A Management and Operational Review of the State Personnel Board
Executive Summary
Introduction
Following the appointment of the current State Personnel Director in March 2009, the State Personnel Board began making a series of changes at the agency. As these changes were implemented, PEER was apprised of concerns raised by several persons regarding the impact that these changes might have on the administration of the statewide personnel system. In response to these concerns, the Committee conducted this review.
PEER sought to determine:
Background
Public personnel management encompasses the processes for classifying work, compensating and selecting workers, and training workers to perform their jobs more effectively. The ultimate end of these programs is to make public personnel services both efficient and effective.
States without a central personnel agency may suffer from problems such as inefficient allocation of public funds, lack of a central compensation and classification system, and lack of a central personnel database. Options for states vary from having no central personnel agency to having a low control/low service agency to having a high control/high service agency. The level of service or control is a policy decision reflected in each state’s personnel laws providing for state personnel administration.
In 1980, the Mississippi Legislature established a centralized personnel system--the State Personnel Board--for the statewide coordination of public personnel administration. The SPB is responsible for maintaining a merit system, operating a classification and compensation system, tracking employee compensation expenditures, and providing for employee development, among other tasks. The SPB was empowered to function as a high control/high service personnel agency with the authority to make decisions impacting the use of personal services resources by many of Mississippi’s state agencies.
In response to criticism of the State Personnel Board leveled by many state agencies under its authority, the SPB recently conducted a series of focus group meetings with state agencies to determine what agencies considered to be the board’s strengths and weaknesses. These studies resulted in recommendations from participating agencies for both substantive and structural changes to the State Personnel Board.
Conclusions
Service and Control
In response to feedback from some state agencies during focus group meetings, the State Personnel Board has implemented structural changes (e. g., creation of an Office of Human Capital/Core Processes to consolidate the functions of the former Classification and Compensation and Selection divisions to provide agencies with on-stop assistance) and substantive changes (e. g., creation of a pass/fail application evaluation system to expedite provision of certificates of eligibles to agencies) to make the agency less bureaucratic and more service-oriented.
However, the SPB has not performed certain control functions critical to the oversight of the statewide personnel system, such as controlling for personnel actions not authorized by law and auditing activities delegated to state agencies that should be performed in accordance with SPB policy.
The Strategic Planning Process
Following the appointment of the current Executive Director, the State Personnel Board made a concerted effort to consult with state agency directors and human resources specialists to determine the agency’s strengths and weaknesses. The agency followed this analysis with several structural and substantive changes to the SPB, as noted above. While this effort was beneficial to the improvement of service delivery, the State Personnel Board’s strategic planning process does not meet applicable best practices standards for strategic planning. The SPB’s strategic plan:
Also, the SPB has not developed a comprehensive strategic plan for the management of the state’s human capital resources that recognizes the effects of economies of scale, internal recruitment competition between state agencies, or significant changes in the economic and competitive environment.
Internal Management Issues
Weaknesses in the State Personnel Board’s internal management have resulted in decisions regarding reorganization and computer acquisition being made without the necessary information being directed to those that need it to make rational decisions about their work and responsibilities.
Throughout 2009, the State Personnel Board made changes in its organization structure, position class titles, and assignments of staff that were intended to address the service needs of state agencies. While it appears that much that was done was to address state agencies’ concerns about service needs, many changes appear to have not been in conformity with SPB’s policy and practice regarding agency reorganizations and assignments of duties to staff.
Also, some of SPB’s FY 2010 computer acquisitions were made without adequate information and planning that could have determined whether the agency was making the most efficient use of funds.
Recommendations