After several years of increasing turnover rates in technical staff and increasing difficulty in hiring some technical faculty, the college approached TBR about the possibility of developing a compensation plan. The college also decided that this was the appropriate time to review, not just a few faculty and staff positions, but all positions in the college, including support staff, a step which was not considered at all institutions.It was also determined that all faculty and staff in the employment of the college at that time should be included in the compensation plan study.There was no state or TBR mandate to develop a compensation plan; it was purely a college decision. To select a company to develop the plan, I appointed a committee of faculty and staff to review proposals from companies and to make a recommendation about who should conduct our study. On the recommendation of the committee, Pellissippi State contracted with William Mercer, Inc. to conduct a compensation plan for those persons employed at the college at that time. Mercer, at the request of the college, set target salaries at 100% of the market from which we generally selected employees. This is an aggressive target for any institution. A more typical target for a Tennessee community college is 85 or 90 percent of the market. The college committed itself to funding as much of the plan as was possible.
After months of collecting information and careful review, Mercer released the compensation study in June, 2000, and the college got approval from the Board of Regents to implement the first part of the plan effective July 1, 2000. Each employee affected by the plan received a letter outlining the targets for his/her compensation that had been approved. All employees were given an adequate period to review their compensation plan and to appeal the salary plan if desired. Since William Mercer, Inc. conducted the study, William Mercer, Inc. reviewed and responded to the appeals. The methodology used by William Mercer, Inc. is proprietary, and Pellissippi State does not have access to it and cannot resolve appeals relating to the compensation plan.
As you know, the fiscal resources of the State of Tennessee make it unlikely that we will be able to complete steps two and three of the compensation plan in the near future. Therefore, some of the goals we had set for our college will not be reached until the plan is complete. For instance, the plan set targets for minimum salaries for positions. Since funding is not available, the minimum targets set by the compensation plan are invalid—they haven’t been reached. Therefore, the true minimum salary is the actual amount we would currently pay someone whom we hire for a position based on his/her education and experience. If we are able to complete the next two steps of the compensation plan, we can then establish the new minimums that were projected for the final phase of the study.
During the release of the compensation plan and during the appeals process, the college published the compensation plan on the college website in order to publicize the magnitude of the plan and to let employees know that information was available for their review. Sometime after the appeals deadline ended, the compensation plan was removed from the website. There are several reasons for that. First, the compensation plan does not apply to all employees now. It only applies to those employees who were employed here in 2000. Second, the information is out of date. Since we did not receive funding or board approval for implementing the second and third phases of the plan, the plan is no longer accurate. For instance, target minimum salaries are invalid. Third, the compensation plan is still available for review through the Human Resources office. It is not on the website for the same reasons that an old catalog is not the website—it doesn’t contain accurate information, and it doesn’t apply to everyone.
Finally, the college implemented the compensation plan to provide salary increases beyond the 1 and 2 percent increase levels that had become customary for state employees in Tennessee. We set aggressive targets based on 100% of the market. The compensation plan, while not perfect, did take into account the factors that affect compensation: education and certifications (including CPS), length of service, skill or grade level of the position, and other factors. We believe that Mercer applied them equitably and then provided an opportunity for both explanation and appeals. Most employees affected by the plan did receive significant increases in pay even for just the first phase of implementation.
The college does not currently have a contract with William Mercer, Inc. We have already paid for the appeals process and explanation period. Even though a few employees who have benefited from the plan are concerned that all factors in their employment were not factored in as strongly as they would like, Mercer assures us that they were.
Although implementation of the compensation plan during a time of scarce state resources has placed us in a very tight budget situation, I am very proud that we did the right thing in using our resources to the benefit of all our employees.I regret that we cannot complete the second and third phases of the plan due to poor state funding.