Committee lays over bill targeting long-unfilled state jobs as potential cuts; unions urge caution

The State Government Finance and Policy Committee on March 6 laid over House File 1754, a bill introduced as a budget "conversation starter" that would mark state jobs vacant more than one year as potential cuts.

Committee Chair Paul Nash said the bill is intended to help address a projected structural deficit and that leaders must consider a range of options. "If we're having to look for cuts, that this is a place that is not, not a bad place to start," Chair Nash said when moving the bill.

Dori Leland, enterprise director for employee classification and compensation at the Minnesota Department of Human Resources, told the committee there are three common reasons positions remain open: vacancies in hard-to-fill roles serving particular client populations (for example therapists in corrections and state hospitals), highly specialized technical roles, and continuous postings for roles constantly being recruited. Leland said positions listed as vacant for long periods do not necessarily produce savings because agencies often pay contractors or overtime to cover the work.

"What's important to know in each of these 3 instances is that the fact that a position hasn't been filled doesn't mean there have been any actual savings," Dori Leland said, citing contractor costs and overtime and noting morale impacts.

Union witnesses urged caution. Ethan Vogel, legislative director with AFSCME Council 5, said the bill would risk forced overtime and worsened staffing cycles in 24/7 operations such as corrections and treatment facilities. Devin Bruce of the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees (MAPE) cited examples including Moose Lake, where staffing can be near 50%, and warned that pulling postings within 12 months would be unfeasible for many continuous-hire positions and for seasonal or student hires.

Representative Kraft and others questioned an exemption in the bill for law enforcement training positions and urged careful consideration of critical staffing categories such as cybersecurity, long-term care, disability services and special education. Representative Bonner cautioned against a broad "sledgehammer" approach and recommended more targeted measures.

The committee laid the bill over for possible inclusion. Committee members emphasized the item would return for further discussion, that the bill is intended as a starting point for budget negotiations, and said they would weigh practical staffing realities against fiscal needs.

Why it matters: Sponsors framed HF1754 as an option to help close a multibillion-dollar structural deficit; agency and union testimony highlighted potential service disruption, higher contractor and overtime costs, and recruitment difficulties if positions are eliminated solely on vacancy duration.