Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cec Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Joint committee deadlocks on Change‑in‑Employee‑Compensation proposals; multiple CEC motions fail
Summary
Committee debated four CEC options — flat $1.55/hour floor, governor’s 5% merit, 4% merit, and a mixed dollar/merit approach — but failed to approve any of the motions on Jan. 31 after tied and split roll calls and procedural disputes over joint voting rules.
Boise — The Joint Finance‑Appropriations Committee considered four alternative statewide Change‑in‑Employee‑Compensation (CEC) proposals on Jan. 31 but failed to pass any of them after extended debate and procedural disagreement over joint voting rules.
Analysts presented four CEC motions and the methodology used to calculate statewide costs and fund splits. The options included: a flat‑dollar approach that would allocate $1.55 per hour per FTE with flexibility for agencies; a hybrid that guaranteed $1.55 per hour up to a pay threshold and a minimum 3% for higher earners; a merit‑based up to 4% by merit approach; and the governor’s recommended 5% merit‑based increase. Motion makers and supporters debated the tradeoffs between a flat dollar approach and merit‑based increases, the effect on lower‑paid workers, and the capacity of agencies to administer merit distributions.
Representative Miller initially moved the dollar‑floor motion (the $1.55 per hour approach with additional targeted adjustments); Representative Cook and Senator Cook (separate speakers) later proposed alternative texts and substitutions. Senator Cook (motion sponsor) and others argued for merit‑based increases to reward higher performance; Senator Cook repeatedly invoked merit principles and cited checks on favoritism, including consolidated HR oversight. Representative Furness advanced a substitute that combined a $1.55 floor with a guaranteed minimum 3% for all employees and said it included trooper and other targeted adjustments.
Committee votes on the CEC motions repeatedly failed to produce a joint majority. Committee members also debated which vote‑counting rule should apply: staff had circulated a letter indicating a joint voting procedure that requires a majority of the quorum present in each chamber (interpreted by staff as six votes from each body for the motions under the current attendance), while some members argued the applicable standard should be a majority of members present. The chair ruled to follow the letter and the precedent used in prior years; members requested leadership guidance for future votes.
After multiple roll calls and opportunities to change votes, the committee recorded that motion(s) 1, 2, 3 and 4 (as labeled in the packet) failed and the item was continued to a future meeting. Committee staff apologized to scheduled agencies that were awaiting hearings and said the complex motions require additional calculation and staff time before reconsideration.
No CEC motion was adopted on Jan. 31; staff and members said they will return with revised motions and clarified procedural guidance at a later date.
