My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Case No. 98CV5863 Plaintiffs' Opening Breif November 1998
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Case No. 98CV5863 Plaintiffs' Opening Breif November 1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2012 8:48:22 AM
Creation date
7/16/2012 2:34:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Case No. 98CV5863 Plaintiffs' Opening Breif November 1998
State
CO
Date
11/18/1998
Author
Illian, Janis
Title
Case No. 98CV5863 Plaintiffs' Opening Breif November 1998
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
responding at all; (2) responding, but not using the survey form; (3) returning the survey form <br />but made modifications to the form or (4) not completing the form in its entirety. <br />DOP's first survey consisted of those attending the "1996 Central States Compensation <br />Association Conference" and handing out a survey form to the 28 states in attendance. DOP <br />arbitrarily chose to reduce the sample size of its nationwide survey by leaving out the 22 states <br />not at this conference. DOP's second survey consisted of surveying the 35 states which either <br />were not surveyed the first time or did not respond to the initial handout. <br />No information was ever provided by DOP identifying who received the survey. A mailing list <br />was not provided in the Record, and there was no record that DOP contacted the states that <br />responded to the survey to ensure the DOP was using the information correctly or clearly <br />understood what was meant. It is critical to note that there is nothing to show whether the person <br />who responded to the survey had the authority and qualifications to complete the survey. Also, <br />the survey did not list any professional requirements for the person filing out the form, so it is <br />very conceivable that the person filling out the form did not possess the skill and knowledge that <br />makes the survey valid and upon which the DOP relies to avoid the appearance of capricious <br />conduct. <br />Review of the responses from 9 of the responding states indicates the problems with the survey <br />and the arbitrary way in which the data were selectively used. Following are a few examples of <br />the lack or misuse of survey data. <br />The State of Alabama did not fill out DOP's survey form but rather sent back a printout for the <br />DOP to match job descriptions. The data provided by Alabama do not include information <br />relating to the number of positions being reported in the class, as is required by DOP, and <br />according to DOP procedures should not have been used. Alabama did not provide any data <br />regarding the PSRS class. Questionable job matches with Alabama data result in higher level <br />jobs matched with lower level job classifications, greatly increasing the average pay rate for <br />engineers in relationship to PSRS and Environmental Scientists. [Record Vol. XV, p. 6914 -29] <br />The State of Arizona used DOP's survey form, but had to make modifications to the form and <br />did not complete. The data provided by Arizona did not include capsule descriptions for the <br />different levels of the same work, as is required by DOP and, according to DOP procedures, <br />these data should not have been used. Arizona provided data for only six job descriptions out of <br />the 12 requested for the PSRS classes. Further, DOP capriciously changed data provided by the <br />State of Arizona. DOP switched job classes for the salary information provided for the Water <br />Resource Specialists I and II, Water Resource Supervisor and Manager I to match its own <br />calculations for Physical Scientists instead of leaving this data in the Environmental Scientist <br />class as reported by the State of Arizona. [Record Vol. XV, p. 6932 and Record Vol. XV, p. <br />7260] There is no record as to the reason for such a switch. This switch lowered the average <br />salary for the PSRS class in relationship to the calculation using the data as provided by Arizona, <br />and is contrary to the statement in DOP's Position Statement that "...We rely on each other to <br />make accurate matches and report existing salary ranges. The expectation is that professional <br />human resource classifiers in the other states are in a much better position to determine the most <br />accurate match in comparison to our capsule description." [Record Vol. XV, p. 6852] In this <br />Page 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.