Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oig Salary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MMB recommends job-evaluation approach as council readies initial OIG salary
Summary
Minnesota Management & Budget told the Compensation Council it favors a Hay job‑evaluation approach over a commissioner-tier or pure market method for setting the new Office of Inspector General’s initial salary and offered comparator data; the council scheduled a July vote to set the salary so hiring can proceed.
Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB) told the Minnesota Compensation Council on Jan. 15 that it recommends using a Hay job‑evaluation approach to set the initial salary for the new Office of Inspector General (OIG), and that the department can supply additional comparator data for the council’s July meeting.
Dorey Leland, director for workforce development at MMB, said statute sets specific minimum qualifications for the OIG and that MMB examined three approaches: aligning the post with existing executive-branch commissioner tiers (cited by staff as the ~189,026 band), using Hay job‑evaluation points, or a purely market-based comparison. “MFA’s recommended approach is number 2,” Leland said, summarizing MMB’s view that Hay evaluation most closely reflects the job’s complexity and qualifications.
The recommendation is advisory to the council. Chair Pat McFarland said the council intends to take additional testimony in July and to set the initial salary in time for hiring; Leland said whatever salary the council sets will be the pay offered to the person who starts in the role. Council members pressed MMB about how the salary recommendation would interact with the governor’s hiring process, confirmation steps, and whether the OIG’s authority could expand (an enforcement component in statute that may begin in 2028 would raise the office’s scope and, potentially, pay).
MMB told members it can supply comparator state data, pay‑point analyses and the Hay evaluation outputs if the council requests them. The council directed staff to collect additional market and job‑evaluation data and scheduled follow-up meetings on July 16 and Aug. 20 to complete the work.
The council did not set a final OIG salary at the Jan. 15 meeting; members agreed to seek more data, hear further testimony in July and aim for a final recommendation in August so the hiring committee can proceed.
The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, open‑meeting rules and ex parte restrictions were also reviewed earlier in the session by Legislative Coordinating Commission staff to remind members that materials and deliberations are public and that members should avoid off‑record salary discussions with prospective appointees or incumbents.
