To:  Laura Conant, HR Supervisor

From:  Shelley Caskey, HR Analyst

Date:  March 21, 2013

Re:  Court Administrator Audit – Second Supplement  

As requested, additional details and analysis is being provided regarding the Court Administrator Audit. The initial recommendation for the position included leaving the position within the Legal job family aligned 25% below the Staff Attorney benchmark. The recommendation resulted in a 10% increase for the incumbent, a $5889 impact to the general fund, and a $654 impact to other funds, and accounted for the growth of responsibility related to the services and activities of municipal court and the associated assumption of risk and exposure to claims.

Upon providing the recommendation to the Financial Operations Director and City Attorney, both requested a meeting to discuss the recommendation. Neither agreed with the position remaining aligned within the Legal job family stating that they felt a better fit was within either the Police Records, City Clerk, or Customer Service job family as the position performed work more similar to these families than that of legal counsel.

As the position was discussed, all parties involved agreed that placement within the Customer Service benchmark made the most sense as the Court Administrator is directly responsible for the work of the Customer Service Representative assigned to municipal court. With this placement a potential career ladder is created for a Customer Service Representative to move into the Court Administrator position. Therefore, the meeting was adjourned with the agreement that an analysis would be conducted placing the position within the Customer Service job family and comparing it to the Customer Service Supervisor position.

In reviewing the positions, both require the same level of education and prior work experience. They assume risk and exposure within their positions, have internal and external contacts, and ensure their respective areas of responsibility are in compliance with applicable policies and procedures. As mentioned in my earlier analyses, the Court Administrator’s primary job function is the coordination of the day-to-day activities of the Municipal Court, whereas, the Customer Service Supervisor’s primary job function is supervision. Typically a 10% differential would be appropriate to recognize supervision as a primary job function, however, in recognition of the lead responsibilities the Court Administrator has in coordinating other staff working in the court function, it is recommended that the Court Administrator be aligned 5% below Customer Service Supervisor. This would result in moving the Court Administrator from a range 77, as has already been approved and implemented per the original recommendation, to a range 83. This new alignment would result in an additional increase of 7.5% and have an additional $4904 budget impact to the 2013 general fund and $542 to other funds.

The reclassification of the Court Administrator position results in a 17.5% total increase to the incumbent and a total 2013 budget impact of $10,793 to the general fund and $1196 to other funds.