Compensation Council adopts data-practices policies, schedules extra meetings to prepare salary recommendations

The Compensation Council opened its first session of the term, adopted two data-practices policies and set a schedule of longer meetings to prepare salary recommendations for constitutional officers, judges and agency heads, staff said.

Staff reminded members that the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act requires materials and communications about the council's work to be treated as public. "Information handled by this committee is public information," said Michelle, director of the Legislative Coordinating Commission, during the meeting overview. Staff also reviewed open-meeting requirements for remote participation and roll-call voting when members participate by video.

The council heard a staff presentation on its statutory responsibilities and timing. "You are required to do your work by April 1st," Stephanie James, a nonpartisan staff member who advises the council, told members, describing the difference between the council's authority to set agency head salaries and its duty to recommend judicial pay to the legislature. Members were told that some salary changes (for agency heads and some constitutional officers) take effect July 1 if set by the council, while judicial salaries are recommendations that require legislative action.

On a combined motion, the council adopted two policies: a public-data policy (explaining what council records are public and how to request them) and a member-data policy (how the council handles personal member information and required accounting details). A staff member moved to adopt both policies and members signaled assent; the motion carried (motion text and motion time recorded in the agenda materials).

Members then reviewed extensive spreadsheets prepared by staff comparing current pay, historical recommendations and cross-jurisdiction and private-sector comparators for roughly 36 agency-head roles and other positions under the council's purview. Staff offered to collect additional comparison data upon request and designated Nick, a research analyst, as a single point of contact for follow-up data submissions so materials can be posted with meeting packets.

Council members raised concerns about the abbreviated timetable and the breadth of work. "I think it creates a lot of uncertainty if this Council doesn't set salaries for some of those new positions," said Charles Anderson, voicing a common concern about newly created roles and the need to avoid leaving salaries undefined. Members asked staff to prioritize information that will help the council assess competitiveness, recruitment difficulties and the state's ability to pay.

To allow time for presentations and deliberation, staff proposed — and the council agreed in principle to — a series of longer meetings on the 14th and 21st with a shorter review session on the 26th (members discussed holding an overflow meeting if needed). Staff said they would invite Minnesota Management & Budget to present on agency turnover and hard-to-fill positions, judicial-system representatives on judicial vacancies and candidate pools, and a representative from the governor's office to explain judicial appointment processes.

Staff committed to draft a report reflecting council determinations for member review and to help the council meet the April 1 statutory deadline for submitting salary recommendations. The council also requested that staff list sources for the comparative data in each spreadsheet and make future requests and submissions go through the designated staff contact.

The meeting closed after other procedural items and reminders about restrictions on communications with constitutional officers and judges while the council's recommendations remain pending. The council did not finalize salary recommendations at this meeting; members agreed to reconvene for the scheduled presentations and deliberations.