County Government Pay Classification Studies in West Virginia
Michael John Dougherty, Extension Specialist and Associate Professor, West Virginia University Extension Service
2104 Agricultural Sciences Building, P.O. Box 6108, Morgantown, WV 26506-6108
Phone: 304-293-6131 Ext. 4215, Fax: 304-293-6954. Email:
County governments in West Virginia are often among the largest employers in their communities. However, many of them are disorganized and lacking in formal or modern administrative structures. For instance, less than half of the counties in the Mountain State have professional administrators, managers, or assistants. Thus in most cases, elected officials[1] are left to sort operational matters out on their own. Further complicating matters is the explicit separation of functions and constitutional requirements which often can lead to intramural squabbling among county officials. One area where this situation is most pronounced is with respect to county employees.
County governments were envisioned to have limited functions when founded but increasingly are expected to provide residents with more services. This expansion of responsibilities has resulted in the additional persons working in the courthouse – either for one of the constitutional offices or directly for the County Commission. Whenever a new activity is undertaken or demands increase for an existing activity, new employees typically have to be added. This situation is exacerbated where elected officials in constitutional offices can hire and fire personnel at will and pay them whatever they wish.
The West Virginia University Extension Service has recognized the need to help counties with personnel matters. It has worked with four counties on five separate projects in the Mountain State over the past seven years through the “Local Government Technical Assistance” program. This has involved the creation of job descriptions and pay classification systems for county government employees. Personnel policies and benefits packages have also been examined as part of some of these studies.
This paper will examine the involvement of the WVU Extension Service in doing county pay classification studies, the process and instruments used in doing these studies, the results and impacts of the pay classification studies and related work done, and the educational aspects of these efforts, including the use of interns from the WVU Division of Public Administration. The end result is to identify and delineate the work that that Extension in West Virginia can and has done to help counties upgrade their personnel systems.
Project Descriptions
The WVU Extension Service became involved in performing county pay classification studies at the request of the then-WVU Department of Public Administration[2] in late 1996. The department received a request from a Hancock County Commissioner for assistance in formalizing its employee pay system. After making inquiries regarding the project, the public administration faculty member contacted Extension for assistance in the endeavor.
An initial meeting with the County Commission involved the public administration faculty member, a prospective student to work on the project, and myself. After that meeting, it was decided that I would oversee the project in my capacity as an Extension Specialist and work directly with the County Commission. I would also be in charge of the Masters of Public Administration (MPA) student intern(s) on the project. Meanwhile, the Department of Public Administration would provide administrative support to the effort.
First and foremost, this arrangement was made because of my prior experience working on pay classification studies. I also had previously worked directly with local governments. Both of these were a direct result of positions I had held in Extension, both in West Virginia and in Virginia prior to that. Related to this, the scope of the project fit more directly with the outreach mission of Extension, particularly given the high degree of direct faculty direct involvement required.
This began the efforts of the WVU Extension Service in conducting pay classification studies. Over the last seven years, five such studies have been done in Hancock County (twice), Jackson County, Fayette County, and Taylor County. These projects have generally taken anywhere between six months and two years to complete, with most lasting one year or less.
The initial Hancock County project took place throughout all of 1997. The initial development of job descriptions and classifications took place in the first half of the year. Then the job descriptions and grades were refined and a pay system developed during the second half of the year. A different MPA student worked on each half of the project to fulfill their internship requirement. A total of 54 persons in 35 different positions had their jobs reviewed and rated as part of the project. Also, the project included a cursory review of the county’s personnel manual.
Next, Jackson County requested a project because it had heard of the merits of the study from a Hancock County Commissioner. There were some differences from the previous project though. The most important of these was that the administrative home for the project moved from the WVU Department of Public Administration to the WVU Extension Service.[3] All subsequent projects have been managed directly within Extension. Second, this project and all that followed it have had slightly more defined roles for the intern and faculty member. Each project now would have only one MPA intern. This individual would work throughout the entire project with their assignment concentrated on developing job descriptions, making initial pay grade determinations, and conducting salary surveys. I would then refine the pay classification system to ensure its acceptance by the County Commission.
Work began in Jackson County during the fall of 1998 and concluded in mid-1999. Again, job descriptions were done, then jobs classified, and a pay system put together. However, unlike the first study, this time there were more opportunities for intermediate review of the recommendations. The student intern worked during the Fall 1998 Semester when the bulk of the project work took place. A total of 91 persons in 41 positions had their jobs reviewed and rated as part of the project.
Then Hancock County asked for its pay classification system to be re-reviewed in 2000. This came at the request of the County Commissioner who had originally called for the study as well as the new County Administrator. The process followed a compressed timetable because much of the information associated with this type of project – such as job descriptions and pay grades – already was in place from the 1997 study. Instead, what had been done three years earlier needed to be reviewed and, if necessary, revised and reworked. Thus, the study took only about half the time associated with a standard project – six months from mid-spring to mid-autumn. About 60 persons in 42 positions had their jobs reviewed and rated as part of this project. This was slightly larger than the first study in the county because additional positions were included – both existing positions not part of the first study and new positions created in the interim. Also, the project included a brief examination of the county’s newly revised leave policy.
Then in spring 2001, Fayette County sought information regarding a pay classification study. Again positive feedback from previous studies (especially the original work done in Hancock County) had led to the request. The study got underway that summer and was basically ready with job descriptions, grades, and pay system proposals for presentation by spring 2002. The post-graduate intern (a recent MPA student seeking experience) worked on the project during this period. However, delays in providing reviews and recommendations for final action as well as requests for additional pay system scenarios and other information by the County Commissioners and the County Administrator resulted in the project taking another year to finalize. As a result of some of these requests, the final report included three different proposed pay systems. All used the same position grades and starting point. The differences were in the percentage of increase between each of the steps within a pay grade. A total of 117 persons in 56 unique positions had their jobs reviewed and rated as part of the project. Also, the project included a brief review of the county’s sick leave policy.
Most recently, the Taylor County Commission sought to have a pay classification study done. For several years, an Extension Agent thought the county could benefit from such a project and knew that the Extension Service had the necessary expertise for such an undertaking. Finally, a meeting with the County Commission took place in May 2002 and as a result a two-part project initiated. The current pay for the positions would be examined immediately for major discrepancies and deficiencies and recommendations would be made for corrective action in the FY2003 budget. This work was done in a six-week span. Then job descriptions would be created and pay levels reexamined for any additional adjustments for the FY2004 budget.
There were some unique characteristics to the Taylor County project, however. The county elected to maintain a less structured salary process (basically annual percent raises to the newly-established base and as needed salary corrections), so a complete pay-classification system was not created. Meanwhile, the County Commissioners wanted to provide supervisors with additional information to help them run their offices. To that end, task lists for employees were developed from the Job Analysis Worksheets as well as the normal job descriptions. The work on this project was done from August 2003 to March 2004. The intern worked on the project during the Fall 2003 Semester while job descriptions were developed and a salary survey conducted. A total of 42 persons in 24 part-time or full-time positions had their jobs reviewed as part of the project. Also, task lists for 34 employees were generated using the information gathered as part of the process to create job descriptions. Also, the project involved a quick review of the county’s personnel manual, including the drafting of a proposed sexual harassment policy. (Currently, a small project with the county is working on upgrading and recodifying is personnel manual).
Also during this period, more informal pay and related information has been requested by and provided to three county governmental entities: Hancock County Schools, Roane County Commission, and Randolph County Extension Office. A briefing and proposal were done for the Hancock County Commission in early 1999 at the request of the School Superintendent, but he then decided not to move forward with the project. Information from the Jackson County study was forwarded the information to the Roane County Commission by an Extension Agent in early 2000. The data was used to adjust salaries throughout the courthouse beginning in FY2001. Finally, salary data on support staff positions, including examinations from the pay classification studies as well as other resources, was requested by and sent to an Extension Agent in Randolph County in Spring 2004.
Project Methodology
The basic methodology for the pay classification studies has been used in each effort. While there have been refinements during the past several years and while each project has its own peculiarities, there are many more similar characteristics than differences.
For example, each county had its own mix of covered positions in the courthouse. All studies have examined deputy clerks (or clerks) in various constitutional offices (County Clerk, Circuit Clerk, Assessor, and Sheriff’s Tax Office). Also all the studies have included the support staff in constitutional offices (the four offices listed above plus the Prosecuting Attorney) and other county departments and associated agencies as well as central courthouse employees under the auspicious of the County Commission such as custodians. Other positions studied varied by county. These included law enforcement officers, dispatchers (sometimes known as telecommunicators), and individuals in specialized and/or administrative positions.
Once the parameters for which positions to study had been established, the projects started the same way – asking employees to complete a “Job Analysis Worksheet.” The form used is based upon instruments used at other Land Grant Universities to conduct similar studies.[4] Depending on the paper size, the form would be either four pages (legal) or six pages (letter). Regardless of layout, the form consisted of 11 sections:
· Identification – Identifiers such as Name, Title, Department, Supervisor, Length of Service
· Job Duties – List of duties as well as their frequency and importance
· Job Qualifications – Characteristics such as Knowledge/Skills/Abilities, Physical Qualities, Education and Certifications, Experience and Special Requirements
· Supervision Received – Ranges from immediate supervision to general directions to policy guidelines
· Supervision Given – Involves both direct and indirect supervision
· Contacts – Includes Person (interdepartmental to interagency to intergovernmental), Purpose, Frequency
· Responsibilities – Type of decisions made, whether they are reviewed, and if so by whom
· Consequence of Error – Error and its effect
· Working Conditions – Percent of Time in office, outdoors, travel, shop, etc.
· Additional Comments – Pertinent information not covered elsewhere on the form
· Supervisor Review – Sign off and corrections to be made in red pen
The next step in the process is to interview the county employees to be covered by the study. This is done after the Job Analysis Worksheets have been completed by the employees, reviewed by their supervisors, and returned them to the WVU Extension Service. Once received, the project intern would read the forms and made any necessary comments on then with respect to contradictory or unclear information.
These annotated worksheets served as the outline for the 15-minute private and confidential interview held with each covered employee. In addition to providing additional insight on the positions and seeing the person at work in their job setting, these interviews served the useful purpose of allaying any fears of county employees with respect to the study.
Then, the intern would make the initial ranking or classification of the positions studied. The data from the Job Analysis Worksheets, augmented with any additional information that emerged from the interviews, provided the basis for this “grading” The positions were examined using an expanded set of the “Universal Job Factors.”[5]
· Education
· Experience
· Initiative and Ingenuity
· Physical Demand
· Mental Demand
· Equipment or Process
· Material or Product