October 2010 issue of HR News magazine - IPMA

THE MAGAZINE NOF THE INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN RESOURCES 

2010 

HR 

EWSOCTOBER 

Employee 

Engagement 

Ready, Set, Engage: The New Rules 

for Effective Employee Engagement 

Tough Times Call for Engagement 

Moving Beyond Employee Satisfaction 

to Improve Organizational Outcomes 

Also This Month 

IPMA-HR Award Winners 

Announced

PUBLIC AND NON-PUBLIC 

TEST PRODUCTS & SERVICES 

Entry-level and promotional test products for police, law 

enforcement, fire, and public safety administration officials. 

WEB: testing-ipma-hr.org PHONE: (800) 381-TEST (8378) EMAIL: assessment@ipma-hr.org

In this month’s issue of HR News magazine, you’ll find lots of 

great information about this month’s focus: employee 

engagement. 

In the first feature article, “Ready, Set, Engage: The New Rules for 

Effective Employee Engagement” (page six), author Craig Southern, 

IPMA-CP, discusses how to engage those unengaged employees 

who feel trapped as a result of the current economic environment. 

“Organizations must be proactive in regard to engaging their 

employees,” writes Southern. “Consequently, organizations must also 

be willing to invest and reinvest in the value of their employees as 

their most treasured resource and asset.” 

Southern says organizations can better engage their employees 

“through the adoption of a holistic philosophy that demonstrates a 

framework or model of concern, appreciation, respect and 

encouragement, or C.A.R.E., for all employees.” 

Southern concludes, “Creating a high-performance environment, 

characterized by positive leadership and strong team orientation, can 

bode well for any organization that wants to engage its employees 

through words and deeds that express an attitude of C.A.R.E.” 

Advertiser Index 

Company Page 

American Arbitration Association ......................................................................2 

CPS Human Resource Services......................................................................14 

Fox Lawson & Associates................................................................................26 

I/O Solutions......................................................................................................4 

IPMA-HR Professional Certification ................................................................C3 

IPMA-HR Professional Development ..............................................................10 

IPMA-HR Test Products & Services..........................................................C2, 36 

The Mercer Group, Inc.....................................................................................36 

NEOGOV..............................................................................................18, 19, C4 

Segal ................................................................................................................16 

Springsted........................................................................................................36 

From the editor 

In “Tough Times Call for Engagement” (page 11), authors Doug 

Nierle and Dr. J. Peter Leeds say that, given the current economic 

environment, employees can be excused for their lack of 

enthusiasm—“especially if their management has been preoccupied 

with responding to the latest round of personnel or budget cuts 

instead of on more strategic workforce issues.” 

But, continue Nierle and Leeds, “managers can’t neglect 

opportunities to forge an emotional tie between employees and their 

organizations for a number of reasons.” 

Authors Howard Goldsmith and Lawrence Singer of The Segal 

Company, in their Economic Outlook column, “Using Voluntary 

Benefits to Help Public Sector Employees Through Difficult Times” 

(page 17), say offering supplemental or “voluntary benefits” to their 

employees is an inexpensive way to keep them engaged during tough 

economic times. 

“Voluntary benefits are available through the worksite at group rates 

and are usually entirely paid for by employees who elect to 

participate in them,” write Goldsmith and Singer. They conclude, 

“Appropriately packaged and delivered, voluntary benefits can 

significantly enhance the actual and perceived value of employerprovided 

benefit programs.” 

Also in this month’s issue is Jim Fox and Bruce Lawson’s 

CompDoctor column (page 22). In this month’s column, Fox and 

Lawson, of Fox Lawson & Associates, discuss the exorbitant amount 

of compensation paid to officials in some cities in California, and 

suggest ways public employers can avoid scrutiny of the 

compensation they provide their employees. One way to avoid 

scrutiny, they say, is to put your entire job classification system and 

pay plan on your Web site. 

Also in this issue, read about the recipients of the Partnership for 

Public Service’s Service to America Medals (page 15), the Warner 

W. Stockberger Achievement Award (page 27), the IPMA-HR 

Chapter Award of Excellence (page 29) and the Agency Awards for 

Excellence and Honorary Life Memberships (page 30). 

You’ll read about all this and more inside this month’s issue of HR 

News magazine. We hope you enjoy it. —N 

Elizabeth Kirkland 

WWW.IPMA-HR.ORG OCTOBER 2010 | 1 |

Why a lot of unions are voting 

for the AAA for their elections services. 

Why has the labor-management community overwhelmingly and consistently chosen to 

conduct elections through the American Arbitration Association ® ? Labor and management 

groups know that the AAA’s reputation for neutrality and impartiality is unmatched. From 

the preparation and management of ballots or simple counts to the most heated contests, 

the AAA ® is uniquely qualified to provide elections services that are reliable and fair. And 

the AAA offers a variety of ways for clients to conduct elections, including traditional mail 

ballots, touch-screen voting, telephone voting and Internet voting. No matter which method 

of casting votes is chosen, each group’s interests are equitably protected and the democratic 

rights of all participants are fairly and fully preserved. 

For more information, contact the AAA Elections Department at 1-800-529-5218, or visit 

www.adr.org/elections.

FEATURES 

6 

Ready, Set, Engage: 

The New Rules for 

Effective Employee 

Engagement 

1 From the Editor 

15 Standout Public Servants Receive Coveted 

Service to America Medals at 

Washington, D.C., Gala 

21 Partnership for Public Service Releases 2010 

Best Places to Work in the Federal Government 

Rankings, BestPlacestoWork.org 

27 Dr. Reginald F. Wells Chosen to Receive Warner 

W. Stockberger Achievement Award 

29 San Diego Chapter of IPMA-HR Receives 

IPMA-HR Chapter Award of Excellence 

30 IPMA-HR Names Recipients of Honorary Life 

Membership, Agency Awards for Excellence 

32 IPMA-HR’s Test Administration Handbook 

36 Paycheck Fairness Act Reintroduced 

table oF coNteNts 

11 

COLUMNS 

october 2010 | Volume 76 No 10 

17 ECONOMIC OUTLOOK 

Using Voluntary Benefits to Help Public Sector 

Employees Through Difficult Times 

22 COMP DOCTOR TM 

24 LABOR RELATIONS 

Tough Times Call for 

Engagement 

Moving Beyond Employee 

Satisfaction to Improve 

Organizational Outcomes 

NEWS 

35 Professional Development Courses for Public 

Sector HR Professionals 

DEPARTMENTS 

28 RECRUITER SERVICE 

31 MEMBERSHIP MATTERS 

36 CALENDAR 

36 PRODUCTS AND SERVICES 


�� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

THE PUBLIC SAFETY SELECTION SPECIALISTS 

THE PUBLIC SAFE T Y SELEC T ION S P EC IALI STS �� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

��

1617 Duke Street 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

phone: (703) 549-7100 

fax: (703) 684-0948 

www.ipma-hr.org 

Call (703) 549-7100 and ask for the following departments 

for questions regarding: 

HR Center IPMA-HR’s HR Center is free for IPMA-HR members 

providing the latest information on HR policies and practices. It features the 

HR Center with information and sample policies on more than 60 topics. 

Contact the HR Center for the latest information on HR issues, innovations 

and trends at (800) 220-IPMA (4762), fax (703) 684-0948 or e-mail to 

gov@ipma-hr.org. 

IPMA-HR Assessment Services Call (800) 381-TEST (8378) for 

all test- and test product-related questions, test ordering and shipping, 

technical test development and validation questions; all others call (703) 

549-7100 or e-mail assessment@ipma-hr.org. 

Government Affairs For information on legislation or court decisions, 

e-mail gov@ipma-hr.org. 

Membership For membership, address and name changes, and for 

chapter-related information and all dues invoice inquiries, e-mail 

membership@ipma-hr.org. 

Meetings For registration and information about conferences and 

seminars, e-mail meetings@ipma-hr.org. 

Publications To place an order for publications, find pricing information, 

find out about shipping options, verify nonmember subscriptions, obtain 

reprint permission, get guidelines for submissions to Public Personnel 

Management, or to ask all advertising-related questions, e-mail 

publications@ipma-hr.org. 

Web For all questions relating to the Web site, e-mail web@ipma-hr.org. 

IPMA-HR Staff Telephone Extensions 

and E-mail 

Neil E. Reichenberg, Executive Director, ext. 251, nreichenberg@ipma-hr.org 

Jessica Allen, Dir. of Membership & Prof. Development, ext. 255, jallen@ipma-hr.org 

Dianna Belman, Research Associate, ext. 252, dbelman@ipma-hr.org 

Irina Bowyer, Membership Operations Manager, ext. 249, ibowyer@ipma-hr.org 

Tina Ott Chiappetta, Sr. Dir. of Govt. Affairs & Comm., ext. 244, tchiappetta@ipma-hr.org 

Heather Corbin, Prof. Dev. & Research Coordinator, ext. 242, hcorbin@ipma-hr.org 

Sima Hassassian, Chief Operating Officer, ext. 254, shassassian@ipma-hr.org 

Jacob Jackovich, Assessment Services Coordinator, ext. 258, jjackovich@ipma-hr.org 

Elizabeth Kirkland, Director of Publications, ext. 243, ekirkland@ipma-hr.org 

Lynette Martin, Customer Service Representative, ext. 200, lmartin@ipma-hr.org 

Brian Roser, Web Development Manager, ext. 241, broser@ipma-hr.org 

Bob Sewell, Mailroom Manager, ext. 240, bsewell@ipma-hr.org 

Joanne Sisson, Accounting Assistant, ext. 257, jsisson@ipma-hr.org 

Robert Svihla, Test Fulfillment Manager, ext. 256, rsvihla@ipma-hr.org 

Debbie Tankersely-Snook, Special Assistant, ext. 250, tankersely@ipma-hr.org 

Gabrielle Voorhees, Controller, gvoorhees@ipma-hr.org 

Suggestions or comments? Please e-mail us at customerservice@ipma-hr.org. 

IN TOUCH with iPma-hr 

HR 

NEWS 

Editor, Elizabeth Kirkland 

Graphics, Alison Dixon/ImagePrep Studio 

IPMA-HR Executive Director, Neil Reichenberg 

HR News is published monthly by the International Public Management 

Association for Human Resources, 1617 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; 

(703) 549-7100. Copyright ©2010. The October issue is volume seventy-six, 

number ten of the monthly magazine of IPMA-HR. 

Article contributions are welcome and range from 500-2,000 words. HR News 

reserves the right to refuse and/or edit manuscripts submitted for publication. 

Article contributions are encouraged on disk or via e-mail. For further information, 

please contact Elizabeth Kirkland, ekirkland@ipma-hr.org or (703) 549-7100, 

ext. 243. 

Submission of notices of changes in employment, special awards or honors, 

or other member news of interest are encouraged, and should be directed to 

Elizabeth Kirkland, along with black-and-white photographs, if applicable. 

Change of address notices should be sent to the IPMA-HR Membership 

Department at membership@ipma-hr.org. 

IPMA-HR mailing labels are available at a base rate of $105 per 1,000 names or 

at a fraction thereof for one time rental (no retention or reproduction is allowed in 

any form). Key coding and selection sorts are available at additional cost. For 

further information, please go to www.GreatLists.com, or contact GreatLists.com 

by mail at 21351 Gentry Dr., Suite 135, Dulles, VA 20166, by phone at (703) 

821-8130, by fax at (703) 821-8243, or by e-mail at info@greatlists.com. 

IPMA-HR Membership Information 

Join IPMA-HR today and receive IPMA-HR News for free as part of your 

membership. Join online at www.ipma-hr.org, or contact the Membership 

Department at membership@ipma-hr.org or (703) 549-7100. 

Advertising Information 

HR News accepts both classified and display advertising. For complete advertising 

information, please contact Elizabeth Kirkland, publications manager, at (703) 

549-7100, ext. 243, or e-mail ekirkland@ipma-hr.org. 

IPMA-HR is a nonprofit, membership organization dedicated to providing 

resources and advocacy for public human resource professionals at all levels. 

Comprised of four U.S. regions and more than 50 chapters, IPMA-HR represents 

individuals and agencies in local, state and federal levels of government 

worldwide. IPMA-HR provides a focus and forum for the discussion and exchange 

of views and best practices among public sector human resource professionals 

throughout the United States and abroad. 

Coming up in the November issue of 

HRNEWS 

Training and Development 


■ employee engagement ■ employee engagement ■ employee engagement ■ 

Ready, Set, Engage: 

The New Rules for 

Effective Employee 

Engagement 

By Craig Southern, IPMA-CP 

In a recent Web article in the occupational trade publication 

Computerworld, it was reported that job satisfaction was 

considered highly overrated regarding employee performance, 

citing workplace motivation as the major contributor and 

influencer of individual and group success. The Web article also 

advised employers who wanted “employees to be productive, 

engaged, and excited about coming to work…[to] spend more time 

thinking about how to motivate them rather than how to satisfy 

them.” 

This research begs many questions for organizations to ponder these 

days about how to best engage, if possible, their unengaged employees, 

especially amid the backdrop of employees feeling trapped in 

their current job with a nowhere-to-go mentality because of unrelenting 

hiring freezes, critical hire mandates and soaring unemployment 

rates resulting from a slowing or flattening economy. 

Many valid, reliable and credible tools are available to organizations 

to assess the current state of employee affairs via climate surveys and 

workplace satisfaction instruments. These tools can be used by 

| 6 | OCTOBER 2010 

EngagE 

organizations to garner what is on the minds of its employees, 

particularly in ascertaining details about job satisfiers and workplace 

motivators; however, organizations must realize that knowing what 

will engage employees through job satisfaction and motivation is 

another part of the journey on the road to engaging employees. In 

other words, knowing is not doing; therefore, the value of conducting 

a climate survey is virtually nonexistent for an organization and ultimately 

for its employees if the results are not used to formulate and 

implement a plan of action that can benefit all concerned. 

Although assessment tools can ask many questions of employees in 

regard to determining what satisfies and motivates them at work, the 

overarching areas of questions fall across two specific topics: jobs and 

HR NEWS MAGAZINE


careers. Table 1 shows sample questions that could be asked of 

employees when taking a climate survey or completing a workplace 

satisfaction instrument. 

TABLE 1 

Climate Survey/Workplace Satisfaction 

Instrument Questions 

JOBS 

■ How satisfied am I with my job? 

■ How heavy is my workload? 

■ What’s my job’s motivating potential? 

■ Do I want an enriched job? 

■ Is my job rewarding? 

■ Do I like my job? 

■ Do I like my boss? 

CAREERS 

■ How committed am I to my organization? 

■ How committed is my organization to me? 

■ How committed is my manager to me? 

■ How motivated am I by my manager? 

■ How motivated is my manager by me? 

Job Satisfaction Defined 

In the context of employee engagement, perhaps it is best to define 

job satisfaction. Simply stated, job satisfaction is “how an employee 

feels regarding their job, work environment, pay, benefits, etc.” This 

definition suggests that job satisfaction is not the result of motivators, 

but rather a preconception, perception or attitude of varying 

conditions or factors that exist or do not exist during a workplace 

experience. To that end, a positive perception might lead to job satisfaction, 

whereas a negative perception could lead to job dissatisfaction. 

In other words, the absence of either perception does not 

arbitrarily lead to an opposite conclusion or perception. Such 

subtleties can be the proverbial thorn in an organization’s flesh when 

it comes to engaging employees. Enter workplace motivation. 

Workplace Motivation 

There are two basic classifications of employee motivators: intrinsic 

rewards and extrinsic rewards. These motivators function, in essence, 

as the reasons for influencing employees to behave in a desired 

manner, ultimately driving group and organizational performance. 

To wit, employees are more likely to be engaged. 

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards 

Intrinsic rewards are considered to be derived internally (i.e., from 

within) and include fulfillment, actual work performed, personal 

interests, etc., and may contribute to and influence individual job 

satisfaction, whereas extrinsic rewards are considered to be derived 

externally (i.e., from outside us) and include compensation, working 

conditions, recognition, etc., and may contribute to and influence 

individual behavior on the job. In knowing these differences, organizations 

can strengthen developed strategies by incorporating 

customized rewards programs into engagement plans. 

Rewarding Behavior 

Research by renowned American psychologist Frederick Herzberg, 

notable for his extensive work regarding employee engagement, 

specifically in the areas of job satisfaction and motivation, concluded 

that “the same evaluative process can reward one employee with a 

bonus for good performance or punish another employee by withholding 

a bonus because of poor performance.” With this in mind, 

organizations are somewhat challenged to implement an engagement 

strategy that does not address the multiple nuances that must 

be negotiated when rewarding behavior. 

The Job Satisfaction/Employee 

Motivation Connection 

The connection of job satisfaction to workplace motivation seems to 

suggest that the two concepts are often viewed as mechanisms to 

guarantee productivity, which in turn has been interpreted to mean 

employees are engaged. Of course, the degree to which an employee 

is engaged is another consideration organizations must be able to 

determine in order to prove successful in winning the employee 

engagement game. As job satisfaction relates to the contentment of 

employees from within, it does not necessarily indicate that employees 

are motivated by such contentment to be more productive. 

Conversely, as motivated employees may be more productive than 

their contented counterparts, it does not mean employees are 

content to be more productive as a result of motivation. Research by 

organizational behavior authors Stephen P. Robbins and Timothy A. 

Judge indicates that “satisfaction can lead to high levels of performance 

for some people, while for others, high performance is satisfying.” 

Organizations must be careful not to become overeager or 

zealous to implement an “off-the-shelf” engagement solution that 

promises unrealistic outcomes via a one-size-fits-all approach. 

Employee engagement is not about quick fixes or cures; rather it is 

about a long-term investment in and commitment to an organization’s 

most valuable resource—its human capital. 

The Survey Says 

A 2006-2007 survey on employee satisfaction and retention 

conducted by Salary.com revealed that employee dissatisfaction indicates 

that the “real surprise is that employers are largely unaware of 

the real reasons for employee dissatisfaction beyond pay.” This revelation 

suggests there are other reasons (i.e., motivators) that employers 

should consider when connecting job satisfaction and employee 

motivation—especially in the context of engagement. 

As revealed in the Salary.com survey about employee dissatisfaction, 

“this disconnect could lead organizations to focus on the wrong 

issues and as a result, experience high employee turnover and 

CONTINUED ON PAGE 8 



Engage CONTINUED 

replacement costs.” This revelation does suggest that job satisfaction 

surveys must be specific in scope and ask only those questions relative 

to job satisfaction, striving not to assume that job satisfaction is 

the same as employee motivation; otherwise, employers will not 

garner the information they are seeking to know about what satisfied 

their employees. Perhaps a separate survey about motivation of 

employees is the course of action employers can take to determine 

how their employees are motivated as opposed to being satisfied. 

No specific discoveries were gleaned from the Salary.com survey that 

suggested employee dissatisfaction equated to low or lesser levels of 

productivity because of job dissatisfaction; it merely showed that 

“employers are vulnerable to losing [their] most productive talent.” 

In this case, the absence of a connection of job satisfaction and 

employee motivation yields the opportunity for debate that a dissatisfied 

employee could possibly be as productive as a satisfied 

employee, or vice versa. Moreover, an employer may be able to motivate 

an employee with an extrinsic reward (e.g., pay) even though 

the employee may be dissatisfied (i.e., not being rewarding intrinsically) 

with their work. 

Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene 

Theory 

Renowned psychologist Frederick Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene 

Theory suggested that “the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job 

satisfaction, but no job dissatisfaction.” In fact, Herzberg’s research 

into employee motivation indicated that “the things that make 

people satisfied and motivated on the job are different in kind from 

the things that make them dissatisfied.” Herzberg introduced the 

motivators and hygiene factors in his theory of the same name (also 

referred two as the Two-Factor Theory). In essence, motivators 

functioned as intrinsic rewards, and hygiene factors functioned as 

extrinsic rewards. According to Herzberg, motivators promoted job 

satisfaction—the key to achieving productivity and performance. 

Meanwhile, hygiene factors worked to avoid job dissatisfaction. 

Workplace Impacts 

FROM PAGE 7 

The research conducted by Robbins and Judge also revealed there 

are always impacts to the workplace as a consequence of when 

employees are satisfied or dissatisfied. However, destructive impacts 

to the workplace are those resulting from dissatisfied and disengaged 

employees. A Gallup poll of nearly 42,000 randomly-selected working 

adults estimates that disengaged workers cost U. S. businesses as 

much as $350 billion a year. Such troubling figures can be viewed as 

an opportunity for organizations to reengage their employees—and 

to do so as soon as possible. 

When dissatisfied, employees typically respond in one of four ways: 

1) exit, 2) voice, 3) loyalty, or 4) neglect. These responses are 

comprised in the exit-voice-loyalty-neglect framework and are 

presented in Table 2. 

TABLE 2 

Dissatisfied Employee Responses to Dissatisfaction 

RESPONSES 

1. EXIT – Dissatisfaction expressed through behavior directed 

toward leaving the organization. 

2. VOICE – Dissatisfaction expressed through active and 

constructive attempts to improve condition. 

3. LOYALTY – Dissatisfaction expressed by passively waiting 

for conditions to improve. 

4. NEGLECT – Dissatisfaction expressed through allowing 

conditions to worsen. 

Even though the responses of satisfied employees are mostly positive, 

Robbins’ and Judge’s research also indicated negative relationships 

between job satisfaction and absenteeism, turnover and 

workplace deviance (see Table 3). 

TABLE 3 

Job Satisfaction and Negative Relationships 

NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIPS 

■ ABSENTEEISM – Moderate to weak correlation as this 

relationship may result from organizations that provide 

liberal benefits, while the liberal leave benefits may be 

perceived as a job satisfier for some employees, possibly 

resulting in a negative relationship for organizations by 

encouraging their performing employees to take time off as 

desired. 

■ TURNOVER – Strong correlation as this relationship is 

less of a predictor for the turnover for high performing 

employees than it is for poor performing employees. This is 

perhaps best explained by noting the attempts by organizations 

to satisfy their high performing employees (through 

recognition and reward) rather than their poor performing 

employees, such that it can lead to tacit encouragement for 

poor performing employees to leave due to actual dissatisfaction 

from the lack of recognition and reward. 

■ WORKPLACE DEVIANCE – Varying correlation as this 

relationship results in specific behaviors of employees who 

do not like their work environment. Though it is not always 

easy to predict how employees will respond, it is almost 

certain they will respond in a behavior that is not desirable 

or expected (e.g., disengaging, leaving work early and 

substance abuse). 

Organizational Implications 

Although it may not be evident as to just how job satisfaction and 

workplace motivation are connected, research indicates that there are 

many facets of job satisfaction; therefore, when employees are dissat- 

| 8 | OCTOBER 2010 HR NEWS MAGAZINE


isfied, or unmotivated (i.e., unengaged), the results can be devastating 

to an organization’s bottom line, as evidenced by low productivity, 

high turnover, decreased quality of performance, etc. This 

awareness has been proven not only in the United States, but also in 

other working cultures around the globe. Hence, such awareness can 

positively impact any attempt to engage employees. 

These implications also indicate that organizations must make 

certain that managers, the first line of defense for ensuring that 

employees are satisfied and motivated, understand the differences in 

these two concepts and how to apply them. Realizing these implications 

is key as ongoing research continues to suggest that employees 

leave their managers and not their organizations. 

Of course, there is the issue of who should provide managers with 

the vision and training to appropriately engage their employees. As 

previously noted, a key tenet here is that a one-size-does-fits-all 

approach will simply not work, as what motivates one employee may 

dissatisfy another. To this extent, organizations must seek and 

embrace new rules for engaging employees from a holistic philosophy. 

It is this philosophy that will ensure that no employees (new 

hires or veteran staff) are excluded, overlooked or forgotten in 

regard to being actively and purposely engaged for job satisfaction or 

workplace motivation reasons; such is certain to reengage already 

disengaged employees. Also, this philosophy would charge organizations 

to select a champion (preferably from within human resources 

and not just an employee relations worker) who can and will devote 

the necessary time, effort and attention to furthering the cause of 

engaging employees. To wit, the new rules of engagement recommend 

organizations have another CEO—in this case a “chief 

engagement officer”—on board for the sole purpose of employee 

engagement. 

New Rules, New CEO 

As the rules of engagement have changed, so has the definition of 

CEO. Therefore, the idea of an organization hiring a chief engagement 

officer is no longer an unfathomable consideration. Although 

engaging employees is actually everyone’s responsibility within an 

organization, from the employees to managers and the various chief 

executives, neglecting the issue, or the need for a champion, will 

only worsen disengagement. This champion (or CEO) would act as 

a cheerleader to hold everyone accountable—at all levels within the 

organization—for engaging employees. The CEO would be a 

strategic partner who would identify the recruitment, retention and 

reward factors that contribute to the organization’s progress, business, 

development, purpose and mission. Notwithstanding, all of the 

aforementioned factors must align with the job satisfaction and 

workplace motivation wants and needs of employees in order to 

reach a state of engagement. Similarly, the CEO would need to 

collaborative with other strategic partners within the organization to 

create a framework, or model, on which to foster what is expected 

from an engagement philosophy, not to mention how it will be 

measured. 

A Model of C.A.R.E. 

The engagement needs of an organization can best be fulfilled 

through adoption of a holistic philosophy that demonstrates a 

framework or model of concern, appreciation, respect and encouragement, 

or C.A.R.E., for all employees. This C.A.R.E. model (see 

Table 4) combines multiple approaches to engage employees and 

translates well into a genuine and sincere willingness by the organization 

to exert the effort to engage employees. In turn, employees 

gain a sense of significance, belonging, value, purpose and security— 

all the factors that can yield a happy, healthy and harmonious work 

environment. 

Regarding concern, employees recognize that the organization sees 

them more than just the hired help, a vital and productive member 

of the team, balancing work and life. Appreciation is expressed 

through planned and unplanned programs and engaging moments 

of reward and recognition, determined via collaborative effort 

among all stakeholders, including the engaged employees. The 

concept of respect is reinforced through constant leveraging the 

ideas, talents and diversity of employees. 

Inspiration, mentoring and support are the hallmarks of encouragement 

as job fit, empowerment and trust are part of the organization’s 

culture. Consequently, the use of such a model can be 

fashioned and adapted as shifts and trends in employee needs and 

wants change over time. For example, concern could be changed 

celebration (as in to celebrate employee accomplishments and 

achievements) or reward (as in to reward employee accomplishments 

and achievements). Use of a flexible and customizable model 

is certain to increase the likelihood of ongoing and sustained 

TABLE 4 

The C.A.R.E. Model 

C.A.R.E. 

■ CONCERN – Demonstrates to employees an interest by 

the organization for who they are, and what they do, for the 

organization. Employees feel important and recognize that 

the organization sees them more than just the hired help, a 

vital and productive member of the team. 

■ APPRECIATION – Demonstrates the value, and significance, 

of employees as a person, and as solid contributor. 

Appreciation is expressed through gratitude (i.e., reward and 

recognition) for desirable outcomes of performance and 

behavior. 

■ RESPECT – Demonstrates a positive feeling of esteem for 

employees. The concept of respect is reinforced through 

constant expression of admiration, inclusion and cordiality. 

■ ENCOURAGEMENT – Demonstrates inspiration and 

support through active coaching and mentoring. 

Encouragement is expressed through empowerment and 

trust, including building confidence and boosting esteem. 




Engage CONTINUED 

employee engagement. Showing C.A.R.E. for employees is one sure 

way that any organization—public or private, for-profit or not-forprofit—can 

easily, affordably and continually engage employees. 

Organizations must be proactive in regard to engaging their employees. 

Consequently, organizations must also be willing to invest and 

reinvest in the value of their employees as their most treasured 

resource and asset. Although organizations may think employees do 

not have a choice but to stay with them during such bleak and 

stormy economic times, they are missing opportunities to engage 

employees to drive innovation, move the organization forward and 

performance beyond expectation. A primary outcome for any organization’s 

engagement strategy should be to always to remind 

employees that they have made the right career decision—a decision 

that will come to the minds of employees when thoughts of exiting 

the workplace surface. 

Research indicates that disengaged employees are not just unhappy 

at work—they are acting out their unhappiness while at work. 

Meanwhile, engaged employees are passionate about what they have 

chosen to do for a living, despite whatever ills abound, because of 

the profound connection they have with their organization. Creating 

a high-performance environment, characterized by positive leadership 

and strong team orientation, can bode well for any organization 

that wants to engage its employees through words and deeds that 

expresses an attitude of C.A.R.E. 

Craig Southern is responsible for the management of the organization 

development and employee relations programs for the State Personnel 

Administration, the central personnel agency for the State of 

Georgia. His areas of expertise include human resources, management, 

organizational/staff development and training and leadership. 

An active member of IPMA-HR, Southern currently serves on the 

Professional Development Advisory Board at the national level, and is 

the current president for the Georgia Chapter of IPMA-HR. He is 

currently pursuing his Ph.D. in business administration with a specialization 

in human resources management. Southern has earned the 

HR credential of IPMA-CP. He can be reached by e-mail at 

Craig.Southern@spa.ga.gov. —N 

Professional Development Courses for Public Sector 

HR Professionals 

Trusted professional development designed specifically for 

public sector HR professionals that: 

�� 

of competencies 

�� 

�� 

FROM PAGE 9 

�� 

�� 

�� 

Bring Public Sector HR Professional 

Development to Your Agency! 

��www.ipma-hr.org�� 

to schedule your professional development course today! 



“I’ve been picked, shucked and shelled— 

but baby, look at me now.” 

So proclaimed the sign affixed to the novelty corncob outfitted 

to look like a small person that had been placed just next to 

the kitchen of a small Richmond, Va., restaurant. Can you tell 

it was the 1970s? 

Even in today’s challenging economic 

environment, public sector employees 

should not feel that picked clean, 

especially given the current state of 

private sector employment—yet. At 

all levels of government, though, 

employees are well-acquainted with 

the admonition to “do more with 

less.” Federal employees have tightened 

belts, increased efficiency, and 

bid farewell to bought-out colleagues, 

and all signs point to more “more” 

and less “less” on the horizon. As 

“I’ve been 

picked, shucked 

and shelled— 

but baby, look 

at me now.” 

Tough Times 

Call for 

Engagement 

Moving Beyond 

Employee Satisfaction 

to Improve 

Organizational 

Outcomes 

By Doug Nierle and J. Peter Leeds, Ph.D. 

public organizations grow ever leaner while facing increasing pressures 

for improved results, how can managers foster an emotional 

attachment between employees and their work that goes beyond mere 

job satisfaction to improve organizational performance? How important 

is that attachment in the first place? 

The Importance of Employee 

Engagement 

In the Merit System Protection Board’s (MSPB) report, The Power of 

Federal Employee Engagement, employee engagement is defined as a 

heightened connection between employees and their work, their 

organization, or the people they work for or with, which causes them 

to produce better results for the organization. Most of the professional 

literature regarding employee engagement highlights the 

importance of the emotional aspects of work. Competitive pay and 

benefits along with a healthy work-life balance help to drive employee 

satisfaction. But when employees derive meaning from their work or 

have an emotional attachment to it, they are more likely to expend 




Tough CONTINUED 

FROM PAGE 11 

additional effort to accomplish their work above and beyond that 

needed to just get through the day. 

Government organizations may have an advantage in keeping their 

employees engaged due to the likelihood that employees closely identify 

with their missions. A 2005 Merit Systems Protection Board 

(MSPB) survey of almost 37,000 federal employees found that 35 

percent of federal employees were fully engaged. Although affinity for 

public service may account for this figure being a bit higher than 

reported by some studies examining the private sector, it still means 

that almost two-thirds of federal employees were not fully engaged. 

Many studies have shown the importance of employee engagement to 

an organization’s bottom line. Consistent measures of organizational 

performance are hard to come by across the federal government. 

Unlike private organizations there is no profit margin, stock price, or 

other distinct financial measure to examine. However, MSPB’s study 

still showed a correlation between high levels of employee engagement 

and certain organizational outcomes. In federal agencies where 

employees were more engaged, on average, employees used less sick 

leave, fewer employees filed equal employment opportunity 

complaints, and there were fewer cases of employees losing work time 

due to workplace injury or illness. 

In addition, and more importantly as far as organization results go, a 

correlation was found between an agency’s level of employee engagement 

and the one consistent measure of agency programmatic success 

that did exist at the time of the MSPB survey. 

During the Bush Administration, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) administered the Program Assessment Rating Tool 

(PART), which was an effort to link federal government program 

performance to budgeting decisions. The OMB-computed program 

ratings were based on agency program manager responses to a series 

of questions about their programs. The results/accountability portion 

of the PART was designed to determine if agency programs were 

meeting their long-term and annual performance goals. It also 

assessed how well the program compared to other similar programs 

and how well it fared in independent evaluations. 

The MSPB found a statistically significant correlation between the 

average levels of employee engagement in agencies, and agencies’ 

programmatic results as measured by the PART process. That is, the 

higher an agency’s average employee engagement, the better agency 

programs scored on the results/accountability portion of the PART. 

The correlation found between employee engagement and these 

outcomes doesn’t tell us if high employee engagement actually caused 

the outcomes to improve or if another unknown factor caused both 

engagement and the outcome to improve. However, since the correlations 

are statistically significant we can expect that the linkage 

between engagement and outcomes is reliable—where you find 

engaged employees, you will also find a better performing agency. 

Not Fully 

Engaged 

51% 

In general i am satisfied with my job 

(agree/strongly agree) 

The Difference Between Satisfaction 

and Engagement 

Although the MSPB offers a number of recommendations in The 

Power of Federal Employee Engagement to improve the overall level of 

engagement in the federal government, for this special issue of HR 

News we looked specifically at the differences in the level of engagement 

among employees who reported they were already satisfied with 

their job (that is, they answered “agree” or “strongly agree” to the 

survey question: “In general I am satisfied with my job”). Of the 

respondents to the MSPB survey who reported that they were satisfied 

with their job (there were 24,825 of them), 49 percent were fully 

engaged. That leaves 51 percent of employees who reported that they 

were satisfied with their job but who were not fully engaged. For the 

remainder of this article we will label the employees who were satisfied 

with their job and fully engaged as “engaged.” Those employees 

who were satisfied with their job and not fully engaged will be labeled 

“satisfied.” 

What spurs some employees who are satisfied with their jobs to a 

higher level of engagement? Why are other employees who are 

already satisfied with their jobs less than fully engaged? We believe 

exploring the differences between these two groups of employees can 

assist managers and supervisors to further engage their employees 

even in the current challenging environment. 

The differences we found between employees who were fully 

engaged and those who were merely satisfied with their jobs can be 

grouped into three areas: communication, performance motivators, 

and leave motivators. Knowing the opinions of employees on these 

three groups of items enabled us to successfully place them in the 

correct classification (engaged or merely satisfied) 86 percent of the 

time. 

Communication 

Fully 

Engaged 

49% 

We found stark differences between the two groups of employees 

across a number of the avenues of communication that exist in an 



organization. For instance, across the three items in MSPB’s 2005 

survey that asked employees whether their supervisors provide 

constructive and timely feedback on job performance, and whether 

their supervisors keep them informed about how well they are doing, 

an average of 37 percent of fully engaged employees strongly agreed 

while only six percent of employees who were satisfied strongly 

agreed. 

In addition, we found differences in the way these two populations 

understood their place in the organization. Communicating the 

mission of the organization and an employee’s place within that 

mission is critical to engaging employees. Of the employees who were 

fully engaged, an average of 78 percent strongly agreed that they 

understand their agency’s mission and how they contribute to that 

mission. Conversely, only 45 percent of employees who were satisfied 

strongly agreed that they understand their agency’s mission and how 

they contribute to it. 

Some of the most formal ways that organizations/supervisors 

communicate with employees are through the performance management 

and awards processes. When managers bestow awards and high 

performance ratings on certain employees they are communicating in 

a very powerful way what behaviors the organization values and what 

they would like other employees to emulate. An average of 34 percent 

of the employees who were fully engaged said that they have been 

treated fairly to a very great extent in the past two years regarding 

awards and performance appraisals; however, only seven percent of 

employees who were satisfied reported the same. When asked if their 

organization takes steps to ensure that employees are appropriately 

paid and rewarded, 73 percent of the employees who were fully 

engaged agreed or strongly agreed, while only 31 percent of the 

employees who were satisfied agreed or strongly agreed. 

Performance Motivators 

The second difference we found between these two groups of 

employees dealt with what each reported as important in motivating 

them to do a good job. Employees who were fully engaged consistently 

rated intrinsic rewards (versus monetary awards and other 

formal and informal types of recognition) as more important in motivating 

them than did employees who were merely satisfied. For 

example, employees who were fully engaged rated the desire to not let 

coworkers down (67 percent) and the desire to not let their supervisor 

down (60 percent) as very important in motivating them to do a good 

job. Only 41 percent and 30 percent, respectively, of employees who 

were satisfied reported these items as very important in motivating 

them to do a good job. 

Another piece of the motivation puzzle is the extent to which the 

employee identifies with the mission of the organization and how 

that connection may spur the employee to higher levels of engagement. 

Of the employees who were fully engaged, 82 percent strongly 

agreed that their agency’s mission was important to them. Of the 

employees who were merely satisfied, only 54 percent strongly agreed 

that their agency’s mission was important to them. 

What kinds of things organizations reward is also important for 

distinguishing between the two populations. The 2005 MSPB survey 

asked whether creativity and innovation are rewarded in the employ- 

WWW.IPMA-HR.ORG 

ees’ organizations. Seventy-eight percent of employees who were fully 

engaged agreed or strongly agreed that their organization rewards 

creativity and innovation, while only 29 percent of employees who 

were satisfied agreed or strongly agreed that this was the case. 

Leave Motivators 

In The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, MSPB noted that 

employees who were fully engaged had less intention to leave their 

current jobs to look for employment elsewhere. Our current analysis 

puts a finer point on that finding. The MSPB survey asked employees 

if they were to leave their agency in the near future, how important 

several factors would have been in their decision to do so. We 

found that the employees who were satisfied cited factors such as an 

opportunity to make better use of their skills and abilities, increased 

opportunities for advancement, improved opportunities for training, 

and opportunity for recognition for performance, more frequently 

than employees who were fully engaged. This could mean that these 

types of factors were more frequently available to the employees who 

were fully engaged, contributing to their engagement. 

Moving from Satisfaction to 

Engagement 

Given the differences we found between engaged employees and 

those who were merely satisfied, how can managers help to move 

their employees beyond satisfaction even in these challenging times? 

It is obvious that formal and informal communication between 

managers and employees about job requirements, performance expectations, 

and employee accomplishments are vital to foster a fully 

engaged workforce. MSPB discussed the importance of this communication 

both in the Power of Federal Employee Engagement and its 

follow-up report, Managing for Engagement—Communication, 

Connection, and Courage. In addition, in its recent report, The Relationship 

Between Engagement at Work and Organizational Outcomes, 

Gallup found that employee engagement benefits from managers 

discussing any aspect of employee performance—even negative 

ones—with employees rather than giving no feedback at all. Given 

the differences we found in what motivates satisfied employees versus 

what motivates engaged employees, managers would be wise to focus 

attention on continually communicating to employees the importance 

of their jobs, how the work they do fits in with the larger 

organization mission, and how their work products relate to the 

larger organization goals. 

The more formal ways that an organization communicates with 

employees are also important for fostering engagement. Extreme 

caution should be used in doling out awards in any organization. 

Managers need to realize that what actions they reward sends a 

powerful message to all employees about the actions that the organization 

(or the manager) values. Does the message that is sent by the 

award actually match the message that the organization wants to 

communicate? Most important of all for engagement, does the 

organization award creativity and innovation or does it overtly or 

subtly stifle those things? 


OCTOBER 2010 | 13 |


Standout Public Servants Receive 

Coveted Service to America Medals 

at Washington, D.C., Gala 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The nonprofit Partnership for Public 

Service presented eight Service to America Medals (Sammies) at a 

Washington, D.C. gala on September 15 to outstanding public 

servants for their remarkable work assisting Americans in need, 

keeping us safe and advancing our national interests. 

Renamed The Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medals this 

year to commemorate the organization’s founder, the Sammies have 

earned a reputation as one of the most prestigious awards dedicated 

to honoring America’s civil servants. 

The top medal, Federal Employee of the Year, was presented to U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) Pius Bannis for 

providing assistance and hope for Haitian orphans following the 

devastating earthquake in January 2010. A U.S. immigration officer, 

Bannis helped hundreds of orphans escape the tragedy and find 

safety in the United States with new families already in the adoption 

process. 

Additional Service to America Medals went to seven federal workers 

whose achievements range from protecting our environment to safeguarding 

our children from sexual exploitation. 

Medalists come from the Departments of Army, Energy and Navy, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Social 

Security Administration, EPA, FBI and USCIS. They work in 

Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Denver, Key West and Haiti. 

“As our nation faces unprecedented challenges—from rebuilding a 

collapsed financial system to addressing the worst environmental 

disaster in our history—America needs, and our public demands, an 

effective and efficient federal government,” said Max Stier, Partnership 

for Public Service president and CEO. 

“The recipients of the Service to America Medals showcase the good 

that government does, which positively affects our lives every day,” 

continued Stier. “By honoring these outstanding public servants, we 

give America’s unsung heroes the long overdue thanks and recognition 

they deserve.” 

The other 2010 Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medal 

recipients are: 

■ Sandra K. Brooks, Homeland Security Medal 

At Joint Interagency Task Force South, Brooks enables military, law 

enforcement agencies and partner nations to better combat crime on 

the high seas. 

■ Jeffrey M. Baker, Science & Environment Medal 

At the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Laboratory Operations, 

Baker led the design and construction of the world’s largest 

net-zero energy office building, proving that buildings can be created 

to decrease energy consumption at no additional cost. 

■ Shane Kelley and Eva Ristow, Citizen Services Medal 

At the Social Security Administration’s Center for Automation, 

through two-way video technology Kelley and Ristow developed a 

way to bring services to citizens living in impoverished and remote 

locations in the country. 

■ Jamie Konstas, Justice and Law Enforcement Medal 

As an intelligence analyst with the FBI, Konstas is advancing the 

fight against the sexual exploitation of children. Her work has 

resulted in the conviction of more than 600 pimps and predators, and 

the rescue of more than 1,150 children. 

■ Teri Glass and the Army Medical Support Systems Team, 

National Security and International Affairs Medal 

At the U.S. Army Medical Support Systems Project Management 

Office, Glass and her team developed life-saving medical evacuation 

equipment that is increasing survival rates of American soldiers 

wounded in combat. 

■ Saskia van Gendt, Call to Service Medal 

Seeking to reduce the nation’s carbon footprint, van Gendt, a 29year-old 

EPA scientist, is fostering the innovative design of reusable 

and sustainable construction and packaging materials. 

■ Susan Solomon, Career Achievement Medal 

As a senior scientist with NOAA for nearly three decades, Solomon 

led internationally acclaimed atmospheric research that set us on a 

path to restoring the ozone layer and demonstrated the long-term 

harm to the environment caused by global warming. 

The Service to America Medals gala was hosted by Norah O’Donnell, 

chief Washington correspondent for NBC News’ 24-hour cable 

channel, msnbc, and contributing correspondent for the network’s 

top-rated TODAY show. 

Medal presenters included: Secretary Janet Napolitano, Department 

of Homeland Security; Secretary Shaun Donovan, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development; Administrator Jane Lubchenco, 

NOAA; Director John Berry, Office of Personnel Management; 

Admiral Thad Allen retired Coast Guard commandant; and U.S. 

Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.). 

The Service to America Medal winners were nominated by 

colleagues familiar with their work and selected by a committee that 

includes Carol S. Larson, president and CEO, The David and Lucile 

Packard Foundation; Craig Newmark, founder, craigslist; Samuel J. 

Palmisano, chairman, president and CEO, IBM; Sterling K. Speirn, 

president and CEO, W.K. Kellogg Foundation; William E. Kirwan, 

chancellor, University System of Maryland; and U.S. Senator Ted 

Kaufman (D-Del.). More than 400 nominations were submitted for 

medal consideration this year. 



How Do You Meet The 

Pressure To Expand Benefi t 

Options For Your Employees? 

Segal can help. 

Benefi ts and Compensation Consulting 

That Understands the Public Sector 

In today’s environment the needs of the current workforce are more diverse than ever. More and more sponsors are 

offering employees access to voluntary programs. Optimizing these programs can enhance the value to employees 

and makes the programs more meaningful. The Segal Company has unique experience enhancing voluntary benefi t 

programs for our clients. We can help you reduce the costs and improve members’ satisfaction by: 

� Reducing unnecessary margins; 

� Increasing customer service and claims paying effi ciencies; and 

� Customizing plan designs to meet the individualized needs of your population. 

To learn more about Segal’s Voluntary Benefi ts Consulting Services, visit our Web site at www.segalco.com, or call 

Lawrence Singer, Senior Vice President, 212.251.5095 or Howard Goldsmith, Senior Vice President, 212.251.5258. 

Copyright © 2010 by The Segal Group, Inc., the parent of The Segal Company. All rights reserved.

By Howard Goldsmith and Lawrence Singer 

Among the problems public sector 

human resources professionals face 

during tough economic conditions is that 

employees’ needs increase while their 

employers have fewer resources to 

address them. One relatively inexpensive 

strategy that public sector employers can 

use to keep employees engaged during 

difficult times is to offer supplemental or 

“voluntary benefits” that meet employee 

needs and expand their overall benefit 

package. Voluntary benefits are available 

through the worksite at group rates and 

are usually entirely paid for by employees 

who elect to participate in them. 

Voluntary benefit programs can improve 

job satisfaction and encourage the 

prudent utilization of existing employerfunded 

benefits. Finding the correct mix of 

voluntary benefit options that are properly 

matched to existing employer-funded 

benefits requires an inclusive strategy 

where employers, employees and/or 

unions identify only those voluntary benefits 

that provide meaningful care coverage 

and increase financial security. Hence, 

when properly done, voluntary benefit 

offerings can allow public sector 

employers to expand employees’ access to 

benefits at a fair price. 

Make the Most of Existing Offerings 

Offering voluntary benefits is not a new 

concept. Eighty percent of public sector 

employers offer life insurance and more 

than half offer health reimbursement 

accounts, dependent care reimbursement 

accounts and access to a wellness 

program (for details, see the National 

Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits 

in State and Local Governments in the 

United States on the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics’ Web site: 

www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/sp/ebsm0007.pdf). 

Public sector employees who can 

purchase the most common forms of 

voluntary insurance coverage (term life 

insurance and short-term disability insurance) 

usually do. However, participation 

levels for other voluntary benefits, like 

long-term disability insurance and long- 

term care insurance, are relatively low. 

What is new is an employer taking a 

strategic role in reviewing offerings, 

administration and planning. 

Unfortunately, the cost of a benefit rather 

than employees’ needs often drives voluntary 

benefit participation. 

While employers should do everything they 

can to make a benefit affordable, they 

should also be aware of employee needs 

and invest the effort to educate 

employees about those needs. Employees 

who pay for a benefit that has marginal 

value will not help the employer accomplish 

its objectives, regardless of how little 

the employee pays. 

Furthermore, explaining how offerings 

work with other coverage will also increase 

participation and satisfaction. Many voluntary 

benefits are promoted on their own. 

For example, short-term disability is often 

offered with limited or no coordination 

with sick-day programs or other employerprovided 

coverage. Short-term disability 

may be affordable, but it may not provide 

the most needed protection. A marginal 

investment in obtaining a plan design that 

addresses particular needs and distributing 

employee educational material on 

other available benefits will go a long way 

to increase participation and satisfaction. 

Assess the Need for New Voluntary 

Benefits 

In today’s tough times, management and 

labor alike may want to add voluntary 

benefits to fill gaps created by undesirable, 

but financially necessary, reductions 

in employer-funded benefits. For example, 

an employer that has been forced to 

reduce its dental benefits could introduce 

a buy-up option providing access to a 

superior network of providers who charge 

more modest fees than those in the original 

plan. 

Moreover, in the public sector, where 

many jurisdictions have had to furlough 

workers, reduce work hours or make 

reductions in force, those who are still 

employed may be anxious about losing 

ecoNomic outlook 

Using Voluntary Benefits to Help Public 

Sector Employees Through Difficult Times 

their jobs. Reduced overtime and/or 

spousal unemployment can also create 

financial strains. The table below summarizes 

newer voluntary benefits and the 

recession-related employee anxieties they 

address. 

Existing benefits may not adequately 

address today’s recession-related needs. 

For example, employees whose defined 

contribution (DC) retirement plan 

accounts have lost value may be worried 

about their ability to plan a secure retirement 

and meet other needs, like college 

tuition. Although the most obvious way to 

increase the value of a retirement or 

savings plan is with increased contributions, 

providing access to a voluntary 

financial planning program can help. 

Voluntary benefits should give employees 

access to protection each individual 

needs, rather than protection the 

employer thinks they need. Employers can 

conduct surveys and/or focus groups to 

better understand what issues are 

reducing employee engagement, what 

offerings are in greatest demand and 

what employees think are the largest 

gaps. 

Coordinate Voluntary Benefits with 

Traditional Offerings 

Public sector employers should commit 

sufficient time and effort to ensuring their 

voluntary benefits complement their other 

offerings. This is critical to implementing 

fully integrated programs, avoiding 

programs with offsetting objectives, properly 

filling coverage gaps and selecting 

the most appropriate funding method. 

Programs that are introduced independently 

may work at cross purposes. For 

example, a voluntary short-term disability 

benefit that is offered along with a 

generous sick leave policy may make it 

difficult to get employees who miss work 

due to illness or injury to return as soon 

as they can. 



hua County (FL) Alameda County (CA) Albany City (GA) Allen City (TX) Anne Arundel rundel County (M 

nty (MD) Clark County (NV) Clovis City (NM) Cobb County (GA) Contra Costa County (CA) Da 

nty (GA) Gainesville City (FL) Goodyear City (AZ) Gwinnett County (GA) Hampton on City (VA) H 

ity (TX) Jefferson Parish (LA) King County (WA) Lee County (FL) LA Superior Court urt (CA) Mccar 

Beach City (CA) OC Fire Authority (CA) Orange County (CA) Palm Bay City (FL) Pasco County ( 

amento City (CA) Sacramento County (CA) San Bernardino County (CA) San Diego o County (CA) 

ouis County (MO) Malibu School District (CA) Savannah City (GA) Schaumburg Village llage (IL) Spots 

of Tenneesee Texas Education Agency (TX) Union County (NC) Ventura County (CA) State of W 

(TX) Anne Arundel County (MD) Anoka County (MN) Arapahoe County (CO) Arlington rlington County ( 

Contra Costa County (CA) Dakota County (MN) Davenport City (IA) Delray Beach ach Police Dept. 

nty (GA) 

your 

Hampton City (VA) Hawaii 

(PE)ople 

Dept. of Edu. (HI) State of Hawaii Hennepin n County (MN) 

LA Superior Court (CA) Mccarran Airport (NV) Multnomah County (OR) Napa County (CA) Na 

Bay City (FL) Pasco County (FL) Prince George’s County (MD) Reno City (NV) Rochester City (M 

San Diego County (CA) San Mateo County (CA) Santa Barbara County (CA) Santa nta Clara County 

umburg Village (IL) Spotsylvania County (VA) Stafford County (VA) Stearns County y (MN) Surpris 

ura County (CA) State of West Virginia Westerville City (OH) Alachua County (FL) Alameda Count 

nty (CO) Arlington County (VA) Atlanta City (GA) Baltimore County (MD) Clark County (NV) C 

Delray Beach Police Dept. (FL) Eugene City (OR) Fulton County (GA) Gainesville le City (FL) Go 

nepin County (MN) Honolulu City & County (HI) HoustonCity (TX) Jefferson Parish h (LA) King Cou 

Well-defined performance evaluation process is critical in 

a County (CA) Nashville & Davidson Cty. (TN) Newport Beach City (CA) OC Fire Authority (CA) 

Rochester improving City (MN) workforce Rockford productivity Police Dept. (IL) and Sacramento reducing City employee 

(CA) Sacramento nto County (CA) 

Santa turnover. Clara County Measuring (CA) Santa and Monica optimizing City(CA) St. your Louis people’s County (MO) performance 

Malibu School District (C 

rns County (MN) Surprise City (AZ) Tarrant County (TX) State of Tenneesee Texas as Education Age 

County across (FL) the Alameda agency County is (CA) one Albany of the City best (GA) investments Allen City (TX) you Anne can Arundel make del County to (MD) 

nty (MD) guarantee Clark County the (NV) most Clovis effective City (NM) use Cobb of tax-payer County (GA) money Contra and Costa to County (CA) Da 

nty (GA) Gainesville City (FL) Goodyear City (AZ) Gwinnett County (GA) Hampton on City (VA) H 

maximize the services delivered to your constituents. 

ity (TX) Jefferson Parish (LA) King County (WA) Lee County (FL) LA Superior Court urt (CA) Mccar Mcca 

Beach City (CA) OC Fire Authority (CA) Orange County (CA) Palm Bay City (FL) Pasco County ( 

amento City (CA) Sacramento County (CA) San Bernardino County (CA) San Diego o County (CA) 

ouis County (MO) Malibu School District (CA) Savannah City (GA) Schaumburg Village Villl 

llage (IL) Spots Sp S 

of Tenneesee NEOGOV’s (PE) Texas PERFORMANCE Education EVALUATION Agency (TX) Union County (NC) Ventura County (CA) ( (CA) State of o W 

(TX) Anne Arundel County (MD) Anoka County (MN) Arapahoe County (CO) Arlington Arrlington 

County Count ( 

Contra Performance Costa Evaluation County product (CA) allows Dakota government County agencies (MN) to align Davenport agency-wide objective City (IA) with day-to-day Delray operations Beach Beaach 

Police to Dept. Dep 

ensure the efficient use of public resources, as well as providing visibility into the agency’s performance on all levels – 

nty (GA) agency-wide, Hampton departmental, City (VA) and individual. Hawaii Dept. of Edu. (HI) State of Hawaii Hennepin n County (MN) 

LA Superior Court (CA) Mccarran Airport (NV) Multnomah County (OR) Napa County CCounty 

(CA) Na N 

Bay City » Align (FL) departmental Pasco and County individual (FL) performance Prince with George’s strategic agency-wide County (MD) goals Reno City (NV) Rochester RRochester 

City (M 

San » Diego Define performance County (CA) standards San & measurable Mateo goals County (CA) Santa Barbara County (CA) Santa 

Clara County Cou 

umburg » Motivate Village and (IL) retain Spotsylvania high performing employees County (VA) Stafford County (VA) Stearns County Countyy 

(MN) Surpris Surp 

ura County » Identify (CA) and communicate State of organizational West Virginia expectations Westerville City (OH) Alachua County (FL) Alameda AAlameda 

County Cou 

nty (CO) » Avoid Arlington litigation by County providing justification (VA) Atlanta for personnel City actions (GA) Baltimore County (MD) Clark County CCounty 

(NV) C 

Delray » Maximize Beach services Police your Dept. agency (FL) delivers Eugene to the community 

City (OR) Fulton County (GA) Gainesville Gainesvill le City (FL) Go 

nepin County (MN) Honolulu City & County (HI) HoustonCity (TX) Jefferson Parish h (LA) King Cou C 

a County (CA) Nashville & Davidson Cty. (TN) Newport Beach City (CA) OC Fire Authority AAuthority 

(CA) 

Rochester City (MN) Rockford Police Dept. (IL) Sacramento City (CA) Sacramento Sacramennto 

County y( (CA) ) 

Santa Clara County (CA) Santa Monica City(CA) St. Louis County (MO) Malibu School District (C 

rns County (MN) Surprise City (AZ) Tarrant County (TX) State of Tenneesee Texas as Education Age 

port Beach City (CA) OC Fire Authority (CA) Orange County (CA) Palm Bay City (FL) FL) Pasco Cou 

amento For City (CA) more Sacramento information County (CA) San Bernardino visit County (CA) San Diego o County (CA) 

ouis County (MO) Malibu School District (CA) Savannah City (GA) Schaumburg Village llage (IL) Spots 

of Tenneesee www.neogov.com/PE 

Texas Education Agency (TX) Union County (NC) Ventura County (CA) State of W 

(TX) Anne Arundel County (MD) Anoka County (MN) Arapahoe County (CO) Arlington rlington County (

D) Anoka County Count (MN) Arapahoe pahoe County (CO) Arlington County (VA) Atlanta City (GA) Balti 

kota County (MN) Davenport City (IA) Delray Beach Police Dept. (FL) Eugene City (OR) Fulton 

awaii Dept. of Edu. Edu (HI) State of Hawaii aii Hennepin County (MN) Honolulu City & County (HI) Hou 

ran Airport (NV) Multnomah County (OR) OR) Napa County (CA) Nashville & Davidson Cty. (TN) Ne 

FL) Prince George’s Geo County (MD) Reno eno City (NV) Rochester City (MN) Rockford Police Dept. (IL) 

San Mateo County Cou (CA) Santa Barbara a County (CA) Santa Clara County (CA) Santa Monica City(C 

ylvania County (VA) Stafford County (VA) A) Stearns County (MN) Surprise City (AZ) Tarrant County 

est Virginia Westerville We City (OH) Alachua ua County (FL) Alameda County (CA) Albany City (GA) A 

VA) Atlanta City (GA) Baltimore County ty (MD) Clark County (NV) Clovis City (NM) Cobb Coun 

(FL) Eugene City (OR) Fulton County y (GA) Gainesville City (FL) Goodyear City (AZ) Gwinnett 

Honolulu 

at 

City & County Cou (HI) HoustonCity City 

their 

(TX) Jefferson Parish (LA) 

best 

King County (WA) Lee Coun 

shville & Davidson Cty. C (TN) Newport rt Beach City (CA) OC Fire Authority (CA) Orange County (CA 

N) Rockford Police Dept. (IL) Sacramento ramento City (CA) Sacramento County (CA) San Bernardino C 

(CA) Santa Monica City(CA) C St. Louis ouis County (MO) Malibu School District (CA) Savannah City (G 

e City (AZ) Tarrant County Co (TX) State te of Tenneesee Texas Education Agency (TX) Union County ( 

y (CA) Albany City (GA) Allen City (TX) X) Anne Arundel County (MD) Anoka County (MN) Arapa 

lovis City Cit (NM) Cobb County (GA) Contra Costa County (CA) Dakota County (MN) Davenport C 

odyear odye City (AZ) Gwinnett County (GA) Hampton City (VA) Hawaii Dept. of Edu. (HI) State of Ha 

nty (WA) Lee County (FL) LA Superior Court (CA) Mccarran carran Airport (NV) Multnomah County (O 

Orange Ora County (CA) Palm Bay City (FL) Pasco County (FL) L) Prince George’s County (MD) Reno C 

San S Bernardino County (CA) San Diego County (CA) San an Mateo County (CA) Santa Barbara Cou 

A) Savannah City (GA) Schaumburg Village (IL) Spotsylvania ania County (VA) Stafford County (VA) 

ncy (TX) Union County (NC) Ventura County (CA) State of West Virginia Westerville City (OH) A 

Anoka County (MN) Arapahoe County (CO) Arlington County (VA) Atlanta City (GA) Baltimo 

kota k County (MN) Davenport City (IA) Delray Beach Police Dept. (FL) Eugene City (OR) Fulton 

awaii a Dept. of f Edu. (HI) State S of Hawaii Hennepin County (MN) Honolulu City & County (HI) Hou 

ran Airport (NV) NV) Multnomah Multno County (OR) Napa County (CA) Nashville ville & Davidson Cty. (TN) Ne 

FL) Prince George’s eo e’s County Co (MD) Reno City (NV) Rochester City (MN) ) Rockford Police Dept. (IL) 

San Mateo County (CA) Santa Barbara County (CA) Santa S Clara County (CA) CA) Santa Monica City(C 

ylvania County (VA) Stafford County (VA) Stearns County C t (MN) Surprise City Cit ity (AZ) Tarrant T t County CCounty t 

est FEATURES Virginia & Westerville BENEFITS 

City (OH) Alachua County (FL) Alameda County (CA) Albany City (GA) 

VA) Atlanta City (GA) Baltimore County (MD) Clark County (NV) Clovis City (NM) Cobb Coun 

(FL) » Automated Eugene Performance City (OR) Evaluation Fulton Process County (GA) Gainesville » Configurable City Reporting (FL) Goodyear and Dashboards City (AZ) Gwinnett 

Honolulu » Goal City Management & County and Progress (HI) Tracking HoustonCity (TX) Jefferson » Configurable Parish Rating (LA) Scales King County ounty (WA) Lee Coun 

shville » Competency & Davidson Modelling Cty. (TN) and Skill Assessment Newport Beach City (CA) » Writing OC Assistant Fire Authority (CA) A) Orange County (CA 

N) » Development Rockford Police PlanningDept. 

(IL) Sacramento City (CA) » 360 Sacramento Feedback County (CA) San Bernardino C 

(CA) » Configurable Santa Monica Workflow City(CA) with automated St. process Louis flow County (MO) » Organizational Malibu School Charts District rict (CA) Savannah City (G 

e City » Configurable (AZ) Tarrant Appraisal County Templates (TX) State of Tenneesee » Cross Texas Functional Education Teams Agency gency (TX) Union County ( 

(CA) Albany City (GA) Allen City (TX) Anne Arundel County (MD) Anoka County (MN) Arapa 

lovis City (NM) Cobb County (GA) Contra Costa County (CA) Dakota kota County (MN) Davenport C 

odyear City (AZ) Gwinnett County (GA) Hampton City (VA) Hawaii awaii Dept. of Edu. (HI) State of Ha 

nty (WA) Lee County (FL) LA Superior Court (CA) Mccarran ran Airport (NV) Multnomah County (O 

Orange County (CA) Palm Bay City (FL) Pasco County y (FL) Prince George’s County (MD) Reno C 

San Bernardino County (CA) San Diego County (CA) ) San Mateo County y( (CA) ) Santa Barbara Cou 

A) A Savannah City (GA) Schaumburg Village (IL) Spotsylvania potsylvania County (VA) Stafford County (VA) 

ncy (TX) ( Union County (NC) Ventura County (CA) State of West Virginia Westerville City (OH) 

nty (FL) (F Prince George’s County (MD) Reno City y (NV) Rochester City (MN) Rockford Police Dept 

San Mateo M County (CA) Santa Barbara County ty (CA) Santa Clara County (CA) Santa Monica City(C 

ylvania County C (VA) Stafford County (VA) ) Stearns County (MN) Surprise City (AZ) Tarrant County 

est Virginia Westerville City (OH) Alachua County (FL) Alameda County (CA) Albany City (GA) A 

www.neogov.com 

VA) Atlanta City (GA) Baltimore County (MD) Clark County (NV) Clovis City (NM) Cobb Coun

ecoNomic outlook 

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 17 

The most efficient way to offer voluntary 

benefits is through a cafeteria-style 

program that includes both employerprovided 

and voluntary benefits. A coordinated 

menu of options will encourage 

employees to think about their needs and 

make optimal selections. 

Work with Vendors 

One of the challenges of integrating traditional 

and voluntary benefits is getting 

voluntary benefit vendors on board. As 

benefit offerings have become more 

complex, insurance companies have 

narrowed their portfolio of services, 

offering fewer voluntary benefit options. 

Similarly, broker-administrators have 

developed specialized expertise in education, 

enrollment and administration to 

support those limited platforms. This has 

made it more difficult to design and coordinate 

voluntary and employer-funded 

benefits. Also, the best way to manage 

education, enrollment and premium 

collection differs by offering. Certain 

voluntary benefits are most effectively 

funded through payroll deduction and 

others through an annual fee. Some, but 

not all, vendors offer help with employee 

communications. 

Employers should evaluate vendors’ offerings 

and develop strategies to educate 

and enroll employees. They also should 

ensure offerings are properly priced and 

underwritten, including having a renewal 

formula and procedures (covering such 

things as expenses, trend, credibility and 

participation) consistent with objectives. 

When selecting vendors for new 

employee-paid voluntary benefits through 

competitive bidding, employers need to 

make sure coverage is efficient, costeffective 

and sustainable. The process is 

as important for voluntary benefits as it is 

for employer-paid benefits. 

Public sector plan sponsors should keep 

in mind that their size, compared to most 

private-sector employers, usually gives 

them an advantage in negotiating with 

new vendors. Vendor selection should 

cover financial terms, payment methodology, 

administration and performance 

standards and renewal terms. 

Public sector employers should monitor 

the performance of existing and new 

vendors periodically. Among the factors to 


Newer Voluntary Benefits,* Employee Needs Met and 

Employee Benefits Complemented 

Newer Voluntary Benefits Employee Needs Met Employee Benefits 

Complemented 

Fitness Center General Anxiety/Stress Basic Health Care Plans & 

Wellness Programs 

Financial Planning Investment Losses in Savings & 

Defined Contribution (DC) Plan 

Accounts & Inflation 

Education/Training/ 

Retraining 

consider are utilization, employee satisfaction 

with customer service, technology, 

administration and claims paying ratings. 

Conclusion 

Public sector employers that devote 

resources to the design, underwriting, 

administration and pricing of voluntary 

benefits will benefit by offering a valuable 

service that will encourage employee 

engagement during difficult times. 

Voluntary benefits can also help soften 

the impact of any benefit reductions that 

the employer has had to make. 

Appropriately packaged and delivered, 

voluntary benefits can significantly 

Defined Benefit Retirement 

Plans & DC Plans, including 

§403(b) & §457 Programs 

Unemployment Supplemental Unemployment 

Benefits, Severance Plans & 

Tuition Reimbursement 

Mini-Med** Illness FMLA & DC Savings Plans 

Excess Major Medical*** Extended Serious Illness Health Care Plans, FMLA, DC 

Savings Plans & Short-Term 

Disability 

Dread Disease Rider to Life 

Insurance 

Specific Health Illness Health Care Plans, FMLA, DC 


Disability 

Hospital Supplement Extended Hospital Stay Health Care Plans, FMLA, DC 


Disability 

Automobile & Homeowners’ 

Insurance 

Legal Risks & Natural Disasters Group Legal & DC Savings 

Plans 

Legal Insurance Legal Risks DC Savings Plans 

Identity Theft Protection Unauthorized Use of Identity 

and Credit 

Discount Shopping Programs Paying for Household 

Purchases 

Group Legal & DC Savings 

Plans 

DC Savings Plans 

Information about §529 Plans Paying for College Financial Counseling 

* National information about the percentage of public sector employers offering these voluntary benefits or 

the percentage of employees who opt to participate is not available. 

** Mini-Med is limited coverage typically available to select employee groups, such as part-time employees. 

*** Excess major medical is catastrophic coverage for out-of-pocket costs. 

Source: The Segal Company 

enhance the actual and perceived value 

of employer-provided benefit programs. 

Howard Goldsmith is a senior vice president 

in the New York office of The Segal Company. 

He has more than 20 years of experience in 

benefits consulting. He can be reached 

either by phone at (212) 251-5258 or by email 

at hgoldsmith@segalco.com. Lawrence 

Singer is a senior vice president in the New 

York office of The Segal Company. He works 

with large public sector health plans and is 

an expert on health, life and supplemental 

benefit plans. He can be reached either by 

phone at (212) 251-5095, or by e-mail at 

lsinger@segalco.com. —N 


Partnership for Public Service Releases 2010 

Best Places to Work in the Federal 

Government Rankings, BestPlacestoWork.org 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The nonprofit Partnership for Public 

Service recently released the 2010 Best Places to Work in the Federal 

Government rankings. The rankings measure employee satisfaction 

and are based on a survey of more than 263,000 federal workers at 

290 federal agencies and subcomponents. 

“The Best Places to Work rankings are an important tool in improving 

federal employee commitment and satisfaction,” said Max Stier, 

president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. “When 

agencies are badly managed and workers are dissatisfied, the public 

suffers.” 

The Partnership for Public Service honored the top 10 large, top 

five small and four most improved Best Places to Work agencies today 

in Washington, D.C. Top honors for large agencies go to: 

1. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

2. Government Accountability Office 

3. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

4. Smithsonian Institution 

5. National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

6. Social Security Administration 

7. Department of State 

8. General Services Administration 

9. Department of Justice 

10. Intelligence Community 

Top honors for small agencies go to: 

1. Surface Transportation Board 

2. Overseas Private Investment Corporation 

3. Congressional Budget Office 

4. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 

5. Peace Corps 

Most improved of the 31 large federal agencies ranked is the 

Department of Transportation, increasing its score by 15.8 percent 

and moving up in the rankings from 30 (out of 30) in 2009 to 26. 

The Department of Treasury also has a significant score increase of 

8.2 percent, moving up from a 2009 ranking of 17 to 12 in the large 

agency rankings. Biggest movers among the 34 small agencies 

include the Federal Labor Relations Authority, with a 250 percent 

increase, moving from 32 (out of 32) in 2009 to 20 in the new rankings, 

and the Federal Communications Commission, with an 

increase of 23.6 percent, moving from 28 to 21. 

According to the Best Places to Work analysis, employee satisfaction 

is at an all-time high of 65 out of 100, a 7.4 percent jump from 

2003 when the rankings were first released, with 68 percent of 

agencies improving their index score since the last rankings in 2009. 

The primary drivers are effective leadership and a belief by 

employees that their skills are well-suited to their agency’s mission. 

The Partnership for Public Service works with American 

University’s Institute for the Study of Public Policy Implementation 

and the Hay Group to produce the rankings. 

“The Best Places to Work analysis is an important benchmark for 

every agency that wants to increase productivity,” said Professor 

Robert Tobias, director of American University’s Institute for the 

Study of Public Policy Implementation and Key Executive 

Leadership Programs at American University's School of Public 

Affairs. “Those agencies who are increasing their scores are 

improving employee engagement which then directly leads to 

increased agency productivity.” 

The rankings represent an in-depth look at the views of federal 

employees during the Obama administration. Agencies are ranked 

in three categories: large (2,000 or more employees), small or 

subcomponent, and in 10 workplace categories, including leadership, 

work/life balance, and pay. 

The Best Places to Work analysis notes that employees in the privatesector 

continue to be more satisfied with their jobs, organizations 

and supervisors than their counterparts in the federal government. 

“The rankings are important because they provide an early warning 

sign for agencies in trouble,” said Stier. “And, they provide a mechanism 

to hold agency leaders accountable for the health of their 

organizations and a roadmap for better agency management.” 

The complete Best Places to Work rankings are available at 

bestplacestowork.org. Visitors can access trend analysis, demographic 

data and all 10 workplace categories, as well as generate 

custom reports and conduct side-by-side comparisons for up to 

three agencies. 

The rankings are compiled by the Partnership for Public Service 

and American University’s Institute for the Study of Public Policy 

Implementation from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s 

annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. The Best Places rankings 

were first produced in 2003, and again in 2005, 2007 and 2009. 

The Partnership for Public Service is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization 

working to revitalize our federal government by inspiring a new 

generation to serve and by transforming the way government works. 

—N 


comP doctor tm 

By Jim Fox and Bruce Lawson, Fox Lawson & Associates, A Division of Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc. 

Question: we have just been 

hammered with requests from the city 

council, the media, the public and every 

other life form on the planet about the 

salaries and benefits offered by our city. 

this is probably the result of the considerable 

publicity about exorbitant compensation 

paid to officials in a few cities in 

california including a city manager 

making almost $800,000 per year in a 

city with fewer than 50,000 residents. at 

the same time, there are reports that a 

former city manager in another small 

california city was receiving a pension of 

more than $500,000 per year. to quote 

the former head of bP, we just want our 

lives back. what, if anything, can we do 

to “make this right”? 

CompDoctor TM 

: You want your 

life back? Just remember that the author 

of that quote got his life back and, 

although he is still employed by BP, his 

new outpost is Russia and not London. 

Unfortunately, this situation, we believe, is 

not going to go away easily or smoothly 

but there is a lot you can do to at least 

address the problem and hope that the 

stakeholders in your community are openminded 

enough to listen and smart 

enough to understand the facts. If they 

are not, then little that we say can or do 

will make much of difference, at least in 

the short run. 

The situation that has arisen in California 

as a result of the revelations of compensation 

abuse in the city of Bell is, we believe, 

unique, and, we hope, isolated. 

Unfortunately, the media has played this 

up in such a way that every public agency 

in California, if not throughout the nation, 

is now going to be subject to a level of 

scrutiny about compensation that heretofore 

only existed when we went in for our 

annual physical exam. Now, we know that 

over the years there have been many local 

newspapers that have periodically 

published the salaries of all public officials 

earning over a certain amount of money. 

Many eons ago (back in the ’60s), we 

recall that the amount was $10,000 per 

year. (When you all stop laughing, we will 


go on.) Slowly, the base amount rose to 

$25,000, then to $50,000 and then to 

$100,000. Now we have cities, counties 

and other units of government paying 

some top officials $300,000 or more in 

base pay. Whether these amounts are 

appropriate is a topic that we will be 

happy to address in the future; however, 

for now, we will focus on how to deal with 

the public scrutiny about public sector pay. 

Over the past three to four years, we have 

all seen major exposés on private sector 

compensation abuses coming out of the 

financial services meltdown and the 

golden parachutes that many private executives 

have received, even when their 

performance was not stellar. We now have 

the federal government providing oversight 

of pay levels in certain private organizations 

as well as not for profits, and others 

are now required to disclose their 

compensation levels to shareholders and 

subject them to advisory votes. We can all 

ask why this is necessary but it appears to 

stem from individuals getting greedy, 

comparisons with inappropriate peers 

(which means they really are not peers) 

and not thinking about compensation 

from a strategic view. When organizations 

define their compensation philosophy and 

strategies up front and there is open 

discussion of the philosophy and strategies, 

we find that there is generally less 

resistance to how pay is delivered and the 

amounts of pay. 

In a survey conducted by IPMA-HR, 78 

percent of public sector organizations 

have a defined pay philosophy. Whether 

that philosophy has been widely shared, 

or instructive, is another matter. 

However, we have digressed, so back to 

the issue at hand. What can you do about 

this mess? 

There are some things you can do right off 

the bat; the first would be to have an independent 

audit of your pay setting process. 

For example, the state of Colorado 

conducts annual audits (through the office 

of the state auditor) of the salary survey 

process used by the Colorado State 

Personnel Department to determine salary 

adjustments for state employees. The city 

of Denver conducts a similar audit every 

three to four years. 

The audit process serves a very legitimate 

and public purpose and that is to show 

the stakeholders that the salary levels are 

reflective of the labor market and that the 

process used to determine salary levels 

can withstand public scrutiny. In other 

words, the process and the results are 

valid and reliable. If you have not had an 

audit of your pay system process and pay 

levels in the last couple of years, you 

might want to consider having one done 

at the earliest opportunity. 

The second thing you can do (and agencies 

in California will be doing this 

because they will have no choice given 

legislative mandates that will no doubt 

result) is to put your entire job classification 

and pay plan on your Web site. 

The reason we say both the classification 

and the pay plan is so that anyone can 

look up any job, see what it is, and what it 

gets paid. One of the problems that we 

have noted with the publicity resulting 

from the Bell situation is that reporters 

have been trying to show comparative 

data but, because the data is not easily 

available, they are making some rather 

erroneous assumptions and conclusions. 

This is simply a result of comparing job 

titles without any understanding of the 

differences in actual duties between 

organizations even though the titles may 

be the same or similar. 

Publishing actual employee salaries is 

another matter. Ultimately, that information 

is public record in most states but 

whether you are willing to list every 

employee and show their current job title 

and their current pay, is a decision that 

each agency will have to make for itself. 

A third thing you might do is become 

proactive. Rather than waiting for the 

media to come to you to ask for information, 

go on the offensive. Post and provide 

information that not only talks about what 

you are paying, but WHY you are paying 

what you are, which takes you back to the 

pay strategy! The public needs to understand 

why pay levels are what they are 

and, more importantly, what they are 

getting (i.e., performance) for their money. 

For example, if you pay your city manager 

and department heads more than comparable 

cities, but your crime rate is low, 


your emergency response time exceeds 

standards, your economic development is 

higher, and you have a healthier fund 

balance than other comparables, then 

maybe the pay level is worth it. Until you 

let the taxpayers know those things, you 

may have a problem with the perception 

of your levels of pay. 

So, until public sector compensation is 

understood by the public and linked to 

performance outcomes that the citizens 

Tough CONTINUED 

FROM PAGE 13 

The differences between what motivates satisfied and fully engaged 

employees to leave an organization should provide managers with 

insight into what opportunities they should seek to provide their 

employees in an attempt to fully engage them. The first step of 

this process is for managers to get to know their employees. All 

employees don’t need the same type of training. Not all employees 

want training at all. Do employees who need training receive it? Do 

employees who want training receive it, or are they told there is no 

budget left for training? Or are other ways explored to provide the 

same skills, absent formal classroom training (through mentoring, job 

rotation, special projects, low/no-cost training options, etc.)? 

The difference in leave motivators between our two populations also 

highlights the importance that supervisors know the unique abilities 

of each employee and make the best use of those abilities. In addition, 

does the manager know what different rewards best motivate his or 

her different employees, or are all employees presented with a monetary 

award to recognize stellar performance? Does a supervisor’s 

ongoing feedback include praise for a job well done? Also, recognizing 

that not all employees can reach the highest grade level, managers 

should focus on alternative ways to assist their employees in advancing 

in their careers. This can include offering employees the opportunity 

to further develop their existing skills and master new ones that 

will also enhance their job performance, or offering employees new 

challenges such as the opportunity to lead teams, participate in 

special projects, or take part in short rotational assignments to other 

organizations. At the very least, this approach can increase employee 

engagement by demonstrating that the organization cares about its 

employees and their professional growth. A full list of recommendations 

to achieve a highly engaged workforce can be found in MSPB’s 

two reports discussing employee engagement. 

Individual managers can’t be expected to engage their employees on 

their own. Human resources (HR) staffs play a critical role in fully 

engaging employees in any organization, and they must be up to the 

task. HR staffs must provide the larger organization with effective 

programs to help managers engage their workforce. It is evident that 

effective performance management and award and recognition 

programs are vital to fully engaging employees. In addition to the 

can “see and feel,” you may not be getting 

your life back very soon. 

Hopefully, these thoughts provide some 

insight as to how you might respond to 

your elected officials and the media. 

The Comp Doctor is the team of Jim Fox and 

Bruce Lawson of Fox Lawson & Associates, a 

Division of Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc., a 

compensation, benefits and human resources 

consulting firm that specializes in assisting 

comP doctor tm 

governments in fixing their compensation, 

benefits and classification systems. You may 

find them on the Web at www.foxlawson.com. 

If you have a question, you would like to have 

them answer, please write to them at 

james_fox@foxlawson.com or 

bruce_lawson@foxlawson.com. They will 

try to include it in the next issue of 

Comp Doctor. —N 

programs themselves, HR staffs must ensure that managers are 

trained on how to properly use the programs, as well as on the importance 

of employee engagement in the first place. Only after HR 

provides managers with an effective toolbox of ways to engage 

employees, and with the training on how to use these tools, can 

managers be held accountable for knowing which tools work best 

with which employees. 

Employees can be excused for being less than enthusiastic given the 

current economic environment, especially if their management has 

been preoccupied with responding to the latest round of personnel or 

budget cuts instead of on more strategic workforce issues. But 

managers can’t neglect opportunities to forge an emotional tie 

between employees and their organizations for a number of reasons. 

As resources continue to dwindle, organizations can only be successful 

if those who remain are fully engaged in their work. In addition, 

when the economy does improve, there will be renewed opportunities 

for employees to leave for other more engaging jobs, and managers 

will not only want to retain these employees, but will also want to lead 

an organization that is adept at engaging employees to attract the best 

additional available talent. 

If managers and human resources staffs are able to keep a focus on 

engaging employees, organizations will be able to stave off employee 

malaise and, worse, employee cynicism. Though some may feel like 

they’ve been put through the ringer by today’s environment, employees 

will be proud of what they and their organizations accomplish and 

will retain a “Look at us now” level of engagement. 

Doug Nierle is a senior research analyst and J. Peter Leeds is a senior 

research psychologist in the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (MSPB) 

Office of Policy and Evaluation (OPE). OPE staff members conduct 

research to assess the soundness of federal merit employment 

systems and offer recommendations for their improvement to the 

president, the Congress, and other federal decision makers. MSPB 

reports and newsletters are available at www.mspb.gov/studies. 

Nierle and Leeds can be reached by e-mail at doug.nierle@mspb.gov 

and peter.leeds@mspb.gov. —N 


labor relatioNs 

By Tina Ott Chiappetta 

IPMA-HR Senior Director of Government 

Affairs and Communications 

Sixth Circuit Rules 

Employer Failed to 

Request Certification 

for FMLA Leave 

a receptionist who missed several days of 

work in a row is entitled to proceed with 

her Family and medical leave act (Fmla) 

claim because the employer failed to 

properly request medical certification, 

ruled the united states court of appeals 

for the sixth circuit in the case Deborah 

Michele Branham v. Gannett Satellite 

Information Network, Inc., d/b/a The 

Dickson Herald Group, docket No. 09- 

6149, september 2, 2010. 

Deborah Branham was fired from her 

receptionist position at the The Dickson 

Herald for excessive absenteeism. This is 

her second employment stint with the 

newspaper. She first worked there from 

November 21, 2003 to January 15, 2004, 

when she was also fired for absenteeism. 

She was rehired July 26, 2005. 

On November 7 and 8, 2006 Branham 

called the office to say that she would not 

be able to report to work because her son 

was home sick. On November 9 and 10, 

Branham called to say that she was sick 

and would not be into work. On Monday, 

November 13, Branham’s husband called 

to say that he was taking her to the doctor 

and she would not be in. She saw Dr. 

Pamela Singer at the Dickson Family 

Medical Group. She told the doctor she 

was suffering from migraines, depression, 

insomnia and a stomach virus. After test 

results came back normal, Dr. Singer told 

her Branham that she could return to work 

the next day. 

Branham testified that she called her 

immediate supervisor and told her that 

she still wasn’t feeling well although the 

doctor released her to come to work. 

Branham said that during the same 

conversation she would need to attend 

other doctor appointments in November 

and December. Her supervisor, Ms. Buhler 

told her to come into the office to sign a 

form for short term disability leave, Ms. 

Buhler also told her she could do some 


work from home to help close-out the 

month. 

Branham did not report to work the 

remainder of the week but she did perform 

some work from home. On Thursday 

Buhler faxed a medical certification form 

to Dr. Singer and on Friday, she received a 

completed form indicating that Branham 

did not need medical leave. 

On Monday, November 20, Branham did 

not report to work and did not call to 

explain her absence. At this time, Buhler 

began the process of termination by 

consulting with her superiors and human 

resources. Buhler was advised by human 

resources to call Branham and tell her that 

her job would be in jeopardy unless she 

provided additional medical documents 

confirming the need for medical leave. 

Branham said that her regular doctor is 

the one who should be consulted and 

although Buhler tried to reach the regular 

doctor, going so far as to send an 

employee over with the forms, the regular 

doctor, Dr. Peters, refused to sign the 

forms because he did not see Branham on 

November 13. 

Branham did not report to work following 

the Thanksgiving holiday and termination 

proceedings began. On November 28, 

Branham was called at home and told she 

had been fired. On that same day, at 6 

p.m., Branham had the nurse practitioner 

fax a completed certification form to the 

newspaper saying that Branham’s illness 

began on May 6, 2006 and was expected 

to prevent her from returning to work until 

January 1, 2007. 

Branham sued arguing that The Dickson 

Herald violated the FMLA by interfering 

with her use of leave and by terminating 

her employment. The lower court 

dismissed Branham’s suit, finding that the 

employer was justified in relying on the 

“negative” certification provided by Dr. 

Singer after the November 13 office visit. 

The lower court said that an employer 

does not have to wait the 15 days provided 

for the return of medical certification if it 

receives a negative certification in the 

meantime. 

The Sixth Circuit reversed on other 

grounds. The court found that the 

employer never properly requested a 

medical certification as required by the 

law. The court found that Branham 

satisfied her notification requirement by 

telling Buhler on November 13 that she 

wasn’t feeling well and would need 

additional time off in November and 

December. 

According to the court, the newspaper 

never triggered the additional duty to 

provide a medical certification supporting 

her claim. The information about the 

requirement to submit a form or the 

consequences for failing to do so were not 

provided in writing within the prior six 

months nor did the requirement appear in 

the employee handbook when she first 

joined the newspaper in 2003. 

Other questions, such as whether or not 

Branham suffered from a serious health 

condition, are for a jury to decide, said the 

court. 

Demoted School 

Administrator 

Allowed to Proceed 

with Age 

Discrimination Case 

the united states court of appeals for 

the tenth circuit ruled that a school 

administrator demoted from an executive 

director position to principal could 

proceed with her age discrimination suit. 

she provided sufficient evidence that the 

school board’s reasons for the demotion 

were untrue. she did not need to provide 

additional evidence of age discrimination 

in order to move forward, said the court. 

Judy F. Jones v. Oklahoma City Public 

Schools 89, docket No. 09-6108, august 

24, 2010. 

Judy F. Jones worked for the Oklahoma 

City Public Schools (OKC) as a teacher 

beginning in 1969 then as a principal for 

15 years. In 2002 she was promoted to 

executive director of curriculum and 

instruction where she stayed until she was 

demoted to principal in 2007. The school 

superintendent, John Porter and the OKC 

argue that the decision was economic; 

that the move allowed the five executive 

director positions could be reduced to 

four, with the duties absorbed by the other 

four. The funds would then be available to 

create a new deputy superintendent 

position. 


One month after Jones was reassigned; 

Porter created a new executive director 

position of teaching and learning. The job 

duties were very similar to those 

performed by Jones and that position was 

filed by an individual who was 47 years 

old. Jones was 59 at the time. 

Jones sued under the Age Discrimination 

in Employment Act (ADEA). The Tenth 

Circuit found sufficient evidence to permit 

Jones to proceed. She showed that she 

was in a protected class, she suffered an 

adverse employment action, she was 

qualified for the position, and she was 

treated less favorably than those not in the 

class. The court dismissed the argument 

by OKC that Jones did not suffer an 

adverse employment action. 

OKC argues that Jones’s salary remained 

the same for one year after the transfer 

but the court pointed out that after the 

one year, her salary was reduced by 

$17,000, her pension benefits were also 

affected and her vacation time was 

affected immediately. 

The Tenth Circuit also rejected the lower 

court’s assertion that Jones needed to 

show “pretext-plus” in order to proceed. 

“Pretext plus” means that Jones needed to 

show not only that OKC’s proffered 

reason—to save money—was untrue, but 

also that age was the reason for the 

decision. The Tenth Circuit said it was 

sufficient for Jones to show that the 

economic reason was untrue—OKC 

essentially filled the identical position one 

month after reassigning her to a principal 

position. Jones did not also need to show 

evidence of age discrimination. 

The Tenth Circuit did say that in certain 

narrow circumstances it may be that no 

rational fact finder could conclude that 

discrimination was the reason for the 

termination. For example, said the court, if 

the record showed that there was some 

other non-discriminatory reason for the 

decision. 

Coworker 

Harassment Created 

Hostile Environment 

the united states court of appeals for the 

Ninth circuit ruled that a coworker’s 

repeated harassment of a male coworker 

can be sufficient to create a hostile work 

environment in violation of title Vii. the 

employer’s failure to take any action lead 

to its liability. Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) v. 

Prospect Airport Services, Inc., docket No. 

07-17221, september 3, 2010. 

Rudolpho Lamas and Sylvia Munoz worked 

for Prospect Airport Services, Inc. in Las 

Vegas, helping passengers who needed 

wheelchair assistance. Lamas had a 

successful career until the harassment, 

which he argues was the cause of his 

termination. 

In September 2001, prior to being hired by 

Prospect, Lamas’ wife died and this was 

common knowledge among his coworkers. 

In the fall of 2002, Munoz, who was 

married at the time, began propositioning 

Lamas and sending him love notes. She 

asked coworkers to tell Lamas that she 

was interested in him. From the fall of 

2002 until his termination in June 2003, 

Munoz continued to harass Lamas. Lamas 

repeatedly told Munoz he was not 

interested, that he was grieving over his 

wife. His coworkers were unsympathetic as 

were his supervisors. 

He repeatedly complained to his direct 

supervisor and when that failed to achieve 

any results he complained to other 

managers, including the assistant general 

manager who suggested that Lamas 

should be flattered. 

In support of his hostile environment 

claim, Lamas testified that Munoz’s 

actions and those of his coworkers caused 

him emotional distress, that he sought 

psychological counseling, and that the 

quality of his work deteriorate as a direct 

result of the harassment and it led to his 

termination. 

The lower court dismissed his claim but 

the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that 

Lamas had met all the criteria of a prima 

facie case: 1) he was subjected to verbal 

or physical conduct of a sexual nature; 2) it 

was unwelcome (Lamas testified that he 

told Munoz numerous times to stop and he 

complained repeatedly to management); 

and 3) the conduct was sufficiently severe 

or pervasive to alter the working conditions 

and create an abusive environment. 

On the last point, the court said that the 

combination of Munoz’s unwelcome and 

repeated advances combined with 


Prospect’s complete failure to address the 

situation were sufficient to create a 

question for a jury as to whether or not the 

environment was hostile. 

Town Official Did 

Not Engage in 

Protected Free 

Speech; Breach of 

Fiduciary Duty Issue 

for Fact-Finder 

the united states court of appeals for 

the seventh circuit affirmed in part and 

reversed in part a case involving a top 

official for the town of cicero, ill. the 

court found that the official did not 

engage in protected free speech and 

allowed the issue of breach of fiduciary 

duty to proceed to trial. Clarence Gross v. 

Town of Cicero, Illinois, et al., docket No. 

06-4042, august 27, 2010. 

Clarence Gross was employed by the Town 

of Cicero in a variety of top-level positions 

from the time he retired as a police officer 

in 1997 until he was fired in October 

2002. The position at issue in this case is 

his role as hearing officer and chairman of 

the Board of Fire and Police 

Commissioners (BOFPC). He was 

appointed to this position by town 

president, Betty Loren-Maltese. 

Gross was fired prior to the end of this 

three year term on the BOFPC. He alleges 

it was because he complained several 

times to Loren-Maltese about the alleged 

sexual harassment of his daughter, a town 

of Cicero police officer, by Police 

Commander, Jerold Rodish. Gross alleges 

that his daughter and other female 

officers were harassed by Rodish, and 

that on six separate occasions he tried to 

talk to Loren-Maltese about it but she 

brushed him off, saying she knew what he 

was there to talk about and they’d get to it 

later and to call the town’s attorney. 

Gross admits in that he never specifically 

mentioned Rodish, the other female 

officers or the sexual harassment claim 

explicitly. When Gross did not get a 

response from Loren-Maltese he 




CONTINUED FROM PAGE 25 

encouraged his daughter to file an EEOC 

charge. These form the basis of his First 

amendment suit. 

The Seventh Circuit rejected both 

arguments, finding that there was nothing 

in the record showing that the speech was 

on a matter of public concern. Rather, he 

only mentioned his daughter, failed to 

discuss the nature of the problem or who 

was involved and took no further action. 

Similarly, encouraging his daughter to file 

an EEOC charge is not protected speech 

because there is no evidence that he did 

anything more than talk to his daughter. He 

did not participate in the charge in any way. 

The town of Cicero countersued, arguing 

that Gross breached his fiduciary duty to 

the city. Gross testified that he at times 

hired police officers he did not feel were 

qualified because he was directed by 

Loren-Maltese to do so. The city’s suit 

alleges that he breached his fiduciary duty 

by doing this because his job 

responsibilities including hiring police 

officers. The lower court ruled in the town’s 

favor on summary judgment but the 

Seventh Circuit ruled that this is an issue 

for a jury because there is a question of 

fact as to whether or not there was an 

arrangement between Loren-Maltese that 

Gross and his daughter would remain 

employed if Gross hired the officers Loren- 

Maltese wanted. 

The court noted that simply following a 

superior’s directions would not be a 

breach of the fiduciary duty without more. 

In addition, all the officers hired were 

qualified under Illinois law. —N 

Contact IPMA-HR Senior Director of 

Government Affairs and Communications Tina 

Ott Chiappetta, either by e-mail at 

tchiappetta@ipma-hr.org, or by phone at (703) 

549-7100, ext. 244. 

Solutions for people who pay people. 

Job Classification 

Compensation 

Performance Pay 

Salary Surveys 

1335 County Road D Circle East 

St. Paul, MN 55109-5260 

Phone: (651) 635-0976 Fax: (651) 635-0980 

P.O. Box 32985 • Phoenix, AZ 85064-2985 

Phone: (602) 840-1070 Fax: (602) 840-1071 

www.foxlawson.com 


Dr. Reginald F. Wells Chosen to 

Receive Warner W. Stockberger 

Achievement Award 

IPMA-HR sponsors several recognition 

programs at the national level for 

outstanding service, contribution, and 

accomplishments in the public sector 

human resources field. This year, Dr. 

Reginald F. Wells, the U.S. Social Security 

Administration’s (SSA) deputy commissioner 

for human resources and chief 

human capital officer, was awarded the 

Warner W. Stockberger Achievement 

Award. The award recognizes a person in Dr. Reginald F. Wells 

public or private life (regardless of their 

IPMA-HR membership status) who has made outstanding contributions 

in the field of public sector HR management at the federal, 

state or local levels, and is presented annually by IPMA-HR. 

As the deputy commissioner for human resources, Wells advises the 

commissioner of the agency on all matters pertaining to the welfare 

and support of SSA’s 66,000 workforce, which consists of employees 

working in 1,400 installations nationwide, including field offices, 

card centers, teleservice centers, and hearing offices. On a day-to-day 

basis, he manages a staff of 460, which are dispersed throughout six 

components—the Office of Personnel, the Office of Learning, the 

Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity, the Office of Labor 

Management and Employee Relations, the Executive and Special 

Services staff, and the Human Capital Planning staff. 

During his time with SSA, Wells has contributed to the agency’s 

culture, has helped reform its policy on hiring, and his passion about 

the advantages of having a diverse workforce, including the disabled 

and veterans, has helped to translate to the agency’s high ranking 

across government for hiring employee with disabilities and 

providing them the tools to be successful. 

Wells has built what many human resource leaders call the best 

succession plan in government, and ensures that the agency has a 

well-rounded, talented pipeline of future leaders. His “retirement 

wave” analyses have been used to forecast vacancies, including in 

managerial positions. He also was a catalyst for strategic workforce 

planning, and his recruitment strategies have maximized the talents 

of each person to achieve sound business results. 

Wells is an ardent leader in recruiting citizens from underrepresented 

groups, including Hispanics, Asian Americans, veterans, and the 

disabled, and his recruitment efforts have resulted in a multigenerational 

workforce aged 19-91 who speak more than 100 languages. 

Wells continually nurtures a team spirit with his staff, empowering 

and challenging them to develop and embrace opportunities outside 

their comfort zones, and his leadership style has led to high morale 

throughout the agency. He also believes in the value of mentoring, 

donating his time, giving advice and feedback, exposing others to 

new opportunities and experiences and serving on boards of 

nonprofit organizations. 

Wells has developed and implemented creative training opportunities, 

including a University Partnership Program Pilot with the 

University of Maryland, Baltimore County (the program will be 

rolled out to other SSA locations in the near future), which offers 

SSA employees the opportunity to enroll in credit and non-credit 

academic courses, continuing education and training classes. SSA 

employees can also, through Wells’ leadership, continue their quest 

for personal learning through audio books, which are requested 

online and delivered to their door. And, to enhance employees’ bilingual 

capabilities, Wells has also provided access to the Rosetta Stone 

Language Learning program. 

Wells has led the effort to implement the agency’s first training business 

plan, which will change and enhance the way training is 

conducted at SSA. The goal of the plan is to transform SSA into a 

premier learning organization. 

Wells was a professor at Rutgers University and at St. Peter’s College 

in New Jersey, where he taught policy and psychology courses. He 

has written several articles and has been interviewed numerous times 

by major periodicals, including Government Executive, Federal 

Computer Week, U.S. News and the Washington Post. —N 


ecruiter serVice 

Chief Deputy Director of Personnel 

Wayne County, Mich. 

Detroit, Mich. 

Salary Range: $96,660-$152,220 

Job Description: Wayne County is the 13th most populous county in 

the nation with approximately 2.1 million residents. With 43 distinct 

communities, including the automotive capital of the world—Detroit— 

Wayne County is highly diverse, features world-class amenities, and 

is rich in history, culture and the arts. The county is seeking a chief 

deputy director of personnel who is qualified to succeed the current 

director of personnel upon his retirement in May 2011. Wayne 

County has approximately 3,800 FTEs with 15 labor groups. The 

Personnel Department has approximately 40 FTEs in four divisions: 

Benefits and Disability Administration, Workforce Administration and 

Compliance, Organizational and Employee Development, and Labor 

Relations and Dispute Resolution. The county seeks a high-energy, 

proactive individual with strong communication skills who has strong 

analytical and problem solving abilities. The successful candidate 

should be politically astute, able to function well in a fast paced 

environment, and possess excellent interpersonal skills with a 

management style that encourages open dialogue and creativity. 

The chief deputy reports to the director of Personnel who in turn 

reports to the county executive’s office. 

Job Requirements: Requirements include a bachelor’s degree with 

an emphasis in human resources, public administration, business 

administration, pychology or a related field, with a master’s or juris 

doctorate degree preferred. Candidates should have at least seven 

years increasingly responsible executive-level experience in a large, 

full service human resources department, preferably with a public 

entity. Salary range is $96,660-$152,220, with the starting salary 

based upon qualifications. Hiring rate generally does not exceed 

midpoint. Wayne County offers an excellent benefits package. 

To Apply: To apply, visit our Web site at www.bobmurrayassoc.com 

and follow the prompt to apply online by creating an applicant 

profile. Position is open until filled; first review of resumes will be on 

October 18, 2010. A detailed brochure is available on our Web site 

or by request. Questions regarding this recruitment should be 

directed to Renee Narloch at reneen@bobmurrayassoc.com, or call 

(850) 391-0000. Wayne County, Mich., is an equal opportunity 

employer. 

Human Resource Development Director 

City of Fayetteville, N.C. 

Hiring Range: $87,740-$120,000 

Closing Date: Oct. 15, 2010 

Job Description: Fayetteville is the fifth largest city in North 

Carolina. Fayetteville is a community steeped in history and enriched 

with proud tradition and military heroes. The city provides friendly 

service and warm hospitality that makes residents and visitors feel 

at home. What we are most proud of is reflected in our motto of 

“History, Heroes, and a Hometown Feeling.” The city of Fayetteville is 

seeking a passionate, driven, dynamic human resource 

development director to join our team. This critical role provides 

leadership to the city manager and senior management team in 

guiding, developing, and implementing strategic and operational HR 

initiatives focused on achieving business results. The ideal 

candidate will be a results-oriented leader skilled in organizational 

development, coaching and mentoring, employee relations, 

recruitment and selection, and compensation and benefits, and will 

have a strong business partnership background and extensive 

generalist experience supporting a diverse management team. 

Job Requirements: Key Responsibilities include: 

• Partners with senior leadership to design and manage HR initiatives 

and solve organizational and complex employee relations 

issues. 

• Understands all city departmental operations to the level necessary 

to operate as a business partner to each department 

director, supervisor, and employee. 

• Leads the development of organizational systems, and leadership 

and employee development and training. 

• Fosters a team environment at all levels and encourages open 

dialogue to effective conflict resolution. 

• Models and establishes HR systems that support the city’s 

organizational values. 

• Leads efforts on policy development, implementation, and 

training. 

• Creates recruitment and selection strategies that attract top 

talent and develops mid-level managers for senior-level positions. 

• Seeks opportunities to improve existing HR programs and services 

that improve on the quality services while remaining consistent 

with legal and effective HR practices. 

• Partners with city management to establish and execute the 

city’s compensation package to include wage and salary structure, 

pay policies, benefit design and administration, and pay and 

benefits implementation processes. 

• Leads and executes the city’s compliance with all existing governmental 

and legal requirements including Equal Employment 

Opportunity (EEO), the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), the 

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Department of Labor 

(DOL), the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act (USERRA), and other pertinent laws (state and federal). 

• Assists managers and legal with minimizing the city’s risk and 

exposure to legal action. 

Key qualifications include: 

• Minimum of eight years of experience gained through increasingly 

responsible HR management positions, plus five years of 

supervisory experience 

• Bachelor’s degree in HR or related field; Master’s Degree a plus 

• SPHR/PHR is desired 

• Proven experience in managing multiple projects in a fast-paced 

environment with strong prioritization and organizational skills 

• Proven experience in solving complex organizational problems 

and decision making regarding issues that are highly sensitive 

• Extensive knowledge of HR practices, laws, and trends, preferably 

in the public sector 

• High level of oral and written communication skills; ability to 

present to audiences from city council to front-line employees 

• Excellent computer skills including Microsoft Word, Excel, and 

PowerPoint and experience with managing HRIS Systems 

To Apply: Apply for this position online at 

http://agency.governmentjobs.com/fayetteville. This position is 

open until October 15, 2010. The first application review will take 

place on October 4, 2010. A number of applicants may be selected 

to go further in the process which may include the completion of a 

written questionnaire, phone interview, and on-site assessment 

center. An official offer will be made after the selected candidate’s 

reference checks, background check, and academic verifications 

have been completed (after receiving the candidate’s permission). 

The city of Fayetteville reserves the right to close the position at any 

time without notice. The city of Fayetteville is an equal opportunity 

employer that values diversity at all levels of its workplace. 


San Diego Chapter of IPMA-HR 

Receives IPMA-HR Chapter Award 

of Excellence 

The San Diego Chapter of IPMA-HR was awarded the 2010 

IPMA-HR Chapter Award of Excellence. The Chapter Award 

of Excellence recognizes those chapters that significantly advance 

and enhance the human resources profession through innovative 

membership recruitment and retention strategies, excellent educational 

programs and quality member communications. 

Membership Recruitment Strategies 

The San Diego Chapter employs a variety of tactics as member 

recruitment strategies. The most successful recruitment strategy is to 

maintain their current members. For fiscal year 2009/2010, the San 

Diego Chapter had 221 members. Last year and this year, they 

offered an early bird discounted membership rate for people who 

enrolled during the first month, and after the early bird special, 

offered the full membership rate. By offering affordable membership 

rates, the chapter has been able to maintain most of its members year 

after year. 

Offering wonderful incentives to their members is another recruitment 

strategy of the San Diego Chapter. They offer members 

discounted rates for monthly lunch meetings, discounted rates for the 

Competency Training Course, job opportunity e-mail notices, and 

affiliate membership with IPMA-HR. The San Diego Chapter also 

provides outreach to students by speaking about IPMA-HR and the 

benefits of membership at college classes. 

The San Diego Chapter offers opportunities to benefit the community 

by participating in the annual food drive to benefit the San 

Diego Food Bank. During the November 2009 Food Drive, the San 

Diego Chapter collected the equivalent of 149 meals. 

Membership Retention Strategies 

The San Diego Chapter retains members by asking them what they 

want and by listening their responses. The chapter considers the 

requests of its members, for everything from speaking engagements 

to parking at luncheon locations and everything in between. It is by 

listening and by offering interesting and timely programs with 

engaging speakers relevant not only to members of the HR community 

but also to other managers, supervisors and executives that they 

have been able to keep their membership numbers up over the years. 

Educational Opportunities, Training 

Programs and Products 

The San Diego Chapter has organized training courses and participates 

in Western Region conferences. They have advanced and 

enhanced the human resources community by sending 10 members 

to the Train the Trainer course for Competency Training Course 

since 2004. The San Diego Chapter also holds monthly luncheons. 

The chapter has maintained a healthy financial balance sheet, which 

enables them to subsidize luncheons and trainings so that more 

members can attend and benefit from the learning experiences. 

All IPMA-HR chapters nominated for the Chapter Award of Excellence 

must have submitted their current and previous year’s chapter 

reporting form and be current in paying IPMA-HR’s united membership 

fee in order to be eligible for the award. Winning chapters 

receive a Chapter Award of Excellence plaque, one complimentary 

IPMA-HR International Training Conference registration, one additional 

registration for the IPMA-HR Leadership Conference, and recognition 

in the Association’s publications. —N 

IPMA-HR members Arch Pounian and Wes Morgan, IPMA-CP, enjoy a 

Chicago Cubs baseball game. 


IPMA-HR Names Recipients of Honorary Life 

Membership, Agency Awards for Excellence 

IPMA-HR sponsors several recognition programs at the national 

level for outstanding service, contribution, and accomplishments 

in the public sector human resources field. This year, Oscar B. 

Jackson, Jr., IPMA-CP; Steve Lanclos, IPMA-CP; East Bay 

Regional Park District in Oakland, Calif.; the City of Beverly Hills, 

Calif.; and the State of Tennessee were chosen by the IPMA-HR 

Executive Council to receive awards, which will be given out during 

the IPMA-HR International Conference this month. 

Jackson, who has held numerous human resources positions in state 

of Oklahoma government, serving in his current position as administrator 

of the Oklahoma Office of Personnel Management and 

Cabinet secretary since 1991; and Lanclos, the City of Baton Rouge, 

Parish of East Baton Rouge assistant human resources director 

(retired), are the recipients of IPMA-HR Honorary Life 

Memberships, which recognize and honor persons who have 

rendered distinguished service in advancing or upholding the 

purposes of the Association. These members have, at no fee, all the 

rights and privileges of individual members, including the right to 

hold Association office and to vote on all issues requiring a decision 

by the membership. 

Oscar B. Jackson , Jr., IPMA-CP, and Steve 

Lanclos, IPMA-CP, Chosen to Receive 

Honorary Life Memberships 

Jackson has held offices within IPMA-HR 

since 1998, when he became involved with 

the IPMA-HR Conference Planning 

Committee. Since that time, he has served 

as chair of the IPMA-HR Nominating, 

Finance, Awards, Fellowship and 

Conference planning committees. He has 

also served as a member of the IPMA-HR 

Executive Council. He served as president 

of IPMA-HR in 2007, and as president of 

the Public Human Resources Certification 

Council in 2005. Jackson has also served 

on the IPMA-HR Professional 

Development Committee and on the 

IPMA-HR Products and Services 

Taskforce. 

Oscar B. Jackson, Jr. 

In addition to the offices Jackson has held 

within IPMA-HR, Jackson has also 

contributed to many of IPMA-HR’s 

conferences, including, in 2001, as a 

keynote speaker at the HR Training 

Steve Lanclos 

Conference in Shanghai, China; as 

presiding officer at the International Symposium on Public 

Personnel Management in Cape Town, South Africa in 2007; and as 

a speaker, panelist and moderator at many national, regional and 

local IPMA-HR conferences. 

Jackson is a member of the Oklahoma Public Human Resources 

Association—the Oklahoma chapter of IPMA-HR. He also, from 

2002-2008, served on the IPMA-HR Southern Region Governing 

Board. 

Among the many awards Jackson has won are the 1999 Outstanding 

Board Member of the Year (Urban League of Greater Oklahoma 

City) and the 2003 Outstanding Civic Leader (The Asia Society of 

Oklahoma). Jackson was inducted into the University of Oklahoma 

College of Education’s Hall of Fame in 2005. 

Lanclos, also a recipient of an Honorary Life Membership, is a 

staunch supporter of IPMA-HR and has encouraged many individuals 

to join the organization. He has served on the IPMA-HR 

Conference Planning and Fellowship committees and has attended 

more than 10 IPMA-HR international training conferences. 

Lanclos has been active in IPMA-HR on the regional and chapter 

levels. He was for two years president of the Louisiana chapter of 

IPMA-HR, and has served on the Planning Committee for the 

Louisiana Chapter conferences, and on the Bylaws and Resolution 

Committee. For IPMA-HR’s Southern Region, Lanclos has served 

as secretary, treasurer, vice president and president. 

Lanclos has attended more than 25 Southern Region conferences, 

and has served, for the Southern Region, as co-chair of the Southern 

Region Conference. He has also served on the Southern Region’s 

Planning, Awards and Nominations, Audit and Future Goals 

committees. 

Lanclos has been a panelist for several round-robin tabletop “ask the 

expert” discussions, during monthly meetings, for the Louisiana 

IPMA-HR Chapter, as well as a panelist for several similar tabletop 

discussions for IPMA-HR’s Southern Region. He has served as a 

moderator for several tabletop discussions for Louisiana IPMA-HR 

Chapter monthly meetings, and, on several occasions, as a speaker 

for the Louisiana State University IPMA-HR Student Chapter. 

Lanclos also, at their request, spoke at a meeting of the Alabama 

Human Resources Chapter in order to encourage the chapter to 

become affiliated with IPMA-HR, after which the chapter voted 

and approved the request to become affiliated with IPMA-HR. 

Some of the awards Lanclos has won are the Allen Award (for 

outstanding chapter member, given by the Louisiana Chapter of 

IPMA-HR), the Edwin L. Swain Award (for outstanding Southern 

Region member, given by the IPMA-HR Southern Region), and 

the Charles Dunbar Award (given by the Louisiana Civil Service 



Certification Corner 

Congratulations to these newly 

certified individuals! 

Andy Brooks, IPMA-CP 

Human Resources Manager 

City of Casselberry, Fla. 

Kenneth Brown, IPMA-CP 

Senior HR Consultant 

Forsyth County 

Winston Salem, N.C. 

Tim Clement, IPMA-CP 

HR Analyst 

San Diego County Water 

Authority 

San Diego, Calif. 

Amy Crusen, IPMA-CP 

Human Resources Liaison 

County of Peoria, Ill. 

John Farrell, IPMA-CP 

Human Resources Director 

Virgin Islands Waste 

Management Authority 

St. Croix, Virgin Islands 

Kevin Fridlington, IPMA-CP 

Senior Human Resources 

Analyst 

City of Torrance, Calif. 

Stephanie Gallagher, IPMA-CP 

Administration Officer II 

Ventura County Probation 

Agency 

Ventura, Calif. 

Shayne King, IPMA-CP 


Bryant, Ark. 

David Lyons, IPMA-CP 

Chief of Police 

Garden City Police 

Department 

Garden City, Ga. 

Betty Mayer, IPMA-CP 

HR Director 

Century College 

White Bear Lake, Minn. 

Deborah McHenry, IPMA-CP 


City of Antioch, Calif. 

Monique Nowlin, IPMA-CP 

Personnel Analyst III 

County of Ventura – HR 

Department 

Ventura, Calif. 

T. Ann Phillips, IPMA-CP 

Director 

Georgia State Personnel 

Administration 

Atlanta, Ga. 

William Lee Rudd, IPMA-CP 

Deputy Commissioner 

Georgia State Personnel 

Administration 

Atlanta, Ga. 

Viveca Sonberg, IPMA-CP 

Assistant Director and Chief 

Deputy HR Officer 

Public Works and Engineering 

Department 

Houston, Texas 

Bobbie Soto-Davis, IPMA-CP 

Human Resources Technician 1 

City of Alexandria Department 

of Transportation and 

Environmental Services 

Alexandria, Va. 

membershiP matters 

Member News 

Pam Arrigoni, IPMA-CP, city administrator for the city of Prospect 

Heights, Ill., will retire on December 24, 2010. She has worked in 

public service for 27 years. 

Tamaryn Boston, IPMA-CP, HR technician with the city of La 

Mesa, Calif., and Jessica Collins, IPMA-CP, personnel analyst with 

the city of Richmond, Calif., have been awarded the Ronald Gabriel 

Conference Scholarship for new HR professionals. Both will participate 

in the IPMA-HR International Training Conference this 

month in Seattle. 

The National Association of State Personnel Executives (NASPE) 

selected Jeff Herring as the recipient of the 2010 Leadership in State 

Human Resource Management award. Herring serves as the executive 

director of the Utah Department of Human Resource Management. 

He is the immediate past-president of NASPE. 

Nontigorn Kanchanachitra has been appointed the secretary general 

of the Thailand Office of the Civil Service Commission. He served 

previously as the Deputy Secretary General. He replaced Benchawan 

Srangnitra, who retired at the end of September. 

Joe Lubin, IPMA-CP, is the HR director for the city of Liberty, 

Ohio. He worked previously for the cities of Mayfield Heights, Ohio, 

and Shaker Heights, Ohio. Lubin is a past-president of the IPMA- 

HR Central Region. He serves on the IPMA-HR Professional 

Development Committee. 

Phyllis Lynes, IPMA-CP, assistant general manager, city of Los 

Angeles, has been appointed to the IPMA-HR Executive Council. 

Her three-year term will begin on January 1, 2011. Lynes served as 

the chair of the 2009 and 2010 IPMA-HR Conference Program 

Committees and is a member of the IPMA-HR Successful Practices 

Taskforce. She also is a past-president of the Southern California 

Public Management Association for Human Resources (SCPMA- 

HR) and is a member of the Western Region Board of Directors. 

Congratulations to the Macau Human Resources Association 

(MHRA) on its fifth anniversary. MHRA is an IPMA-HR affiliate. 

WWW.IPMA-HR.ORG OCTOBER 2010 | 31 | 

—N

assessmeNt Products aNd serVices 

PUBLICATIONS AND SERVICES ORDER FORM 

A. ORDER 

We have a Test Security Agreement on file at IPMA-HR and wish to order the following items: 

PUBLICATIONS 

QUANTITY x UNIT COST = TOTAL COST 

EL-PO 100 Series Candidate Study Guide $12 

Assessment Center Educational Materials $299 

Public Safety Oral Interview Handbook $80 

Test Administration Handbook $80 

Considerations in Test Accommodations FREE* 

Considerations in Implementing 

Selection Procedures 

Considerations in Addressing 

Adverse Impact 

Considerations in Handling 

Item Challenges 

FREE* 

FREE* 

FREE* 

TOTAL: 

* Only available in electronic format, please provide email address in Section B. 

SERVICES 

QUANTITY x UNIT COST = TOTAL COST 

Requests for the following items are for electronic information packets further describing each 

respective service. Each packet will include instructions on how to proceed with ordering the 

service, as well as current pricing information. 

Please provide an email address in Section B to receive these packets. 

Customization Packet 

Police Customization Packet FREE 

Fire Customization Packet FREE 

Generic First-Line Supervisor 

FREE 

Customization Packet 

Semi-Stock Customization Packet 

Police Semi-Stock Customization Packet FREE 

Fire Semi-Stock Customization Packet FREE 

Inspection Copy 

Job Analysis Service Packet FREE 

Transportability Study Service Packet FREE 

IPMA-HR’s Test Administration Handbook* 

Use this handbook to... 

■ Build expertise in test administration. 

■ Understand the legal and professional issues of test 

administration. 

■ Understand the pros and cons of customization versus using 

tests from publishers. 

■ Understand score interpretation. 

■ Understand the gathering of local validation evidence that 

supports a test. 

You get a book written for novices as well as the trained and experienced. 

The book includes: 

■ Test administration concepts, ranging from the most basic to the more advanced. 

■ Legal and professional considerations. 

■ Objective discussion of test procurement. 

■ Sections on score interpretation and the gathering of local validation evidence. 

Order this valuable resource today for $80 by calling (800) 381-TEST (8378) or by 

emailing us at assessment@ipma-hr.org. —N 

Prices and availability of publications and services described here may change. 

Please visit us on the web for the most up to date information. 

*This publication is only available to those with a Test Security Agreement on file. 

B. AUTHORIZATION 

This section must be completed by an official who has 

signed the Test Security Agreement with IPMA-HR. 

CUSTOMER ID# 

NAME TITLE 

AGENCY 

SHIPPING / STREET ADDRESS 

CITY STATE / PROVINCE ZIP CODE 

COUNTRY 

PHONE # 

EMAIL 

SIGNATURE DATE 

Please send information about participating in our test 

development projects. Go to http://www.ipma-hr.org/ 

assessment/development for details. 

** PAID PUBLICATIONS 

ARE NON-REFUNDABLE** 

C. BILLING 

Please reference the attached purchase order 

on my invoice 

My Billing Address is different from my 

shipping address: 

ATTENTION 

AGENCY 

ADDRESS 


I would like to order by credit card 

Please bill my: Visa Mastercard 

NAME ON CARD 

CARD # EXPIRATION DATE 

SIGNATURE 

PHONE NUMBER 

TO ORDER 

CALL: (800) 381-TEST (8378) 

FAX: (703) 684-0948 

MAIL: 1617 Duke Street, 


INTERNET: testing.ipma-hr.org 

If you do not receive confirmation within 24 hours 

of faxing your order or sending your order online, 

please contact the assessment department at 

(800) 381-TEST (8378) or assessment@ipma-hr.org. 

Photocopy this order form and send to IPMA-HR. 

| 32 | OCTOBER 2010 HR NEWS MAGAZINE 

$80

TESTING ORDER FORM 

A. ORDER 

We have a Test Security Agreement on file at IPMA-HR and wish to order the following test(s): 

We are in the process of renaming our tests. If you are a returning customer, go to 

http://www.ipma-hr.org/assessment/tests/key to familiarize yourself with the new test names. 

TEST/PRODUCT TITLE QUANTITY x UNIT COST = TOTAL COST 

POLICE SERVICE TESTS & PRODUCTS 

PO-EL 101 (TIP) PO-EL 102 (TIP) $15.00 

PO-EL 201-NC (TIP) 



$15.00 

PO-EL 301 (VID) 

$15.00 

Format: VHS DVD (included in unit cost) 

PL 301 $15.00 

PSUP 201 PSUP 202 PSUP 203 $15.00 

PDET 101 $15.00 

PO-BDQ 201-NC (see scoring below for addt’l fees) $6.00 

PO-RCE 101 (VID) PO-RCE 102 (VID) 


FIRE SERVICE TESTS & PRODUCTS 

$7.50 

FF-EL 101 FF-EL 102 $12.50 

FF-EL 201-NC (TIP) FF-EL 202 (TIP) $15.00 

FF-EL 301-NC (TIP) FF-EL 302 (TIP) $15.00 

FL 101-EM FL 102 $15.00 

FF-RCE 101 (VID) FF-RCE 102 (VID) 


$7.50 

CO-EL 101 CO-EL 102 

CORRECTIONS TESTS & PRODUCTS 

$12.50 

CO-EL 201 (TIP) $15.00 

CF-FLS 101 $15.00 

CO-BDQ 201-NC (see scoring below for addt’l fees) $6.00 

CO-RCE 101 (VID) CO-RCE 102 (VID) 


$7.50 

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION CENTER TESTS & PRODUCTS 

ECC-EL 101 $12.50 

ECC-EL 102 (AUD) 

Audio Format ECC-EL 102 (AUD): 

CD VHS Cassette 

ECC-EL 201 (VID) 


$12.50 

$15.00 

ECC-FLS 101 $15.00 

ADMINISTRATIVE TESTS & PRODUCTS 

Administrative Support Modules (List modules below) (see below) 

CASM-1 (5 modules) (see below) 

CASM-2 (3 modules) (see below) 

ADMINISTRATIVE TEST PRICING: 

One module at $5.50; two modules at 

$8.00. Any additional modules at $1.50. 

Cumulative price is per candidate. 

HAND SCORING: One scoring stencil 

will be provided for each test title. Extra 

scoring stencils may be rented for $10.00. 

Only one stencil may be provided for 

every 50 tests ordered. Corresponding 

answer sheets will be provided. 

SCORING SERVICE: Please fill in an 

appropriate fee of $40.00 for each test title 

ordered, plus $0.50 for each answer sheet 

to be scored. Please allow up to 72 hours 

for results to be processed. 

ANSWER KEY: A list of answers will be 

included for each test title at no charge. 

No answer sheets will be provided. 

BACKGROUND DATA QUESTIONNAIRE: 

BDQ’s must be returned to IPMA-HR to 

be scored. Please include an appropriate 

charge of $45.00, plus $0.50 per answer 

sheet to be scored. 

ADMINISTRATION FEE 

($90/each test item ordered) 

Hand (quantity per test) 

Scoring Service Answer Key 

SUBTOTAL 

MEMBERSHIP DISCOUNT 

(5% discount for IPMA-HR Agency 

membership) 

SUBTOTAL WITH DISCOUNT 

RUSH SHIPPING 

(If applicable. See section B 

for fee schedule) 

TOTAL: 

Prices and availability of tests and services described 

here may change. Please visit us on the web for the 

most up to date information. 

B. SHIPPING INSTRUCTIONS 

TESTING DATE (REQUIRED TO RECEIVE CREDIT FOR UNUSED TESTS.) 

Confirming telephone order — do not duplicate. 

PLEASE CHECK ONE: 

Free shipping, via UPS Ground. 2 to 7 business days 

shipping time depending on location. Free upgrade 

to 2nd Day UPS for locations in Alaska & Hawaii. 

Rush shipping, via UPS 2nd Day or Next Day. $20 + 

10% of order total. 

C. AUTHORIZATION 

This section must be completed by an individual who 

has signed the Test Security Agreement with IPMA-HR. 

CUSTOMER ID# 

WWW.IPMA-HR.ORG OCTOBER 2010 | 33 | 

NAME 

TITLE 

AGENCY 

SHIPPING / STREET ADDRESS (NO PO BOXES) 


COUNTRY 

PHONE # 

EMAIL 

SIGNATURE DATE 

D. BILLING 

You will be billed after your order ships. Unused test 

booklets will be accepted for credit towards your 

original invoice if returned within 2 weeks of your 

scheduled test date. A credit memo will be sent once 

your return is received. 

Please reference the attached purchase order 

on my invoice 

My Billing Address is different from my 

shipping address: 

ATTENTION 

AGENCY 

ADDRESS 


TO ORDER 

CALL: (800) 381-TEST (8378) 

FAX: (703) 684-0948 

MAIL: 1617 Duke Street, 


INTERNET: testing.ipma-hr.org 

If you do not receive confirmation within 24 hours of 

faxing your order, contact us at (800) 381-TEST (8378) 

or assessment@ipma-hr.org. Photocopy this order form 

and send to IPMA-HR.

Awards CONTINUED 

League to recognize an individual’s civil service to the citizens of 

Louisiana). 

City of Beverly Hills, East Bay Regional 

Park District and Tennessee Department of 

Human Resources Chosen to Receive 

Agency Awards for Excellence 

The IPMA-HR Agency Awards for Excellence recognize the 

overall quality, accomplishments, and contributions of an agency 

personnel program that exceeds the normal operation of a “good 

government personnel program.” The award is based on agency 

program initiatives, accomplishments, and contributions within a 

three-year time period. Awards may be given in each of the 

following categories, based on the number of employees covered by 

one’s human resource program. 

The City of Beverly Hills, Calif., Human Resources Division and 

the East Bay Regional Park District, located in Oakland, Calif., each 

received an Agency Award for Excellence – Small Agency. 

The City of Beverly Hills 

FROM PAGE 30 

The Beverly Hills Human Resources Division, which has 772 fulltime 

and 350 part-time employees, until a few years ago, performed 

its traditional functions of recruitment, labor relations and benefits 

administration with limited technological tools and a small training 

budget. Experienced managers and diligent workers helped sustain 

the success of this bare-bones approach, but there was much room 

for growth. In 2005, at the direction of Rod Wood, who just one 

year earlier had become the city manager, the HR office initiated a 

series of programs designed to increase department effectiveness and 

enhance service delivery. Under the banner of “organizational development,” 

the new initiatives specifically focused on training and the 

pursuit of excellent. The programs financed through the General 

Fund included the Beverly Hills Innovations Group (BHIG), technical 

initiatives (HRIS, BHCampus, online timecards, online orientation 

and forms, and Employee Access Center), a performance 

appraisal system and training and staff development. 

As a result of implementing this series of innovative and technologybased 

programs, the City of Beverly Hills can direct its human assets 

into HR to non-routine customer service tasks. These tasks include 

the development and delivery of programs designed to enhance staff 

morale. In addition, the new initiatives allow HR staff to spend 

more time on important functions, such as recruitment efforts. This 

results in the city’s ability to deliver excellent services both internally 

and externally. 

Technological advancements and tools have allowed the City of 

Beverly Hills Human Resources Division to operate more productively, 

efficiently and effectively. Training and staff development 

programs now provide employees with more opportunities to 

increase their knowledge and skills, so that they, too, become more 

productive. The performance management module has served as a 

forum for employees and managers to set goals and monitor 

achievements. Taken together, the various initiatives that have been 

installed by the city during the past three years have provided 

employees and managers with more data and easier access to it. 

Customers through the community are better served as the HR 

division does its part to help the city work smarter. 

The East Bay Regional Park District 

The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), located in Oakland, 

Calif., with approximately 650 employees, is a special district 

founded in 1934 during the depths of the Great Depression by 

active citizens concerned about protecting regional open space. It is 

the largest regional park agency in the United States, operating more 

than 65 parks, covering more than 100,000 acres and serving more 

than 2.4 million residents in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties 

in the San Francisco Bay Area. 

The EBRPD Paid Internship Opportunities Program expanded 

from decades of having approximately ten annual summer internships 

to an additional dozen internships in 2009 by adding spring 

and fall internships as well. The expansion of the summer internship 

program created the EBRPD’s year-round program. 

“As with many public agencies, especially during lean times, there is 

a significant gap between what we would like to accomplish 

compared to what we can accomplish with available resources,” 

wrote Sonja Stanchina, IPMA-CP, human resources officer II for 

the East Bay Regional Park District. “Interns help to bridge that gap 

by providing much needed assistance in areas of ‘one-time project 

work.’” 

The Paid Internship Opportunities Program makes a significant 

impact on the central purpose of EBRPD’s specific HR role; to 

provide high-quality human resources, with great efficiency, at a 

tremendous value to the agency. 

Stanchina says the benefits to the EBRPD have been financial and 

social, but she says the biggest impact of all is that they are investing 

in the future. 

“(The EBRPD’s Paid Internship Opportunities Program) is a 

winning strategy for all stakeholders including our agency, our 

community, those we serve, and for our talented student interns,” 

Stanchina wrote. 

The State of Tennessee 

The State of Tennessee Department of Human Resources (TDHR) 

employs 44,995 individuals. Over the past several years, the TDHR 

has instituted several new programs, including: the Emergency 

Workforce Management Plan, which was developed to better ensure 



IPMA-HR, the premier association for professional development 

in public sector human resources, brings quality professional 

development courses directly to your agency, saving you and your 

staff travel time and expenses. 

With a rapidly changing workforce, public sector employers are 

particularly challenged to meet the demands of baby boomers 

retiring, younger professionals entering the workforce, complying 

with complex laws, and updating policies and practices. Committing 

your agency to ongoing, quality professional development will help 

you and your staff stay ahead of the issues and work through them 

effectively, efficiently and professionally. 

Choose from the following 11 IPMA-HR courses to enhance your 

agency’s professional development efforts: 

■ Developing Competencies for HR Success 

■ Examination Planning 

■ Job Analysis 

■ Managing Classification/Compensation in a Broadbanding 

Environment 

that mission critical functions and services can be performed during 

an emergency situation; LEAD Tennessee, whose goal it is to 

continuously develop current and emerging leaders in 12 leadership 

core competencies, thereby creating a talent pool for state government; 

the Employee Reassignment Process Implementation Plan, 

which allows employees who are affected by a reduction in force the 

added opportunity to move within and between agencies of the executive 

ranch by means of lateral transfer, promotion, reduction in 

rank, or lateral classification; and the Voluntary Buyout Program 

(VBP), which was established to reduce the size of the state’s workforce 

to control costs and to avoid an involuntary reduction in force. 

Of these new programs instituted by the State of Tennessee, the 

VBP has the distinction of being the first program of its kind to be 

undertaken by the state. The program, which has reduced the size of 

the state’s workforce by 1,521 positions and reduced recurring 

expenses by $47.2 million annually using a voluntary approach 

respectful of employees and also much less disruptive to both 

employees and agencies than a RIF, was the answer to Tennessee 

Gov. Phil Bredesen’s challenge to his team to craft a solution to 

fundamental problems that accompanied some of the buyout 

programs he had seen used in the public or private sectors. 

News 

Professional Development Courses for Public 

Sector HR Professionals 

Bring Public Sector HR Professional Development to Your Agency 

Awards CONTINUED 

FROM PAGE 34 

■ Managing Employee Performance as a Human Resources 

Business Partner 

■ New Strategies and Applications for Public Sector Compensation 

■ Oral Examinations 

■ Performance-Based Pay and Performance Management 

■ Skill and Competency-Based Pay Delivery Systems 

■ Training and Experience (T&E) Ratings 

■ Variable Pay Plans and Team-Based Pay Strategies 

Customized Training Available 

IPMA-HR will work with your agency to map out professional 

development courses that best suit your needs. Visit IPMA-HR at 

www.ipma-hr.org to download registration forms today, or contact 

the meetings department, either by e-mail at meetings@ipmahr.org, 

or by phone at (703) 549-7100 to schedule your professional 

development course. —N 

Bredesen wanted to avoid a program that was offered to all 

employees with little consideration of the effect on permanent recurring 

savings, resulting in organizational “brain drain,” or creating 

significant gaps in service delivery. The solution had to be applicable 

on a large scale basis across state government and, while broad in its 

scope, be highly focused to not only reduce the size of the state’s 

workforce but to do it in a way that required agencies to reorganize 

and rethink their service delivery model. The program he wanted for 

Tennessee had to accomplish recurring savings in annual payroll 

expenses and result in more efficient and effective delivery of state 

services to the public. 

The VBP was a success from a financial perspective as well as from 

an operational perspective. From a financial perspective, it reduced 

the size of the state’s workforce by 1,521 positions, saving $47.2 

million annually, in a manner designed by state agencies to ensure 

continued service delivery and minimal disruption. From an operational 

perspective, the program was also an unqualified success in the 

level of interagency coordination that occurred for implementation 

and the unprecedented level of employee outreach and communications. 

In addition, after employees understood the intent of the 

program, many were eager to participate and others who were not in 

the pool of potential participants wished they had received an offer 

to participate. —N 


caleNdar 

October 2-6 2010 International Training 

Conference & Expo 

Sheraton Seattle Hotel & Towers, Seattle, Wash. 

Contact IPMA-HR Director of Membership 

and Professional Development Jessica Allen at 

jallen@ipma-hr.org or visit http://www.ipmahr.org/professional-development/conferences/2 

010-ipma-hr-international-conference-expo for 

more information. 

October 6 Online Course: Managing Employee 

Performance as an HR Business Partner 

Visit http://www.ipma-hr.org/professionaldevelopment/online-courses 

for more 

information. 

Paycheck Fairness 

Act Reintroduced 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) reintroduced the 

Paycheck Fairness Act on September 13, 2010 as S. 3772. 

The measure has been placed on the calendar and could be voted 

on at any time. The House of Representatives passed the measure 

last year as part of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.Learn about 

self-assessment, building teams and coaching staff, resolving 

disputes and reaching consensus, creating a risk-taking environment, 

communication skills, building trust relationships, using 

consensus- and coalition-building skills, and more with IPMA- 

HR’s Developing Competencies for HR Success. 

The measure would amend the Equal Pay Act to allow for unlimited 

punitive and compensatory damages, without the exception 

from punitive damages for public entities found in Title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act. It also would make it more difficult for 

employers to defend Equal Pay Act lawsuits by requiring 

employers to show that a difference in wages between men and 

women were the result of “bona fide” factors other than sex such 

as education, training or experience. 

The bona fide factor defense could only be used if employers 

showed 1) it is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential 

in compensation; 2) is job-related to the position in question 

and 3) consistent with business necessity. The defense would 

not apply if the employee could show that an alternative employment 

practice exists that would serve the same business purpose 

without producing such differential and that the employer refused 

to adopt such alternative practice. 

The bill also prohibits retaliation, requires the EEOC and the 

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to provide 

training to Commission employees and affected individuals and 

entities on pay discrimination. In addition, the Secretary of Labor 

in consultation with the Secretary of Education is authorized to 

create a grant program for the purpose of teaching negotiation 

skills to women and girls. —N 

Medals CONTINUED 

Products & serVices 

Consultants To Management 

Atlanta, GA Santa Fe, NM 

770.551.0403 505.466.9500 

Fax 770.339.9749 Fax 505.466.1274 

email: mercer@mindspring.com 

Pinpointing Workable Solutions 

from Our Offices Nationwide 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

FROM PAGE 15 

National sponsors for the Service to America Medals are Booz Allen 

Hamilton, CH2M Hill, Chevron, DuPont and United Technologies 

Corporation. 

Nominations for 2011 are now being accepted at 

servicetoamericamedals.org. 

The Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medals program honors 

the best in our federal workforce and works to inspire a new generation 

to consider public service careers by sharing the inspiring stories 

of unsung heroes. Surveys show that many Americans do not know 

what the federal government does for them each and every day—or 

that there are federal jobs available in practically every interest and 

skill area, in all 50 states and around the world. 

The Partnership for Public Service is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization 

that works to revitalize the federal government by inspiring a 

new generation to serve and by transforming the way government 

works. —N 

Entry-level and promotional 

test products, services, and 

publications for public safety 

and non-public safety personnel. 

Interested in 

Advertising? 

�� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

call iPma-hr today! 

(703) 549-7100 


�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

��

County (NV) Clovis Cit ity (NM) Cobb County ( GA) Contra Costa Coun ounty (CA) Dakota County y (MN) Da Davenport City 

year City (AZ) AZ) Gwinnett CCounty 

(GA) Hampton on CCity 

(VA VA) Hawaii Dept ept. of Edu. (HI) State e of Ha Hawaii Hennepin Cou 

Lee County y (FL) LA Super Superior Court (CA) Mcccarran 

Airport (NV) Multnomah ultnomah CCounty 

(OR) OR) Napa CCounty 

(CA) Na 

Palm 

(GA(IN) 

Bay City (FL) Pasc asco County (FL) Prince e GGeorge’s 

’s CCounty 

(MD) ) RReno 

City (NV) Rochest ochester City (MN) Rockfor 

C(IN) (IN) 

W(IN) 

Palm Bay City (FL) Pasc asco County (FL) Prince e GGeorge 

s County (MD) ) RReno 

City (NV) Rochest ochester City (MN) Rockfor 

iego County 

(IN) 

y ( CA) San an MMateo 

County (CA) San anta Barbara County (CA) ) SSanta 

Clara County (CAA) 

Santa Monica City( 

(MDspir 

Spotsylvania ania C County 

( VVA 

VA) 

Sta�or 

ta�or 

(VA VA 

Cspir 

Virginia esterville 

City 

( OH) A lachua C Coun 

ounty ty 

(FL) A yCour ) Stearns County y (MN) Sur Surprise City (AZ) Tarrrant 

County (TX) Stat 

y (FL) 

e 

A younty County 

our 

(C (CC 

CA) A) 

AAlbany 

lbany 

CCity 

Hit Hy HGA H) ( (GA ) A Allen City C (TX) Anne A 

ta City GA) 

Baltimor e C Count 

y (MD k C oun y (NV (NV) 

Cloyvis Clo yvis vis C y (NM) C Cobb 

Coun 

Hy HGA Ht ( GA ) C Con 

eosta C County 

Fulton on County 

( GA ) G ainesville C y (FL) G oody ear eit ey C (AZ) AZ) Gwinnett C County 

( GA H) ) Hampt on eVA Ceitey C ( VA) Hawaii 

(IN)lachua 

eee tonCity (TX) Je� erson P Parish 

(LA) 

King 

Countty 

( WeAe) WA W Lee 

yy 

yy 

Cyoun C ty y (FL) LA Super Superior ior 

Hour 

Ht CCourt 

( 

iron 

ironetrea 

iron 

CAA 

A) ) Mececar M Meran 

Airport (N 

CA) OC Fire Authority y ( (CA) Orange County (C 

City y (FL) P PPasco 

County (FL) Princ ince George’s County (M 

mento County (CA) San an BBernardino 

County (CAA) 

San Diego County (CCA) 

San Mateo County ( CA) Santa Barbara Co 

ol District (CA) Savannah annah CCity 

(GA) Schaumbur 

chaumburg Village illage (IL) Spotsylv Spotsylvania County (VA VA) Sta�or ord County (VA VA) Stear 

cy (TX) Union County y (NC (NC) Ventura County (CCA) 

State of West Virginia inia Westerville City (OH) OH) AAlachua 

County (FL) 

ty 

(MN) A apahoe C 

on C 

y ( GA GA) 

Baltimor 

y (N 

npor 

oodye 

ii Hennepin C 

APPLICANT 

ONLINE 

REQUISITION RECRUITMENT 

APPLICANT 

ONLINE 

WA WA) 

SELECTION 

TESTING 

TRACKING CERTIFICATION 

ty ( C 

) Palm 

HIRE 

Rockf 

an Dieg 

Monica 

C 

illage (IL) 

ty ( (TX) TX) 

SState 

tate 

of T Tenneesee enneesee Te T xas Educa 

tion A Agency (TX) Union C oun ounty 

(NC) 

Ventura 

C 

West 

V 

TX) X) A Anne “We “ nne W A e rundel evaluated ev alua C Coun 

all the leading technology 

County y (CA) ( ) Dakota C 

ii Dept. options . of E Edu. 

(HI) S and ta systems sy in the marketplace and 

Multnomah ultnomah C Count oun ty y ( (OR) OR) Napa C Coun 

Reno eno NEOGOV CNEOGOV Cit y (NV (NV) ) R ochest clearly clear cleary er Cit 

ly (MN) o�ered o�Rer ockfed ed or the best solution solution” 

ty (CA) ) CCity 

itSy S Sy 

y an of of of ta S 

SSeattle, 

S ea Clar ttle ttlea ttle a , CWoun C, C CW 

WA Woun 

A ty (CA) Santa Monica C 

ty (MN) Surprise City y ( (AZ) Tarrant County (TX) S 

eda County (CA) Alban lbany City (GA) Allen City ( 

A Complete Solution For 

The Leader in On-Demand HR 

Public Sector Workforce Management 

Applications for the Public Sector 

NEOGOV Insight automates your entire hiring process 

550+ Customers 

from requisition to hire and is tailored for the unique 

Serving 900,000 Employees 

needs of public sector agencies. It delivers more advanced 

80,000 Users 

features, more powerful customization, easier integration, 

10,000,000 Candidates 

and the best end-user experience. 

46 States 

www.neogov.com 

t 

options and tate 

of Ha sy 

y ( CA) Nash 

ly o� o� wst 

alua oun 

ounty (MN) Davenpor 

aii ems Hennepin in Cthe 

mar 

t 

enneesee Te Texas Education tion AAgency 

(TX) Union Coun 

alua y t (MD ed ) all Anok 

the a Coun 

leading t ty 

(MN) Ar 

apahoe t echnology 

C Coun 

) Dakota C ty y (MN) Davenpor Da enpor t CCity 

it y (IA ) DDelr 

elr ay y Beach B Beach 

P 

options and sy w st aii ems Hennepin in C the ount 

y mar (MN) ketplac Honolulu C 

OR) Napa C County 

( ) Nash Nashville ville & Da Davidson vidson Ct Cty. 

(TN) Newport Beach C 

NEOGOV clear cleary y ly (MN) o� o� o�er o� o�er R er ockf ed ord 

P the olice 

D best ept ept. . (IL) solution solutiono solution 

S acr acrament 

City 

(CA) Sacramen 

Woun WA oun A 

onica City(CA) St. Louis Coun ounty (MO) Malibu School Distr 

X) State of Tenneesee Te Texas Education Agency ( 

y (TX) Anne Arundel Coun ounty (MD) Anoka County (MN) A 

it 

echnology ounty 

( CO) 

A 

each Police 

Dept 

ketplacy e & and County 

(HI) Houst 

rlingt 

ounty (NC) Ventura C 

West 

V 

echnology ) A on C 

ta City 

( 

each Police Dept ept. 

(FL) Eugene 

C y ( OR) F on C 

ketplac y e & and C y (HI) Houst HoustonCity (TX) Je�er 

vidson Ct y . ( (TN) TN) Newpor each City (CA) OC Fire Aut 

ed the best solution solutiono C ” 

amento County (CA) 

chool District (CA) Savann 

y (TX) Union County (N 

y (MN) Arapahoe Cou 

s City (NM) Cobb Coun ounty (GA) Contra Costa osta CCounty 

(CA) Dakota Coun ounty (MN) Davenport City 

(IA) Delray Beach 

Gwinnett County (GA) ) Hampt Hampton City (VA VA) ) Ha Hawaii Dept. of Edu. . (HI) SState 

of Hawaii aii Hennepin CCounty 

(MN) Ho 

LA Superior Court (CA) ) MMccarran 

Airport (NV) ) MMultnomah 

County (OR) OR) Napa CCounty 

(CA) ) Nash Nashville & Davidson C 

Pasco County (FL) Prince 

George’s County y (MD (MD) Reno City (NV) Rochest ochester City (MN) Rockf ockford Police Dept. (IL) S 

San Mateo County (CAA) 

Santa Barbara County y ( (CA) Santa Clara Coun ounty (CA) Santa Monica onica CCity(CA) 

St. Louis Cou 

ty (VA VA) Sta�ord Countty 

(VA VA) Stearns County y (MN) Sur Surprise City (AZ) AZ) Tarrant County (TX) X) SState 

of Tenneesee Te 

erville City (OH) Alachua lachua CCounty 

(FL) Alameda lameda CCounty 

(CA) Albany Cit ity (GA) Allen City (TX) X) AAnne 

Arundel County 

ore e CA Coun A ounomplet 

oun C Complet 

omplet) omplet t y (MD (MD) ) e S Clar olution k CCoun 

ounor oun F or tty 

y (NV (NV) 

Clovis vis CCity 

(NM) Cobb obb CToun Coun T Toun 

he tLLy 

L y eader ( (GA) GA) 

in C Con On-D On-Da On-D tr a Cemand C emand osta C oun HR ty (CA) Dakota Coun 

Gainesville ainesville P ublic Sit Sit S C ec ecy ec ecy ity y t (FL) or W or G GGkf 

G Gkf 

kfor kf oodye oodycear oody or e ear M MCanagemen 

C anagemen 

it ity y ( (AZ) AZ) Gwinnett t C CCounty 

(GAA) GA) A ) pplica Hampt tions on Cor C f ffor f or it ity y the ( (VA VA VVA) 

A) 

P PP) 

P ublic Ha HawSSaii 

S aii ec D DDtept 

D Dt 

or ept. 

of Edu. (HI) Sta 

h (LA) King County (W 

NEOGOV I nsigh t aut oma 

Orange ange C Cou 

oun ountty 

y ( CCo 

CA A ) P 

om r equisition t o hir hire 

and is tailor 

ardino dino needs C Coun 

of t y public ( C A sec ) or S San agencies Diego C 

Schaumbur , mor morVe g illage po ful (IL) cust Spotsylv 

and the best end-user e 

ura County 

( CA) 

State 

of 

Rochester City (MN) R 

County (CA) Santa Monica C 

AZ) Tar Tarrant County (T 

llen C 

fr 

y (FL) or Gkf G Gkf 

kfor kf oodye oodycear oody or e ear M MCanagemen 

C anagemen 

ity 

( AZ) Gwinnett t C 

WA WA) Lee County (FL) LA Super 

es your 

en e hir ing pr oc ess 

ange C ) Palm Ba y C Cit 

y (FL) P Pasc 

asc 

fr 

or the unique 

dino needs C County 

of public (CA) sec ) tor 

S an agencies Diego t deliv C Coun 

ers tmor 

y ( CA) 

San 

ed M 

chaumbur ffea 

eatures 

, mor g V e illage po power 

(IL) Spotsylv tion, easier ania inCtountion, 

tion, ty 

( 

and the best end-user experience. 

ounty (CA) State e of West V irginia Wester 

y (MN) Rockford Police Dept. (IL) S 

onica City(CA) St. Louis C 

X) State of Tenneesee 

rundel C 

tir es y our en entir 

) Palm Ba y C City 

(FL) P 

ed f or the unique 

t oma omat 

) P alm Ba y C City 

(FL) P 

e and is tailor ed ffor 

or the unique 

or an agencies Diego . I t deliv C oun ers tty 

mor morC mor y ( (CC 

e AA) 

adv ) anc S San 

ed M 

illage ful (IL) customiza 

Spotsylv tion, easier ania in C eg ouna oun r tion, y ( 

and the best end-user e xper ienc ience. 

e of W est V 

Newpor 

. (IL) Sacramento City (CA) S 

ouis County (MO) Malibu School Distr 

Texas Education Agency ( 

nok 

es an ed Mateo 

County (C 

tion, y ( VA VA) Sta�ord Coun 10,000,000 ty 

( C 

erville City (OH) 

est 

B 

er AZ) Gwinnett County (GAA) pplica Hampt 

y (FL) LA Superior Court (CA) M 

asco County (FL) Prrince 550+ inc e C G ust 

er ving 900,000 Emplo 

C80,000 A ) U S 

S 

C 80,000 A A) 

U US 

ounty 10,000,000 ( C 

Newpor es t GA) A) 

pplica Hampt 

e G 

ving 900,000 Emplo ees 

an ed M 

) Ssersta 

an Barbara 

County 

(CA 

y ( 

10,000,000 VA 

C CC) 

andidat andidaear S es ns County (MN) Sur 

Newpor 46 S ta tates 

t B Beach 

City (CA) OC Fir 

) Sacramento County (C 

chool District (CA) Savannah C 

y (TX) Union County (NC 

apahoe C 

ust ) Hampt tions on Cor f or ity 

the ( VA 

P PP) 

ublic HawSSaii 

ecD 

) Mccarran Airport (NV) M 

e Geor ust eor omers ge ge’s 

County (MD) 

Reno C 

ving 900,000 Emplo ees 

bar 

y ) pplica Hampt tions on C Cf 

for ffor 

or y the ( ) P ublic Ha S aii ec D DDtept 

D Dt 

or ept. 

of Edu. (HI) Sta 

) Multnomah County (OR) 

ge y (MD eno City (NV) Roches 

ving 900,000 Emplo Employ 

) S Ssersta 

sers an Barbar bara 

C A) Santa Clara County 

10,000,000 VA VA) C C) 

andida S Stear 

ear tear y (MN) Surprise City (AZ) 

est B 

ire Authority (CA) Oran 

CA) San Bernardino C 

annah City (GA) Schau 

y (NC) Ventura County (C 

lingt 

rd County ( 

Alachua County (FL) A 

wVA wV wA w ny City (GA) Allen City ( 

ty (GA) Contra Costa C 

Hampton City (VA VA) Ha 

t (CA) Mccarran Airpor 

Prince George’s County (MD 

ty (CA ) S an ta Bar Barbar 

bara a C 

w w w .neogo 

y ( VA VA) ) S Sttearns 

earns 

C 

an A) S w 

ns C 

y (FL) Alameda County (CA) A 

v a C .neog om ounty (MN) Surprise 

C 

oun t .c .cy ( om C omA y (TX) Anne Arundel Coun 

osta County (CA) Dakota Coun 

) Hawaii Dept. of Edu. (HI) S 

port (NV) Multnomah Coun 

y (MD) Reno City (NV) R 

ounty 

y ( CA) ) S Santa 

Clar 

.neog v .c om 

ns C y (MN) Sur 

oun 

ounty (MD) Anoka Countty 

(MN) Arapahoe Coun ounty (CO) Arlington Co 

ounty (MN) Davenport t CCity 

(IA) Delray Beach Polic olice Dept. (FL) Euge 

. (HI) State of Hawaii aii Hennepin CCounty 

y (MN) Honolulu CCity 

& County (HI) 

ounty (OR) Napa County y ( (CA) Nashville & Davidson vidson Ct Cty. (TN) Newpor 

) Rochester City y (MN) RRockford 

Police Dept. . (IL) SSacramento 

City (CA) 

a Coun 

ta Clara County (CA) Santa Monica 

City(CA) St. Louis ouis CCounty 

(MO) Malibu 

.neogo ns C 

ise City (AZ) Tar Tarrant Coun ounty (TX) State of Tenneesee enneesee Te Texas Education 

) Albany City (GA) Allen llen CCity 

(TX) Anne Arundel rundel CCounty 

(MD) Anoka C 

County 

(IN)spire (IN)itspir spir spirWAe spir Kspire 

your ytour our itour 

lameda 

our Hire H HHCir 

H HHGAir 

H ir ire 

(MD Clar (NVe) ) tra 

Cit 

(IN)) (IN)y (IN)) (IN)or 

(IN)d 

(IN)) spirear spirt spiry spirA) spirW 

K 

L 

ccar 

CA) Palm Bay Cyit

October 2010 issue of HR News magazine - IPMA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?