Written CEC Testimony January 9, 2020 

As a Boise resident, we need forward‐looking action, not dust‐bowl, ill‐conceived thinking. 

The real value of the federal minimum wage has declined 24% since 1968. Today's minimum leaves an 

adult with two children thousands of dollars below the federal poverty threshold. I find this completely 

unacceptable as this number includes  far  too many are educators.  Fact‐based data shows that raising 

the federal minimum wage stimulates consumer spending, greatly benefiting businesses’ bottom‐line; 

grows the economy. A modest increase tends to improve worker productivity, and reduce employee 

turnover and absenteeism.  Independent survey and analysis shows that more than 70% of Americans 

support raising the federal minimum wage. 

Today's low‐wage workers, including Idaho State Employees, earn less per hour than their counterparts 

did 50 years ago.  Furthermore, the economy has grown dramatically over the past 50 years, and 

workers are producing more for each hour of work, with productivity nearly doubling since the late 

60's.  If the minimum wage had been raised at the same pace as productivity growth since the late 

1960's, the minimum wage would be more than $20 per hour today. 

While Idaho’s economy continues to grow, the effects of the rising cost of living, especially in the 

Treasure Valley, appear to be ignored.  

Jordan Prassinos of Idaho Power recently briefed the Idaho Legislature’s Joint Finance‐Appropriations 

Committee regarding Idaho`s economic outlook. 

The increased cost of living is even more intense in densely populated Boise, where rents rose 30% between 2015 and 2018, according to a study conducted by Burlington Associates. Average home prices in Ada County continue to set records, which reached $359k last November.  The growth in home values is not just the story in the Treasure Valley. Prassinos also presented the home value growth for other parts of Idaho, with these areas all showing very similar growth patterns.  

As far as the possibility of a future recession, Prassinos said how much Idaho would be impacted if there were to be a recession depends on the type of hit the national economy takes. He said Idaho was not deeply impacted by the dot‐com bubble bursting in 2000 because the state didn’t have many tech jobs, but the Great Recession powered by the crash of the housing market impacted Idaho because of the state’s reliance on construction jobs to power the economy. 

Prassinos indicates that Idaho becomes especially susceptible to housing‐market related recessions if 8% or more of the labor force works in construction, but for now, the state has not crossed that threshold; possibly because of labor shortage.  We must diversify the Idaho economy, and we cannot let state employees fall behind in real income as wage increases stimulate economic growth. 

Employee's compensation must be increased, and if it is necessary, revenue enhancement makes sense to me.  Our teachers deserve annual pay increase of 3% every year!   

Any questions? 

Randy k Rannow 

 

Dear CEC Committee Members,

I'll keep this as short as possible. I was a state employee who worked for the Idaho Department of Labor from 2009 - 2018. I was a Project Manager working in iUS. This was essentially a software development Project Manager position.

The main reason I left this position was because of compensation. I left this job to work in the private sector after promises were broken. I previously accepted a position with Edward Jones and subsequently withdrew after promises were made and only partially fulfilled.

When it comes to IT jobs, the state will continue to lose good people to the private sector. I'd imagine it's the same for non-IT jobs as well. I am now making approximately 40% more in salary and my benefits are just as good as any state employee.

I urge you to seriously consider giving state employees raises consistent with comparable positions in the private sector. Failure to do so will result in a continued exodus from state employment and our services will suffer.

Please feel free to contact me if you would like additional information. Good luck.

Rigo Delgadillo

 

 

I would like to take this opportunity to give my input to the Employee Compensation 

Committee for this upcoming legislative session.  I have been a state employee for nearly 24 

years now and have been a supervisor for over 6 years.  I’ve seen in this last year some turnover 

with staff throughout the program and that there have been some positions not filled.  The 

reason for potential hires declining offers seems to be due to the rate of pay.  The disparity in 

the rate offered by the private sector and the state continues to be a deciding factor.  Some 

positions such as Occupational Therapists or Speech Language Pathologists have become very 

difficult to fill and often times remain open and our region is left to try to contract those 

services with private agencies.  Our program also resorts to using waitlists for services due to 

staff unavailability.  If it’s possible, I would like to encourage legislation to continue to increase 

pay rates to help retain current employees and to reduce the disparity in those occupations 

that often result in highly qualified applicants declining offers from the state and choosing 

private employment. 

Thank you for your consideration.       

Terry Folks ‐ Human Service Supervisor 

Infant Toddler Program ‐ Family and Community Services Idaho Department of Health and Welfare   

Members of the Joint Change in Employee Compensation Committee (1/9/2020 testimony):

I thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of Lewis-Clark State College, and I express our sincere gratitude for the important work that you do.

Well before my time as LC State’s president, and well before words such as “affordability” and “accessibility” became the higher education buzzwords that they are today, Lewis-Clark State College was making a concerted and consistent effort to keep tuition low and the quality of its education high.

Today, Idaho stands as the beneficiary of those efforts as LC State serves in the unique role of offering Idahoans a small college ‘private’ school experience at a public school price. Our students; 80 percent of which are Idaho residents, 73 percent of which are first generation, and 49 percent of which are low income; have taken note of LC State’s low cost and high quality. National organizations, such as U.S News & World Report and The Economist, have taken note of LC State’s low cost and high quality as well.

How has LC State achieved and maintained this highly accessible, affordable place and space? Through two decades of requesting lower tuition increases than institutions across the nation, and by working hard to recruit and retain exceptional faculty and staff. However, as inflation rises and institutions from surrounding states offer much higher salaries, retaining such employees is difficult. Truly, the primary driver of LC State’s tuition increases over the years has been the need to implement fully funded vital CEC increases to recruit, retain, and fairly compensate faculty and staff. At present, 81 percent of LC State’s employees receive less than 100 percent of the policy standard. In other words, 81 percent of our employees are underpaid and could, most assuredly, find a higher wage for the same work at a different institution.

A month ago LC State joined its four-year sister institutions in unveiling a plan to freeze in-state undergraduate tuition. I am very proud of this effort and was happy to be a part of it. I believe this plan underscores the fact that Idaho takes accessibility very seriously, even in the face of serious budget challenges. I believe the plan also underscores the need for Idaho’s college and universities to partner and collaborate even more with the Idaho Legislature and this committee.

Thank you again for the opportunity to express our challenges.

Sincerely,

Cynthia Pemberton, Ed.D.

President - Lewis-Clark State College

LC State employees earning less than 100%

of policy/median Faculty 90% (173/193)

Professional/Admin 68% (113/167)

Classified 87% (109/126)

Overall 81% (396/485)

  

This testimony is on behalf of myself. I am a licensed pharmacist employed as a Pharmacy Services 

Specialist working for Idaho Medicaid. 

I request that you evaluate salaries for my job category and compare them to average salaries for 

pharmacists in Idaho as well as to average salaries for other pharmacists employed by the State of Idaho 

(e.g. ISU School of Pharmacy, state hospital). My compensation is in the bottom 10% of all pharmacists 

who work in Idaho which is very disheartening. 

I have a doctorate degree in pharmacy as well as having completed a clinical residency program. Plus, I 

have over 30 years of experience as a pharmacist which makes me very effective in my position with 

Idaho Medicaid. 

I took a huge pay cut when I moved from the private sector to working for Idaho Medicaid. I have now 

worked for Idaho Medicaid for 11 years and the disparity between my current salary here and what I 

would be making in the private sector continues to increase over time. I find my career with Idaho 

Medicaid to be very rewarding, but the one reason why I periodically consider returning to the private 

sector is the salary.  

Please review the salary range for my job category especially the bottom level. The average 2‐3% annual 

raise keeps me and my coworkers below the bottom 10% of all full‐time pharmacists in Idaho.

 

 

 

Hello, 

I am a buyer with the Dept of Health and Welfare.  I’ve also been an Office Specialist 2 and a 

Technical Records Specialist 2. 

First, I want to thank the CEC committee for their work in securing pay increases each of the 4 

years I’ve worked for DHW. 

In addition, I want to speak on behalf of the younger DHW employees.  I am 33 years old, right 

in the middle of the disparaged “millennial” age bracket.  My peers and I finished our 

educations in the midst of the Great Recession, and most of us have struggled to achieve the 

middle‐class American Dream.   

Working for the State has been a very good professional and personal experience for me, and 

the low‐priced insurance has been an incredible benefit for my young family.   

The State is well aware of wave of retiring boomers that is picking up steam right now.  The 

institutional knowledge leaving with the retirees is enormous.  In order to keep operations 

running smoothly, every state agency needs succession plans, and dedicated employees coming 

up behind the retirees to take the reins.  In short, we need younger employees who are 

committed to long careers in State service. 

It is well known that most State employees could make more in the private sector.  We stay 

because we believe in the missions of our agencies, and frankly, because the insurance is good 

and inexpensive.  I have had many candid conversations with my coworkers in their 20s and 

30s, who want to stay with the state but feel that if premiums go up or wages stagnate, they’ll 

have no choice but to look elsewhere.   

The small CEC changes we get help keep our wages in line with inflation, and at least keep our 

buying power steady. If the Legislature is serious about hiring, cultivating, and retaining a 

younger workforce to combat the “Gray Tide”, they will continue increasing pay for existing 

employees, as well as the starting wages for new hires.  

Thank you,   

Grace Helie 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ma'am, 

This is my first time writing to provide written testimony for the CEC input. I've been a state employee for the military division since 2005. My reason for writing is that I personally saw the greatest percentage of employee changeover in 2019 and 2018 since becoming a state employee nearly 15 years ago. In considering the reasons why this happened, higher wages elsewhere in the market seem to be the most common factor which drew away employees. Two of the departments I worked in during the past year haveabout1/3ofthesameemployeesfrom2.5yearsago. Having such a low percentage of seasoned and experienced employees causes challenges in training new employees up to the same standards of excellence that we've been used to, as you may easily be able to imagine. 

We are doing our best and overcoming in spite of this challenge. I'm confident that getting wages closer to the market average would greatly help in retaining quality employees for greater success as we serve the state and country in the military division. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide input. 

Sincerely, 

Mr. Jason Styba - Meridian, Idaho 

 

 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide testimony regarding employee benefits and 

compensation. 

1‐ I think that there should be a tuition reimbursement program that would help state employees to pay off their student loans after two years working for the state.  Some of us are working but can't still make a living due to student loan debts. The private sector (some) and the federal government do it. So, I believe that it's possible for state to do it, too. 

2‐ Housing prices are outrageous, especially rent, and everything else. Therefore, I think that giving state employees a raise to help them keep up with the cost of living would be very important. 

3‐ Keeping the employees' healthcare cost at a minimum would be also important. Sincerely, Unsigned 

 

 

Good evening,  

      As a state employee I think we should receive a raise  due to the high increase in housing costs. Just 

from last year the average rent for my 2 bed 2 bath was 1095 a month. Now it is increasing to 1395 a 

month. It is hard to pay the bills when this happens.  

Thank you for your time, Kristi Plowman 

 

I am a State of Idaho employee, a servant of the people of Idaho. I dedicate my life's work to making Idaho a better place for all Idahoans; I have meaningful work. But it's hard to continue when I don't make enough money to buy food, medicine and put a roof over my head. It's shameful that we dedicate our lives to helping others but many of us don't make enough money to live. I was shocked to read that there is a law that our salaries should be on par with those in private industry. That is so far from where we are! I wonder how much money DHR spent coming up with a report that says we have basically achieved parity. Nothing could be farther from the truth! I am a professional with a degree in a professional position. I make 60% of what I was making in private industry. When I first started with the state, I had to go on food stamps. Now I'm off of food stamps, but I cannot afford rent; I have to live with a relative. Please wake up! It's time to get better data from another source. This self-serving CEC report has no credibility. If anyone believes this report, I have some property in Brooklyn I'd like to discuss with them.

 

 

To whom it may concern, 

I am writing this email in request for Change in Employee Compensation. The issue I am really 

requesting get mediated with CEC is automatically increasing long term employee pay to meet current 

pay. For example, I have been with the Department coming up on 7 years. I have worked my way up to 

my current pay rate, but new employee’s are getting hired on at a hirer rate then I have worked my way 

up to. Some type of pay adjustment needs to be developed so that long standing employee’s aren’t 

making less then new hires due to the starting wage being so low, years ago. I could literally quit my job 

and reapply as a new employee and get hired on at a higher pay rate then I am currently making.  I have 

no plans of doing this, but it is really hurtful this is the case. It is disheartening, makes me feel 

unappreciated, and undervalued. Is there any way to resolve this issue? 

Thanks a bunch! 

Niki Fisher, LCSW 

 

 

I feel that employees need to be closer to the average pay or midpoint that is rarely achieved. State Employees will continue to leave for better pay and benefits as long as this dilemma continues. Also, Legislators should not receive raises until this matter is resolved.

T. D. Jackson - Idaho Transportation Department

 

 

 

Dear Change in Employee Compensation Committee Members, 

First and foremost, thank you for the opportunity to provide written comment on this matter.  

I would also like to openly disclose to you that for the past seventeen years, I have been blessed to be a public servant to the taxpayers of Idaho, as an employee of the Department of Health and Welfare. I have worked in two different divisions and in multiple progressively responsible positions over the course of my tenure. The past eight years, I have held my current position as a Medicaid Program Policy analyst within the Division of Medicaid. 

However, I am not writing on behalf of nor am I representing the Department with my comments within this email. This is in fact, the first time I have ever submitted comment regarding the state of compensation for state employees. I felt compelled to do so this year, as I have observed tremendous losses due to attrition, albeit in part to retirement. However, I've also witnessed many departures for positions within the private sector and other agencies in the past few years, as the workload is too great, the work too stressful and the resources too few for the compensation provided. 

Over the course of my career, I have had the opportunity to work with state employees from other agencies and many individuals from the private sector as well. I have seen many hard working state employees have the need to work two jobs to support their families, as compensation was so lacking. Myself included in this group, not so many years ago.  

I have watched many of my co-workers leave for positions in the private sector, because the compensation was as much as 40% higher. The knowledge and skillset these long time and highly skilled employees possessed was almost impossible to replace. I have watched this occur year after year. Dedication to their job will only hold employees for so long, without adequate compensation. Our agencies lose valuable knowledge when staff turn over occurs. Staff with the skills and the knowledge to get the job done well, should be considered the most valuable resource our agencies have, but most employees will tell you that's a private sector way of thinking. 

I am very aware that our retirement and health insurance are considered reasons why employees stay with the state. This too only has so much weight in resting staff. My family has paid premiums through my state employee plan since 2004. However, in 2010, this coverage did not cover obstetrical services for my family when we needed it most. You see, having a 17 year old daughter with a mental illness, who suddenly becomes pregnant is not something most parents plan for. Imagine how shocked we were to discover that in addition to this, my employee health plan would not cover those pregnancy related services and we would be paying out of pocket to the tune of over $17k in medical bills.  

Providing state employees with an adequate compensation package, whether that be their direct wage or a well rounded benefits package, is an extremely important part of maintaining an efficient and effective workforce. I have observed that long-time staff often acquire the knowledge of how best to hold down costs for the Idaho taxpayers, because they have the knowledge base and the skill set to avoid costly losses in time or resources. They also know Idahoans and they care about the job they do for them.  

Thank you for your time. 

Sincerely, Cindy Brock

Good morning,

My name is Sheila Ripley and I have served at the State of Idaho for 26 years in the department of behavioral health. I am writing today as a long-standing employee who is concerned about the inequality of the wages set forth by the current system.

First of all, I would like to thank you all for the benefit package the State offers. I could not be more pleased with the current situation. However, my concern is with the rate of pay that long-term employees make. When I was hired, I was excited to work for the State. It was, and still is, a badge of honor to inform people that I have a Master’s Degree in Clinical Psychology and graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Idaho and I work for the State of Idaho. Clinicians were paid accordingly and the system was fair then. There was consideration for longevity built into the system.

However, over the years, the system changed. There were years of not being awarded a raise. There was a time when State Employees went on furlough. I persevered through it all understanding that things would change back. But it didn’t. More and more incentives were lost; not only the consideration of longevity, but other things such as even the pleasure of getting a retirement party.

I see new hires come and go in my department. There are few who run the course and stay with us for even enough time to get vetted in Persi. There are no incentives that keep them at their jobs. They can work in the private sector for more money and that is the allure. The difficult thing for me is that when a new hire is made, they are offered almost the same amount as I am currently making after 26 years.

What I propose is that more consideration and incentives be made for those of us who have stayed the course with the State. I would like to be paid for my years of service and the level of experience I offer on the job. I would like to see longevity again be instituted beside the generous CEC that you have given us these last few years.

In conclusion, I applaud you for your working to get our clinicians at the midpoint of the scale, but please consider all the work, experience, loyalty, and perseverance that your long-term employees have put in.

Sincerely, Sheila Ripley, MS, Clinician/Hospital Liaison

To whom it may concern: At this time, I do not feel I can offer much feedback other than encouraging 

the continued prudence shown in managing the states budget items. I cannot speak on insurance as I 

have been covered by VA health insurance for the past 20 years and have not shown the need for any 

other additional coverage. Regarding compensation for our particular bureau I believe it should reflect 

the amount of federal revenue that comes back into the state and what that generates in local 

economies. Thank you for your time. 

First, as a military retiree, my dental, vision and medical care are covered for me and my family by the 

Department of Defense (Tricare) with typical co‐payments and deductibles.  I ask the state for no health‐

care coverage, yet the state indicates that my health care benefits package is $11,395 / year for medical 

and $255 / year for dental.  Each time I read this, I ask myself if the state is being dishonest, 

disingenuous or do they presume I'm unable to interpret the compensation statement.  What I earn is 

much less than what the state places on this compensation document and it's quite embarrassing 

really.  I suspect we have thousands of military retirees working in our great state. 

Second, I believe the state should adopt a sick leave policy similar to the private sector that does not 

allow one to take sick leave until they have exhausted 1‐3 days of personal leave.  After the 2nd or 3rd 

personal leave day, then your accrued sick leave takes over.  This prevents an abuse of the sick leave 

policy that most leaders will tell you is abused.  New employees accrue the same number of sick leave 

hours as vacation for the first five years (depending of course on their pay grade).  This encourages sick‐

leave abuse.  Why not increase the number of vacation days and reduce the sick leave days?  As a 

former military leader, I believe the morale would soar as most people would like the quality of life 

balance and are too honest to burn sick hours when unwarranted.  Or allow an employee to opt into 

one leave plan or another – instead of one size fits all – if someone has a preexisting medical condition 

that requires weekly, monthly treatment, they may need the increased sick hours.    

Last, I believe we need to provide tailorable compensation packages if you want to reduce state 

employment turnover rates and bring our pay closer to our private sector counterparts.  The goal should 

be more than dollars/hour, rather a package that fits the valued employee.  I will lose nearly half of my 

sick leave when I decide to terminate employment, which is not appropriate when it's part of my 

"compensation" package at nearly $3k/year.    

Thanks for your time.  

Regards,           

Doug Jacobson ‐ Veterans Education Bureau Chief 

 

Good morning,  

I have been a State of Idaho employee for more than eight years. I’ve worked on the CEC report and 

other salary market analyses, contributed to countless statewide initiatives, and take an immense 

amount of pride in the contributions I’ve made to the state.   

I’ve lived in the same modest Boise home for the last 12 years, my mortgage is 50% of my take home 

salary. As a single mom, this means that I struggle to provide basic needs for my family.    

A geographical differential, similar to Federal location pay, would be one way to ease the burden of 

rising home prices for state employees in places where housing prices are grossly exceeding wage 

growth. If this issue is not addressed it will become increasingly more difficult for agencies to recruit and 

retain qualified employees in the Boise area, which will lead to a decrease in the quality of state 

programs.  

Thank you for your consideration, Teresa Hammer | Business Analyst  

 

 

Good morning! 

We were told yesterday that you would like input on the benefits and wages for the committee 

and that the comments were due today. 

I enjoy working for the State and the medical benefits are good and reasonably priced.  The 

dental and vision leave something to be desired.  PERSI is good and nice to have.   

On the pay structure.  I understand that to compensate for the benefits the pay is lower.  But 

because of the pay the State does not attract or retain the quality employees that are 

needed.  Also, the sick leave is great in a regular facility but in the medical field because of the 

transfer of illness especially to the elderly, there might be more given to those who work 

directly with patients or on the floor with patients.  And why can we not donate sick leave to 

those who need it, why does it have to be vacation time  

In summary, I understand the structure of the pay and benefits.  But we are losing a lot of good 

employees because of the pay.   

Thank you, Jennifer Gawrys 

 

 

I am a proud employee of the Idaho State Veterans Home‐Boise. I have been here for 18 years 

& a CNA for over 30 years. 

I wish there was some way to keep and retain good CNA's. For some reason, it seems, we have 

seen a revolving door. The Veterans think of us long term folks as "family", they miss us when 

we are gone, they love to share or family stories, and we love to hear theirs! 

I wish there was like a bonus to employees for their longevity and dedication to service, maybe 

it would serve as an incentive to others to see that we do have programs in place to make this 

place retain good employees. 

Thank you, 

Deborah Warren 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To whom it may concern‐ Let me start by saying I consider it a privilege to serve the State of Idaho. I felt 

compelled to provide some testimony in favor of improving public employee pay. It is becoming ever 

more challenging to maintain current standards of living here in the Treasure Valley. A recent KTVB 

article discussed our public employee pay "stabilizing" at 12% below market, and also said that state 

employee compensation is legally required to be competitive with the market. I am grateful for the 2‐3% 

raises over the last few years, but they really don't feel like raises when inflation averages around 2%. 

That is remaining stagnant, not being swept downstream, but not making any headway either. For those 

of us in blue collar jobs, a 3% raise might yield $0.30‐$0.50 per hour, while our higher ups fare much 

better on a percentage based system. The folks already making a comfortable living will see $1.00 per 

hour or more due to that 3%. To me this just furthers the wage gap between the people that are 

comfortable, and the people that live paycheck to paycheck. It's more difficult for the people at the 

bottom to gain ground, and promotional opportunities (at least in my field) are few and far between.  

Considering the housing market trend here in the valley and throughout Idaho, it is challenging to afford 

our current residences, let alone “move up” to accommodate growing and changing family needs. My 

wife and I are expecting our second child, and instead of being joyous and excited, I’m scared and 

stressed about providing for my children both now, and in the future. Being a graduate of the Great 

Recession, and knowing the struggles I faced finding work relative to my degree, I’m not sure I will push 

my children to attend college, as student loan payments are just another bill to pay. I want to be able to 

help my children pay for school if they choose that path, but when I look at the costs of living relative to 

what I bring home in pay, there just isn’t enough to go around. Getting my degree in accounting gives 

me enough financial knowledge to know I would be doomed without a pension. Benefits are great, but 

you can’t pay bills, send children to college, or pay a mortgage with benefits. I’ve heard tales of an 

instance when employees had their pay bumped up to “policy” or mid‐line, something like this would 

drastically improve morale and retention of our talented workforce, while not contributing to the wage 

gap (as those already making mid to high level wages for their jobs wouldn’t receive the lion’s share of 

the compensation package). Presently, it seems like we have to serve for a decade or more to reach the 

middle of the pay range for a particular job, while new hires and management continuously get brought 

on at higher pay to meet hiring needs. In my case, this problem is compounded by feeling like my 

position is incorrectly classified in the pay table based on the duties and responsibilities of the job, a 

sentiment shared by supervisors and managers, but I digress. The people here are what make Idaho 

great, we need to invest in and preserve that resource.  Thank you, Devin Dascenzo 

 

Hi my name is Sunshine Brotherton and I have been with the Idaho State Vets Home here in Lewiston 

since August of 2016 and I'm just a little concerned about the way they figure wages for New hires and 

employees that have been here for some time. I know that I am getting paid way less than employees 

that have quit and came back and even some that have just started. I feel we need to make sure our 

employees are getting paid what they deserve. I know when I first started I went over a year getting paid 

less than what the new hire wage was changed to and I felt that was very unfair. With Washington right 

across the bridge to Lewiston we should have our starting wage at least what Washington's minimum 

wage is and if we aren’t making at least that our wage should go up to match our time here. I fully 

understand that we get wonderful benefits to help replace some wage but there are so many employees 

that are still making way less than the New Hires and that is so wrong in so many ways. Thanks for your 

time and I really hope that employees like me that have been here for sometime can get paid what we 

deserve.       Thanks Sunshine Brotherton 

 

CEC Committee Members:  I am a new Program Manager within the Division of Public Health; starting 

my employment with the Department of Health and Welfare in mid‐June 2019. As I have reviewed the 

compensation and performance histories of my team of 14 employees, I have noticed that my longest 

serving employees’ wages are not commensurate with newer hires. I have several section managers and 

supervisors who have served the Immunization Program for over a decade. Over that time period their 

compensation increases have often been small percentages; while the Program has brought on new 

employees at rates of pay (within the appropriate pay classifications) that are much closer to the pay 

rates some of their supervisors earn. Several of these supervisors have longevity within our Program as 

well as high performance evaluations. It erodes morale when high‐performing supervisors lead newer 

employees who earn wages that are close to what they, themselves earn.  

I encourage you to advocate for salary increases this year that would allow Program Managers to 

recommend compensation increases for employees like I described above ‐  those with Program 

longevity and top ratings in their performance evaluations. I strongly believe the State should be 

rewarding high performing employees who also demonstrate loyalty to our Program, Bureau, the 

Division of Public Health, the Department of Health and Welfare, and the State of Idaho. When we fairly 

compensate these loyal, high‐performing employees, we are better able to retain them and thus, are 

better equipped as a Program to serve the people of Idaho.  

Thank you for considering this.  

Thank you, Sarah Leeds, MPH, Program Manager, Idaho Immunization Program 

 

To those it concerns;  I have been employed at ISVH‐Pocatello as a certified RN Resident Assessment 

Coordinator since September of 2018. Prior to this I held the same position at a private skilled nursing 

facility for over five years. The two biggest factors in my decision to leave my established employment 

for this position were the benefit package plus the opportunity to participate in the retirement 

programs offered to state employees.  

Idaho nursing salaries are generally considered to be lower than the national average, and state nursing 

positions even slightly less so. When this position was offered to me there was some concern on the 

part of the facility that I would not accept due to the hourly wage offered. I believe it is in the best 

interests of our state facilities to be able to be competitive in wages standing alone, rather than hoping 

the benefit package will be alluring enough.  As far as nursing is concerned, many nurses are the second 

job in the household with benefits provided by spouse's employment, negating the need for other 

benefits.  

Competitive wages are one of the most important items in the business of attracting quality staff and 

retention of said staff. Staff who are happy with compensation are far more likely to be retained 

resulting in lower costs for orientation and training. 

Additionally, if educationally related debt assistance were associated with state positions the 

attractiveness would be heightened even more, also contributing to the opportunity to attract stellar 

individuals for open positions.  

Thank you for the opportunity to share my testimony with the CEC Committee. 

Adele Mendoza, RN, MSN, RAC‐CT, MDS Coordinator 

My name is Erica and I work for Children’s Mental Health. I am not testifying on behalf of or 

representing the department. I have worked for Children’s Mental Health for 8 years. During 

my time with CMH, I have had 16 co‐workers on my team come and go from CMH. Only one of 

them left for retirement. We are only a team of 8 when we are fully staffed. We are currently 

down 3 employees and have opened and closed the registry multiple times without a single 

person applying for the CMH job. I have had many conversations with the 16 that have come 

and gone and the majority of them were offered higher paying positions elsewhere. I love 

working for the state and I understand the benefits of the benefits. Some of the difficult parts 

of being here for 8 years is that most of those 16 people who came and went were on average 

employeed with CMH for 1‐1.5 years. And the new ones we hire come in at a higher salary, 

often higher than myself who has worked here a long time. If I were to quit right now, I would 

likely be able to be rehired at a higher rate. My proposal would be for longevity benefits in 

increments of 5 years. My other proposal is that somehow the new employees would not have 

to get hired at a greater rate than those who have been here 5+ years. I do not feel valued in 

that way. I also worked for 6.5 years to get my clinical license and when I received it, that allows 

me to potentially quit and start a private practice, there were no benefits offered to keep me 

working here. Recently, I had the opportunity for a promotion to chief of CMH, but I love what I 

do and I don’t think I would be a good supervisor and I didn’t think it would be best for me or 

my team. However, it was hard because I felt that was my only opportunity for promotion 

within CMH. I would like other ways to continue building the skills that I really want to build 

without feeling like I have to do something that wouldn’t be in my or my team’s best interest as 

the only way to be promoted. 

Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. 

Erica Balch, LCSW 

 

 

Good afternoon, 

I wanted to email you and let you know why I believe state employees should receive a cost of 

living pay increase. The cost of my mortgage just continues to rise due to property value/taxes 

increasing, which then means I am bringing home less money for my family because more 

money continues to go into my house payment. I believe as state employees, we work very 

hard to make Idaho a safe and happy place to live. We do a lot for the community and I think 

we deserve a COLA raise just as much as anyone in the private sector. Quality people who are 

looking for work will be looking to make a livable wage, and having a higher pay increase would 

help us find those people. 

Thank you so much, have a great day  

Nicole Shockley ‐ Court Operations Specialist 

 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Nicole Nimmons, a City of Boise resident and a professional staff member of Boise State University for over 15 years. As a member of these communities, I formally request your approval and support for both an increase in the state’s salary structure and the merit‐based salary component. Additionally, support the maintenance of funding for employee benefits programs as they are vital to the recruitment and retainment of state employees.   As a Professional Staff Association Senator and on behalf of my colleagues, we support the Idaho State Compensation Policy – Idaho Code §67‐5309A and encourage you to uphold the policy. The Idaho workforce provides the most critical roles for Idaho citizens. By maintaining competitive compensation and benefits, we will attract qualified applicants to the workforce; retain employees who commit to public service excellence; motivate employees to maintain high standards of productivity, and reward employees for outstanding performance.  As a public servant, I appreciate your understanding, support, and efforts to increase the compensation paid to employees by:  a) Increasing the compensation system both a salary and benefit components,  b) Advance pay based on job performance and market changes,  (c) Pay for performance, advancement for higher performers through merit increases,  (d) Ensure employees meeting expectations, paid below the market average salary range, increase to meet the market average wages they deserve.  I commend Governor Little’s efforts to support public education in Idaho by committing thirty million dollars to support public teacher pay. Similar monetary support and commitment should be implemented for all state employees including those in higher education. Institutions of higher learning provide a unique combination of benefits to the State, which includes increased consumer spending, development of a skilled workforce, and innovative business solutions to enhance economic prosperity.   

In your position to serve constituents, I urge you to increase compensation and better serve Idaho communities.  Commit to all those who live and work in Idaho, to attract and retain public servants, driven by purpose, making a difference through the services we provide to the public by increasing employee compensation.  I commend you for your commitment to the State of Idaho, and all the constituents you serve, including the thousands of state employees affected by your decision to increase employee compensation in a meaningful and impactful way.   Sincerely,  Nicole Nimmons  

 

 

 

Dear Ms. Lockett and the CEC Committee: 

The Idaho Freedom Foundation supports a CEC no greater than Governor Little's 

recommendation of a 2% CEC based on merit.  

We offer no comment on the cost per FTP regarding health insurance, nor any comment on the 

salary structure shift other than to offer the same caveat: Ensure that the cost is no greater 

than the Governor recommends. 

We believe it is important to explain why IFF does not give blanket support for a pay increase.  

For that we turn to the FY21 Report to the Governor on the CEC.  

Our concerns are similar to ones we voiced in past years: The information offered comparing 

Idaho state employees to other public sector employees and private sector employees is not a 

complete picture.  

These are the key reasons: 

1. Turnover data is not complete. Not enough data is provided on employee turnover that 

compares Idaho's experience with state employees to the private sector and other public 

entities. On pages 20‐21 of the FY21 CEC report, data is provided on employee turnover as 

follows: the overall rate is 14.9%, with a voluntary turnover rate of 7.9%. However, those that 

exited voluntarily, the vast majority, were also asked for their reasons, and 24% cited pay (211 

employees completed an exit survey, a decent sample size.) Out of all employees who left state 

employment, Appendix T on page 147 states that only 185 out of 1,930 outgoing employees left 

state employment for the private sector, or about 9.6%. In summary, in a given year, only about 

1.4% of classified state employees leave for the private sector (.149 X .096). So it would appear 

that pay gaps with the private sector are either not as big as the data suggests, or other 

benefits and intangibles have value that is not captured by this report: job security, etc. 

2. Surveyed private companies don't include smaller firms. The surveyed companies for 

private sector compensation are for firms with over 50 employees, and in many cases, very 

large firms. So the benefit differential is NOT captured for smaller employees. This is obvious 

when you review page 26 of the FY21 Legislative Budget Book. The total benefits costs for an 

employee paid $15 per hour are 60%, $21 per hour 49%, and $30 per hour 41%. These factors 

are much higher than those experienced by small firms, which typically are in the low‐20% 

range.  

3. Public sector compensation surveys include very high cost areas. Public sector employers in 

the survey included: Denver, CO; Portland, OR; King County, WA; Seattle, WA, as well as states 

like WA, AZ,  UT and other cities in the west. It is not clear what effect these clearly high‐cost 

municipalities had on the results.  

4. Pay gaps reflected by turnover and other data vary widely. On page 21, a spectrum of 

professions of state employees is presented in a table with turnover from high to low; ranging 

from 8.4% for science/environmental up to 40% health care employees. Appendix P provides 

detailed turnover data by agency and trends since 2015. This data suggests that because the 

turnover varies so widely, pay increases should be targeted to specific agencies and job 

classifications. Additionally, other factors like career options and management quality should 

be reviewed.  

For these reasons and the lack of comparative data surrounding employee turnover, IFF cannot 

support a merit‐based pay increase higher than the recommended 2%.  

Sincerely, 

Fred Birnbaum 

Vice President, Idaho Freedom Foundation and Idaho Freedom Action 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've noticed many of our employees in the state are what United Way would call "ALICE": 

"Asset Limited, Income Constrained – Employed"…the working poor….within the state. The CEC 

increases are helpful because they make an effort to improve wages. 

However 27 and 30 cent increases do little to help when the cost of living in Boise and 

surrounding areas is increasing so fast…and wages are not keeping pace. 

And 27 and 30 cent increases do little to help when medial deductibles increase by $100 and 

premiums go up by 50 cents (the way they did this year).   

Often as cities undergo significant development, the folks at the bottom of the pyramid (ALICE) 

are left to the wayside. 

The CEC is a good start but it is not enough to offset burgeoning costs….we should do more to 

control costs (while improving wages through CEC ‐ like initiatives) to prevent wage disparity. 

It would also be helpful if, when the legislature mandates a wage increase, they also develop 

funding for it…outside of existing budgets.  When the legislature mandates an increase without 

funding, often times employers end up "robbing Peter to pay Paul" in order to enact the 

mandate.  This is not always helpful. 

Finally, many employees and potential candidates appreciate the benefits the state offers…but 

often comment "who needs benefits when I cannot afford groceries, gas and rent / mortgage 

payments?".  

The state loses out on good talent because of low wages…  

Wages that keep pace with the cost of living AND reasonable benefits are what employees are 

seeking…CEC is a good start but more is needed. 

Hope this helps. 

Sincerely, Iris Higgins 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Co-Chairs and Committee Members:

My name is Jake Thibodeau.

I am writing to provide written testimony as a Classified State of Idaho Employee. I am also directly supervising 15 reports who would be impacted by any change in compensation. I am also a tax payer.

My testimony is in favor of the FY 2021 CEC report’s recommendation for Merit raises of at least 2% and continuing benefits at the same level they are now, particularly in regard to covering any potential increase in Health Insurance premiums.

Anecdotally, I work with several individuals who commute to Boise State University from as far away as Mt. Home, Idaho City, and Caldwell because these locations are where they are able to find housing that they can afford. A pay increase will help to keep from falling further behind with the increase in cost of living.

At Boise State University we are fortunate to have grown our facilities to keep up with the demand from an increase in enrollment. My fellow Custodians and I have met the increased demand for cleaning services by streamlining processes and finding more efficient ways to meet the needs of a campus that has grown in population and square footage. An increase in compensation in merited.

Thank you for meeting this year!

Sincerely, Jake Thibodeau