House Journal: Page 58: Wednesday, January 16, 2002
Over 250 employees were adversely affected. We laid-off 107 employees; we cut the
hours of 67 other employees; and we downgraded the positions of 79 supervisory
employees. In addition, we eliminated more than 20 vacant positions around the state.
The cuts in personnel affected every component of our operation.
Deciding to eliminate jobs was the most difficult decision that we have ever had to
make. The difficulty of making the decision, however, pales in comparison to the
difficulties faced by those employees who are now struggling to pay bills and support
families.
BUDGET CUTS: FACTS AND MISCONCEPTIONS
Now let me make a few points about the budget cuts that I feel have been
overlooked.
Probably the most common misconception about the budget cuts is the notion that
we somehow arbitrarily singled out and treated rural communities unfairly. This is
not true. In making the cuts to our clerk of court component, we focused on workloads,
not geography or politics. The Court used a weighted caseload formula in making
those cuts. We applied the formula uniformly to all 99 counties.
There’s a simple reason why most of the cuts in clerks’ offices occurred in small
counties. The formula was developed in the mid-1990s through the use of time studies
conducted in 32 counties. At the time of the study, most clerks’ offices were not
computerized; they were still operating with papers and clumsy docket books, which
took more time. To account for this, the formula gave rural counties - all of which were
not computerized - an advantage that resulted in a higher staffing ratio.
We continued to use this differential even after we computerized all of our clerks’
offices in 1997. We did so because we wanted to provide the rural offices with a
transition period. But the reductions required by the present financial crisis forced us
to take immediate action. Knowing that any reduction would be unpopular, we felt it
was imperative to treat all offices equally. Consequently, we decided to apply the
automated workload standard to all clerks’ offices. Any office that exceeded the
formula was cut back. The budget cuts in the clerks’ component affected primarily
rural offices because it was primarily those offices that exceeded the formula.
Nevertheless, the cuts leave clerks’ offices in some rural counties with a larger staff
than the formula justifies. This is because we decided to deviate from the formula and
maintain a minimum of two employees per office.
Critics contend that the formula is not perfect. Well, because the formula is the
work of humans, it definitely is not perfect. However, it is the best objective measure
that we have for making an equitable allocation of our clerk of court resources. Let me
add that we have relied on this formula for years to justify our requests to you for more
clerk of court staff.
I want to point out that nearly ten percent of our clerks’ offices have less staff than
is called for by the formula. These offices are located in some of our busy urban areas.
For example, for some time now, the Pottawattamie Clerk of Court office has operated
30% under the formula. Black Hawk has managed while 20% under, and Johnson gets
by even though it is 17% understaffed. Despite being chronically short-handed, these
© 2002 Cornell College and
League of Women Voters of Iowa
Comments about this site or page?
hjourn@legis.iowa.gov.
Please remember that the person listed above does not vote on bills. Direct all comments concerning legislation to State Legislators.
Last update: Thu Jan 17 13:30:00 CST 2002
URL: /DOCS/GA/79GA/Session.2/HJournal/00000/00058.html
jhf