Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the LD2180 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel keeps employee suggestion system under review and advances civil‑service appeals bill as amended
Summary
The committee voted 'ought to pass as amended' on LD2180 after removing the bill's repeal of the employee suggestion system and instructing DAFS to return with recommendations to improve the program. The Bureau of Human Resources told the committee the suggestion program produced 173 submissions since 2009 but yielded few awards and is administratively burdensome.
The State and Local Government Committee voted Feb. 25 to advance LD2180, a department bill that updates procedures for the State Civil Service Appeals Board and makes targeted changes to the rules governing representation before the board, but the committee removed the bill’s proposed repeal of the employee suggestion system and asked staff to return with proposals to improve it.
Kristen, committee staff, summarized LD2180 as making several changes: adding exemptions to the law on the unauthorized practice of law so a non‑attorney may represent the state before the State Civil Service Appeals Board in certain appeals; revising the procedure for submitting grievances or disputes to the appeals board (Title 5, sections cited in the packet); and repealing Title 5, chapter 56A, which governs the employee suggestion system.
Margaret Eddy, legislative policy analyst for the Bureau of Human Resources, told the committee the program has been administratively heavy and has not generated many awards. She corrected an earlier figure and said the office recorded 173 suggestions since 2009; four made it through the vetting process and one received a cash award. She described program constraints: suggestions must be outside an employee’s job duties, cannot change law or affect collective bargaining, and cost savings must be demonstrated after implementation. Eddy described one case where a departmental change had a $32,000 department‑level savings but did not qualify as a state saving because risk management assumed $31,000 of costs.
Members suggested instead of outright repeal to remove Part C for now and ask DAFS to return with recommendations to make the program more feasible and preserve employee input. The committee voted 'ought to pass as amended' (removing the repeal of the suggestion system and incorporating technical clarifications); the motion carried with the members present. The committee also permitted DAFS to work with committee staff to incorporate technical language proposed by the department before final action.
The committee’s action advances changes to civil service appeals procedures while preserving the opportunity to reform — rather than eliminate — the employee suggestion system.
