Gov. John Hickenlooper wants to attempt what would be the most sweeping changes in 40 years to the state’s personnel system, which now is governed by regulations that rigidly dictate how state employees are hired and fired.
Fundamental changes would take a constitutional amendment, a heavy lift politically, while others could come in the form of legislation or revisions to state rules — still likely to be controversial.
Any change is uncertain; previous efforts to reform the system in recent years have failed.
But Hickenlooper said the goal is to make it easier to attract and retain talented state employees.
“At this point, everything is in discussion,” he said. “But our effort is to make sure that we take advantage of the experience and talent of our workforce, but at the same time, we create the flexibility within agencies that we can manage the enterprise — whatever it is — for maximum success.”
The level of chatter about the potential changes is high among state employees, who haven’t received a raise in three years and who wouldn’t get a raise next year under Hickenlooper’s proposed budget.
“We take these proposals extremely seriously,” said Scott Wasserman, executive director of Colorado WINS, a union with several thousand dues-paying state workers who, however, don’t have collective-bargaining rights. “Our goal is to work in partnership with the governor to improve state services, while also maintaining” the current system’s integrity.
Hickenlooper’s administration hasn’t outlined specific proposals. It is looking at issues ranging from existing limitations on the number of candidates that can be considered for a job to “bumping rights” that guarantee senior employees who get laid off can push less-senior workers out of their positions.
The state’s personnel system was born in the Progressive Era, first added to the constitution in 1918 and intended to create a merit-based system for hiring employees, free of cronyism and political patronage. The system, last revised by voters in 1970, also includes various laws and personnel rules that further interpret constitutional provisions or expand upon them.
30,000 workers covered
The rules apply to about 30,000 “classified” state workers, including some at universities who are not faculty or administrators. Employees of the judicial and legislative branches are not covered.
The “Rule of Three,” for example, is in the constitution and requires that any classified employee be hired only after it is determined they are “one of the three persons ranking highest” for the job.
Kathy Nesbitt, director of the Department of Personnel and Administration, said the way the rule works under the current system, applicant screening is separated from hiring. Often, an agency has a panel, made up of people from inside or outside the agency who review job applications.
The panel selects three applicants from among the pool, and sends them on to the manager who will do the hiring. Nesbitt said that in one recent hiring situation, she saw how only interviewing three candidates was limiting.
“When I interviewed them, two individuals, while they may have minimally met the qualifications, the position would have far exceeded their capabilities,” she said. “So, I was left with just one person.
“I’m thinking that a pool should at least be 10 or 11 applicants.”
If an agency doesn’t like any of the three final candidates, it has to wait six months to repost the job, Nesbitt said.
The constitution also requires that classified employees be Colorado residents, so hiring qualified workers outside the state requires a waiver from the State Personnel Board.
“Let’s say you’re looking for maybe a person that specializes in water rights or a person that has certain qualifications in mining,” Nesbitt said. “Only looking in Colorado really limits the pool of applicants for a particular position.”
Resident rule apt to stay
Still, Nesbitt said the administration was unlikely to pursue major changes to the residency requirement because of the number of unemployed Coloradans. Instead, she said, a change might be targeted only toward management and principal positions.
Most controversial might be the administration’s effort to change “bumping rights” that now allow senior employees to move into positions occupied by newer employees in the event of layoffs.
“Basically, this rule bumps out a person who is otherwise performing satisfactorily, or in an even worse-case scenario, someone who is a stellar employee,” she said.
The administration wants to limit bumping to only vacant positions for which a laid-off employee meets minimum qualifications.
Nesbitt said the last update in 1970 was too long ago.
“If you think about what the workforce looked like 40 years ago, you can imagine — just in technology alone — going from now we have iPhones and iPods and before we had rotary phones,” Nesbitt said. “I think 40 years for a policy review is overdue.”
Tim Hoover: 303-954-1626 or thoover@denverpost.com
