Have the Proposed Budget Cuts Really Impacted Agency Managers (WMS)?

- By Charles San Juan, Hydrogeologist

By now, all of you have heard the “bad news” about the budget. As of this month (July), six Ecology staff received “verbal” reduction in force (RIF) notices. In other words, their jobs are being cut. Also, we just learned of another mandatory 2% cut, which translates to 11 Full Time Equivalent (FTE).

So what does this mean? For staff, things are obviously stressful for some (e.g. possible bumps) and downright terrifying for others (losing a job altogether). However, for agency managers (WMS), things remain murky.

As a result of the proposed cuts, union members (myself, Scott Mallery, ERO; Norm Peck, CRO; Tryg Hoff, WR and others) has organized a “budget team” (See the chair’s report in this issue). Our “mission” is to try and dampen the blows to members to the extent practicable.

In our on-going discussions, we have made it clear that we expect agency managers to “share the pain”. For example, one of our recommendations is for Ecology to reduce the 92 agency “middle-managers” (WMS-2, e.g. Section Heads, etc.). Here’s why: the current 92 WMS-2 positions will cost the agency ~ 27 million in salaries in benefits over the next biennium (09-11). To put this in perspective, the current salary and benefit costs for 101 agency Hydrogeologists is ~27 million (09-11 budget). In other words, over the next biennium, one layer of management (WMS-2) could fund an entire job class at Ecology (Hydrogeologists)!

Another interesting statistic: if you check annual salary and benefits costs (Table 1) what you’ll find is that the typical agency “middle” manager (WMS-2) costs ~ $150,000 per / yr. However, a “soldier-on-the-ground” (e.g. ES-3), costs about 50% less ($97,000 per / yr). Thus, in terms of annual salary and benefit costs, 1 agency middle-manager equates to ~ 1.5 lower-level staff (e.g. ES-3).
Note: 1 FTE = 27.6% “fringe benefits” and 36.8% “indirect” costs (agency standard, Apr-09). WMS = average 2008 salaries.

For another example, Table 2 provides data on the number of front-line supervisors and WMS-1 in each Ecology program. If you compare the number of front-line mangers (Unit Supervisors and WMS-1; 115 total) and WMS-2 (89 total), then 115 / 89 = 1.3. In other words, there’s 1.3 “front-line” managers for every “middle manager”.

The conclusion is that Ecology is “top heavy” with managers. Why do we need 1.3 frontline managers for every middle manager? Can’t unit supervisors and WMS-1 do the job?

In her July 7, 2009 Intranet article, Deputy Director Polly Zehm said: “I also want to let you know that there will be eight fewer management and supervisory positions as a result of our review.” When the budget team asked Polly about this, she said some of those positions were vacant and are being cut. It also appears that some WMS-1 are being “Y-rated” (salaries) and reallocated to classified staff.

However, so far, it doesn’t appear that anyone in management is losing their job