Like his predecessors in the governor’s office, John Hickenlooper has quickly discovered that the state personnel system is an impediment to efficiency, job recruitment and high performance.
Ah, but what to do? Key rules are embedded in the state constitution and voters have proved notoriously reluctant to alter them. The last time Coloradans were offered a chance to revise the personnel system, in 2004, they rejected the idea by a crushing 60 percent.
Hopeless? Not unless you think a majority of voters are immune to evidence and good arguments — which is surely not the case. So we’re pleased to hear the Hickenlooper administration is interested in spearheading another effort to bring personnel rules into the 21st century.
It won’t be easy this time, either. Indeed, officials will have to pick their targets carefully so as to minimize the potential backlash from state workers. But the potential payoff, in our view, justifies the effort.
Colorado is one of a relatively few states in which personnel-system details are dictated by the constitution — and yet much has changed since 1918 when these Progressive Era reforms were enacted.
For one thing, the state had only about 1,000 employees back then. Now it has 30,000 covered by the personnel rules (and thousands of others, such as university faculty and state court employees, who are exempt). What must have seemed logical, straightforward and very modern at the time has long since become outdated, inflexible and unwieldy.
Take the Rule of Three, which requires that “any position under the personnel system” be filled from among “one of the three persons ranking highest on the eligible list … as determined from competitive tests of competence.” But relevant competitive tests simply aren’t available for some positions. Meanwhile, supervisors determined to find the best fit for a job generally prefer to interview more than three candidates — and sometimes many more.
If they work for the state, unfortunately, they’ll have to repost the job — a lengthy process — just to consider an additional three applicants.
Among other things, the state constitution also limits the hiring of temporary employees to six months — the unintended consequence of which is that contracts requiring more than six months must be outsourced.
Ominously, several of the administration’s issues with the personnel system were addressed by the failed 2004 measure, so success this time clearly will be an uphill struggle.
However, one of the administration’s targets isn’t in the state constitution. It’s the statute and rules creating layoff “bumping rights” that allow senior employees to move into positions occupied by newer hires. Maybe that’s a good place to start the reform crusade.
Sooner or later, though, the administration must ask voters for help in modernizing the personnel system — and then work harder than ever to make them see what’s at stake.
