|
The Defendant uses only this in -house survey data for its justification in adjusting the pay ranges
<br />of 425 individuals within 11 different agencies. Plaintiffs provided the Defendant with several
<br />additional readily available local, front -range and state wide salary studies. The Defendant chose
<br />not to use this information in its analysis and the Plaintiffs believe this is arbitrary and capricious
<br />in view of the DOP procedural requirements as noted in the FLA audit, "The state has a priority
<br />process of selecting surveys for use in complying with Part I, A.(b). The priorities are that the
<br />front range and state surveys receive the highest priority, as stated in Procedures for Cash
<br />Survey, Part II, B.2. Selection of Occupational group Labor Market: "In selecting the group
<br />labor markets, the following priorities will be controlling: (1) front range; (2) statewide; (3)
<br />multi -state region; and (4) national. If a sufficient survey sample is achieved using priority (1),
<br />salary data from priorities (2) through (4) will be excluded from an occupational group sample.
<br />If a sufficient sample is not achieved using priority (1), then higher numbered priorities will be
<br />added, one at a time, until a sufficient group sample is available for analysis. [FLA, pp.3 -4,
<br />Record Vol. XV, pp. 7186 -87] In a letter dated September 19, 1997, to Jim Lochhead, Executive
<br />Director of Department of Natural Resources, [Exhibit B to Plaintiffs' Position Statement,
<br />Record Vol. XIV, pp. 5896 -6392] Andre Pettigrew states that data from Watson Wyatt and
<br />Mountain States Employers Council were complete enough to use. However, no data were
<br />shown or submitted to the FLA from the Watson Wyatt survey (Harr. Rep, p. 6, Record Vol. XV,
<br />p. 6863). DOP could not justify the reason for excluding these surveys and the Plaintiffs believe
<br />the decision to do so was arbitrary. Plaintiffs also provided the Defendant with a survey, entitled
<br />"Engineering Water Resource Management Professional & Administrative Positions Salary
<br />Survey Results," [Exhibit D to Plaintiffs' Position Statements, Record Vol. XIV, pp. 5896- 6392],
<br />sponsored by the Colorado River Water Conservation District, and performed by the Owens
<br />Group, which contained data on 14 job positions similar to Plaintiffs', based on local private and
<br />public sector employees. The Defendant chose to capriciously ignore this local data because it is
<br />contradictory to its assumptions made in the initial findings. The Plaintiffs also provided to the
<br />DOP the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics data provides salary data relating
<br />to the median wage of 5,450 civil engineers employed in Colorado ($21.81) and salary data
<br />relating to the median wage of 5,760 chemists and geologists employed in Colorado ($21.72).
<br />[Exhibit C to Plaintiffs' Position Statements, Record Vol. XIV, pp. 5896 -6392] The Department
<br />of Labor data was used to establish a relationship between the salaries of the engineer classes and
<br />the EPS and PSRS classes in exactly the same way that the Defendant did with the "other states
<br />survey," only with local data. [Record Vol. XV, p. 5896 -6392]
<br />According to the FLA audit, DOP's inconsistencies in survey source selection, the method used
<br />to reference statistics and the use of limited local and regional data to base their conclusions
<br />raises questions about the validity of DOP's results. [FLA, pp. 20 -21, Record Vol. XV, pp.
<br />7203 -04] The audit also points out that the DOP relies on their Survey Procedures as a basis for
<br />ignoring a survey source, but when "...it appears eminent to use these data, they ignore the
<br />survey procedures." [FLA, p. 18, Record Vol. XV, p. 7201]
<br />DOP's "Other States' Survey" was vague and poorly designed, making it not possible for even
<br />professional compensation managers to complete the form. Each and every state from which the
<br />DOP solicited data could not comply in the manner DOP originally requested by: (1) not
<br />Page 3
<br />
|