Division of Personnel readopts personnel rules; committee issues conditional approvals where wording unclear

The Division of Personnel presented several readoptions and related amendments to personnel rules.

Personnel rule 1 10 (conditional approval request) addressed 'bumping' and included clarifying comments. Staff noted an informational clarification was added (definition for 'bumping') and a note that director's review of layoff is rule text and not a form. Director of personnel Matt Mavigeorge described how agencies apply seniority in practice and how the rule language attempts to preserve appointing-authority discretion. He said the department historically used seniority but left discretion to address inequitable cases where other factors make employees not 'equal.' Representative questioning confirmed the appointing authority could consider case-specific factors (for example, an employee with a terminally ill child), and the committee approved rule 1 10 by voice vote.

Personnel rule 108, a readoption concerning seniority, performance evaluation and compensation, included comments that checkbox/form language should be removed because there is no agency form. Staff also flagged overlap among evaluation categories that could cause inconsistent implementation across agencies. Joanne Lydic (Division of Personnel) said agencies use a shared template and must obtain division approval to modify it; Kevin Buckley (DAS) said categories sometimes overlap but should be assigned to a primary category. Committee members expressed concern that permitted template rearrangement could appear as 'oral rulemaking' if applied inconsistently; the committee adopted a conditional approval striking the identified checkbox language (pages noted) and approved the remainder.

Personnel investigations (rule 109) covers investigations, discipline and non-disciplinary communications. Staff asked the committee to clarify language distinguishing termination-for-cause (including loss or suspension of a license/certification) from suspension without pay when a license is lost for more than 30 days. The agency agreed to add the clarifying language and pointed to personnel rule 1,003.03, which provides guidance (severity, impact, prior record) for choosing discipline levels. Committee members raised concerns about nonverbal and passive conduct being treated as termination-level offenses without clear examples; agency representatives said discrimination of remedies is fact-specific and the appointing authority must consider the totality of facts. The committee voted to grant conditional approval to the investigations rule with staff-recommended language added and approved the rest of the rule.

The record shows the committee balanced the need for consistent statewide application of evaluation and discipline rules against agency discretion, and it used conditional approvals to require limited, specified edits rather than delaying implementation.