Laserfiche WebLink
maintenance study in section A, he states "DOP /HR acted responsibly. <br />and correctly in conducting a study based on multiple years of <br />available data for these two series." He provides no factual basis <br />for this finding. That is, no data is provided as part of the <br />record. (Appendix A, p. 3, 13.) <br />(2) In addressing the issue of bias, the Director failed to <br />find any bias in the documents, or at least not in sufficient <br />amounts to make a difference. To reach this conclusion, the <br />Director had to ignore numerous documents submitted by the <br />Employees indicating bias and an intent to lower salary before the <br />data was collected. However, each bias was dismissed by the <br />Director as inconsequential. Further, the Director ignored that <br />the same persons who demonstrated bias played a significant role in <br />orchestrating the collection and exclusion of data, data analysis, <br />determining job matches, resulting in the driving of preconceived <br />conclusions right up to implementation. <br />(3) In addressing the issue of study flaws in section C, the <br />Director states that "None of the surveys supplied by the <br />appellants [Employees] met the state's compensation guidelines and <br />could not be used for salary purposes," without providing a basis <br />for this finding nor any explanation as to why the surveys were <br />considered inadequate. (Appendix A, p. 4, 13.) Compare, <br />Department's position on this issue, Appendix A, pp. 3 -4. <br />11 <br />