State claims secrecy for state salary contract, hiding big policy change from legislators, public
The Dunleavy administration continues to claim that drafts of the $880,000 state salary study are secret, which contradicts a state law that says draft reports are public documents.
But a more egregious action took place last week when the Dunleavy administration refused to tell legislators and the public what data it asked the salary study contractor to provide last summer.
The Department of Administration claimed at a House State Affairs Committee meeting that top officials didn’t know off the top of their heads why the state redacted a line describing exactly what the contractor had been asked to do under an $80,000 contract amendment.
The secrecy claim is not justified.
What it shows is that the Dunleavy administration is trying to hide something important from legislators and the public. It’s a big policy change to set a lower target for state wages. This will do nothing to make state jobs more competitive. It will make them less competitive.
Here is the Segal contract amendment with the redacted section.
“This amendment provides additional funding for additional analysis and reporting for a new version of the salary study report with ——————————————————————————.”
I have seen an unredacted version of the amendment and it shows an attempt by the Dunleavy administration to substantially lower the target pay rate for state employees without revealing this to the public.
Here is the original text:
“This amendment provides additional funding for additional analysis and reporting for a new version of the salary study report with one market 50th percentile and another market definition of 65th percentile for life, health, and safety jobs.”
It may be that this means the state wants analysis at the 50th percentile for all state jobs except for life, health and safety jobs, which would be at the 65th percentile.
In any case, this approach could substantially lower the target pay rate for some state employees.
Existing state policy, according to the Department of Administration, is to aim for the 65th percentile for all jobs:
“The state's policy is to target overall market competitiveness at the 65th percentile, the median and point at which 35% of employers pay higher salaries and 65% pay lower salaries than the state,” the state says about pay ranges for workers.
Setting the target at 50 percent means that 50 percent of employers pay more and 50 percent pay less. This would mean that the state could push for lower salaries or lower increases because of the lower target.
The choice of the percentile is a point of contention. To change it in secret is wrong.
For a period in 2022-2023, the state adopted a 50 percent target without really telling anyone.
“The state's policy is to target overall market competitiveness at the 50th percentile (the median and point at which 50% of employers pay higher salaries and 50% pay lower salaries than the state,) the Department of Administration said in April 2023.
By October 2023, however, the state was back to saying that the 65th percentile was state policy. After employees discovered the change in policy, there was a lot of pushback.
Now the state has quietly shifted back to 50 percent for some state employees, while concealing that information from the Legislature and the public.
The RFP for the state contract said nothing about using a 50 percent target.
“With regards to assessing the competitiveness of State of Alaska wages in comparison to market, the state’s practice is to be competitive with the market; therefore, the state typically measures its competitiveness against the 65th percentile (i.e., the data point where 35% pay above and 65% pay below,” the RFP said.
The $80,000 amendment, signed August 26 last year, said that it would pay for 100 hours of work, which is $800 an hour. On August 7, Segal had said the final report would be ready no later than October 31, 2024.
The salary study was supposed to have been wrapped up by June 30, allowing enough time to become part of the budget discussion this year.
At the hearing last week, Heidi Drygas of the Alaskas State Employees Association, said she did not know what information was redacted from the $80,000 amendment, why it had been redacted or whether there is any legal justification for the redaction.
She also asked why 100 hours of staff work on the project was not completed months ago as the contractor said. “I would argue the public has a right to know why the department is expending funds for that additional information,” she said.
“How on earth is it taking that long to get that information?” Good question.
Your contributions help support independent analysis and political commentary by Alaska reporter and author Dermot Cole. Thank you for reading and for your support. Either click here to use PayPal or send checks to: Dermot Cole, Box 10673, Fairbanks, AK 99710-0673.