members argued a flat increase addresses inflation uniformly and ensures lower‑paid employees receive meaningful increases. Senator Ward Engelking and others highlighted how CEC calculations affect school districts, which receive allocations on different bases than state agencies.

Members also discussed specific funding line items the motions would affect, including community‑college funding (community colleges received a 5% placeholder in the calculations), IT and engineering increases (4.5% in some motions), salary schedule adjustments at the minimum of pay grades (to maintain parity with military compensation), and an 8% trooper supplement that several members said was shown on the illustrative worksheet but was not included in the text of some motions.

Committee members repeatedly cautioned against making unprogrammed changes on the fly, citing calculation errors on prior attempts. After multiple roll calls and procedural questions about joint‑committee voting rules, the committee recorded votes on several proposals; none achieved the required majorities and the motions failed. The chair said the items were too complex to resolve “on the flight” and the committee will return to CEC at a future date.

Members asked staff to preserve the detailed motion language and underlying LSO calculations; staff said language associated with each motion is prepared in the committee packet and will be used when members vote again.

The debate featured frequent reference to actuarial and reserve issues already discussed during the earlier health insurance item; Representative Furness specifically cited Milliman projection variability in arguing for a lower adopted number. No final appropriation for CEC passed during the Jan. 31 session and staff told agencies whose hearings were delayed that they would be rescheduled.