FISCAL NOTE
Date Requested: January 29, 2020
Time Requested: 11:42 AM |
| Agency: |
Personnel, WV Division of |
|---|
| CBD Number: |
Version: |
Bill Number: |
Resolution Number: |
| 2713 |
Introduced |
HB4598 |
|
|---|
| CBD Subject: |
State Personnel |
|---|
|
FUND(S):
General Fund, Special Fund
Sources of Revenue:
Special Fund
Legislation creates:
Decreases Existing Revenue, Creates New Expense, Increases Existing Expenses, Creates New Program
Fiscal Note Summary
Effect this measure will have on costs and revenues of state government.
The Division of Personnel is unable to measure the costs associated with this bill for the following reasons:
1) The language is unclear in many areas so it is difficult to know to which type of employees the legislation would apply.
2) The costs would depend upon the number of layoffs that occur. As written, the costs of handling recall alone would be prohibitive.
3) The calculations would be greatly impacted by which provisions are applied retroactively, applied to classified exempt employees, applied to temporary positions, etc. The proposed language lacks specificity.
4) There would likely be significant costs associated with system modifications to implement the legislation as well as costs pertaining to training for staff tasked with implementation and administration.
Fiscal Note Detail
| Effect of Proposal |
Fiscal Year |
2020
Increase/Decrease
(use"-") |
2021
Increase/Decrease
(use"-") |
Fiscal Year
(Upon Full
Implementation) |
| 1. Estmated Total Cost |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Personal Services |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Current Expenses |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Repairs and Alterations |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Assets |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Other |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| 2. Estimated Total Revenues |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Explanation of above estimates (including long-range effect):
The Division of Personnel is unable to measure the costs associated with this bill for the following reasons:
1) The language is unclear in many areas so it is difficult to know to which type of employees the legislation would apply.
2) The costs would depend upon the number of layoffs that occur. As written, the costs of handling recall alone would be prohibitive.
3) The calculations would be greatly impacted by which provisions are applied retroactively, applied to classified exempt employees, applied to temporary positions, etc. The proposed language lacks specificity.
4) There would likely be significant costs associated with system modifications to implement the legislation as well as costs pertaining to training for staff tasked with implementation and administration.
Memorandum
Please identify any areas of vagueness, technical defects, reasons a bill would not have a fiscal impact, and/or any special issues not captured elsewhere on this form.
Areas of vagueness and concern include:
1) Language such as "beyond the control of the employee", "compelling reasons", and "from time to time" is very vague.
2) To which type of employees would the legislation apply (e.g., classified, exempt, temporary, etc.)?
3) Which provisions are to be applied retroactively and to what extent?
4) It is unclear what "voluntary termination" means.
5) It is unclear what "classification category of employment" means.
6) It is unclear what "grades of classification" means.
7) It is unclear what "lateral position" and "lateral area" mean.
8) It is unclear what "given priority" means pertaining to additional duty assignments. The alternative method language seems burdensome and requires voting by employees.
9) The language seems to indicate that an employee may only work 15 minutes and receive a full day of tenure.
10) The bill appears to permit strikes and work stoppages which are currently unlawful.
11) The bill does not address temporary classification upgrades.
12) Using seniority as the sole basis for employment decisions is contrary to merit system principles pertaining to competitive selection as well as public interest as the bill prohibits assignment of work to the most suitable candidate or employee. More specifically, the bill contradicts existing language pertaining to consideration of tenure found in W. Va. Code § 29-6-10(4).
13) The requirement to repost a position every 30 days would be administratively burdensome and increase expenses.
14) The Division of Personnel Board referenced in the bill should be “State Personnel Board” consistent with the statute.
15) Implementation of the legislation would require revision of other language found in the article and would require significant revision to most existing Division of Personnel legislative rules.
Person submitting Fiscal Note: Joe Thomas
Email Address: joe.f.thomas@wv.gov