Job Evaluation Policy

This policy was posted for public comment from March 24 – April 8, 2025

Responses

General Comments

This is a policy that may be understood by PWC, but it is not understood others. It is “hard to follow.” Consequently, supervisors and staff are unclear about how this process works.

Revisions have been made to this policy in response to the comments received during the 15-day comment period. These revisions provide greater clarity to the Position Evaluation process.

It seems like there should be, in this policy or another policy, a section on the GPS evaluation system. Given the title of this policy, one would think this policy is about how supervisors are to evaluate employees. Consider adding a section to this policy or creating a new policy that does this.

This policy addresses Position Evaluation, not job performance evaluation. The title of this policy and terminology throughout have been revised to emphasize this differentiation.

Keep in mind that NWCCU accreditors recommended that SLCC “implement, clearly communicate and sustain standardized practices for . . .evaluation. . .promotion of employees.” (Recommendation #4) and that SLCC “standardized evaluation practices based on written criteria that are published, easily accessible and clearly communicated. . .which provide meaningful feedback on performance.” (Recommendation #5). While this evaluation process is part of these recommendations, our GPS system is also part of this problem. In the AFPRT policy, we painstakingly create a process for faculty tenure and professional advancement, but SLCC seems to be lacking criteria for “exceeds job requirements,” “performing,” or “needs improvements.” Either this should be included in this policy, or a new policy should be created to provide standards for job evaluation or performance.

The Employee Evaluation process is clearly published on the GPS website, and the standards criteria are published in the etrieve form that every employee must submit as part of the GPS process. Promotion of employees and career pathing clarification information will be shared publicly and published online under the Compensation section of the PWC website before Fiscal Year 2025 begins. Job Position Evaluation is not related to GPS. We’ve changed the language in the policy from Job Evaluation to Position Evaluation to improve understanding around this concern.

4.A. General Procedures

4.A.5 – What is a “desk audit?” It should be explained or defined.

Thank you for your comment. The language in the policy has been revised to improve comprehension of 4.A.5.

There should be a diagram linked in this section so supervisors and staff can visually see the job evaluation process. On the Compensation webpage, there is a link entitled “Job Evaluation Process Flow Chart,” which could be used once it is updated.

Thank you for your comment. We will update the “Job Evaluation Process Flow Chart” document, and a hyperlink to the Compensation webpage has been added to the policy.

4.B. Position Titles

Having a link to a diagram would be helpful regarding standard position titles at the college, so they can be visualized.

Thank you for your comment. More information on this is forthcoming and will be published on the Compensation webpage.

4.C. Job Description

4.C.1-Consider changing the second sentence to “Supervisor must review job descriptions every three years.” There is a real problem at the college with Supervisors not updating employee job descriptions in a timely manner.

The decision to require job description reviews every 5 years was made in consultation with the executive cabinet. 4.C.1 has been revised to state, “Supervisors are primarily responsible for keeping job descriptions current. They must review job descriptions at least every five years and whenever appropriate, as outlined in section 4.E.1.”

4.C.1.e states that “job descriptions can assist . . .in evaluating employee performance.” Yet the PWC Compensation document entitled “Understanding the Job Evaluation Process” states, “neither the job description nor the evaluation process reflects upon the personality, credentials or performance of an incumbent, or upon salary considerations.” These statements contradict one another.

Thank you for your comment. The “Understanding the Job Evaluation Process” document will be updated to reflect current practices and expectations. 4.C.1.e has been removed from the policy.

4.C.3 – This section seems to contradict the 5-year requirement in section 4.C.1 because it suggests that reviews and revisions should only be conducted on an “as needed” basis. Consider revision or deletion of the last sentence. If higher or lower job revisions are discouraged, does that mean a supervisor cannot do them? This should be clarified.

Supervisors must review job descriptions at least every 5 years. Reviewing a job description does not necessitate that the job responsibilities, duties, tasks, and qualifications must be revised. They should be revised only when there is a legitimate need. That said, the revision to section 4.C.1 also clarifies that if there is cause, as outlined in 4.E.1, then the job description should be reviewed at that time, regardless of whether it has been at least 5 years since the last job description review.

4.C.4 – consider revising this section to require that the affected employee be given notice of the proposed change and the opportunity to provide input; however, it is up to the supervisor to accept that input. There is concern that some supervisors change job descriptions without providing employees notice.

Supervisors are encouraged to consult with Compensation and the employee impacted as changes occur. It is the supervisor’s responsibility to engage the employee in conversation and to notify Compensation of any desired job descriptions changes as they could impact an employee’s compensation.

It should be required in every supervisor’s job description that they must review job descriptions.

Thank you for your comment. 4.C.1 has been revised to state, “Supervisors are primarily responsible for keeping job descriptions current. They must review job descriptions at least every five years and whenever appropriate, as outlined in section 4.E.1.”

We have a significant percentage of employees who do not have up-to-date job descriptions. PWC needs to initiate college-wide practice to increase the percentage of up-to-date job descriptions.

PWC’s job is to communicate the processes and expectations regarding position evaluation and to provide support. 4.C.1 specifies that supervisors should review job descriptions at least every five years. 4.E.1 specifies department supervisor responsibilities related to the position evaluation process. This includes initiating the position evaluation process whenever appropriate, as outlined in this policy.

SLCC does not have published criteria for the requirements for a position. For example, one commenter described using a 2001 student affairs document as the basis for writing an upgrade proposal. We need published criteria.

Thank you for your comment. More information on this is forthcoming and will be published online.

4.D. Salary Commitments

4.D.1-Consider revising this section so it is in plain English.

4.D.1 has been revised to state, “The college will not honor salary commitments that do not adhere to the position evaluation and salary administration process, unless prior written approval is obtained from Compensation.”

4.D.2 is a run-on sentence. Consider rewording it.

4.D.2 has been revised to state, “Supervisors must receive final approval from Compensation for the position before making any salary commitments to an incumbent or candidate.”

4.E. Job Evaluation Roles and Responsibilities

It seems like 4.E.2 “Department Supervisor Responsibilities” should come before 4.E.1 “Compensation’s Responsibilities in Job Evaluation.”

Thank you for your comment. We have made this change.

We understand that new software will be purchased to maintain job descriptions and conduct hiring. Supervisors will need training on how this software works and should be provided training on how to write or modify a job description.

There is a training plan in place that will occur during the months of May, June, and July 2025. More information is forthcoming.

4.F. Job Evaluation Process

Suggestion to rename section 4.F.1-Creating New Positions; and 4.F.2-Revising Existing Positions.

Thank you for your comment. Revisions have been made.

4.F.2.a(3)-There is a strong belief that supervisors abuse the job description requirement of the 10% of duties “as assigned.” While flexibility is important, supervisors are requiring employees to do a lot more than 10% of their work that is not in their job description. This section requires a job description revision when duties change by 10 to 15%. This job change is occurring frequently, but no job evaluation is being conducted.

Thank you for your feedback. PWC communicates the processes and expectations regarding position evaluation. The Position Evaluation policy, sections 4.C.1 & 4.E.1, outlines supervisor responsibilities regarding position evaluation and job description changes. Concerns, such as those you’ve highlighted, should be addressed through conversations and discussions between supervisors and employees.

4.F.2.b.(3) allows employee-initiated requests. However, the PWC Understanding the Job Evaluation Process states, “Requests for evaluation can come from: The Human Resources Office or the position’s supervisor.” There is no mention of an employee-initiated request.

The Understanding the Job Evaluation Process document will be updated. 4.F.2.b.(3) states, “Employee-initiated requests reviewed by Compensation will be initially referred to the respective supervisor.” It's important that the position evaluation process includes discussions between employees and supervisors. However, supervisors should be the ones to initiate a position evaluation request, in line with the Position Evaluation policy. If employees attempt to initiate a position evaluation request directly with Compensation, they will be redirected to their supervisor.

4.F.2.c – if the college is eliminating the PARS system, what online tool will be used for the job evaluation process?

NeoEd is replacing PARS. NeoEd training and communication is forthcoming.

4.G. Approvals

In the Job Evaluation Process document, it states that there is an “Evaluation Committee” that evaluates the request. Section 4.G makes no mention of the Evaluation Committee. This should be added to the policy.

Thank you for your comment. This document will be updated to reflect current practices, which include that the Compensation Department performs the evaluations. There is no “evaluation committee” for this process.

4.G.2 – suggestion to change the heading from “Re-evaluated Existing Positions” to “Revised Existing Positions.”

Thank you for your comment. No changes were made.

4.G.2.c – does the Budget Office approve funding? The Budget Office confirms funding availability and documents the source of funding, which is signed off by the Sr. Director of Budget.

4.G.2.c has been revised to state, “Compensation will coordinate with the Budget Office, which will confirm the availability of funding before a reclassification approval is determined.”

4.G.3 states, “exceptions are rare.” It is the committee’s experience that the application of the standards is subjective, and exceptions are given based on who you know. There is a perception of “a lot of loopholes in this process.”

Thank you for your comment. Requests for exceptions are very rare.

The “Understanding the Job Evaluation Process” document should be linked to this policy.

Thank you for your comment. There is a hyperlink to the Compensation webpage, which will include the updated “Understanding the Job Evaluation Process” document.

4.H. Appeals

Neither the policy nor the “Appeal Process for Job Evaluations” document states who is on the Staff Salary Appeal Committee. Neither document discusses what the appeal standards are. It is recommended that an Appeal procedure be established for this policy.

Thank you for your comment. The appeals process goes directly to Compensation. The “appeal guidelines” document will be updated to provide better clarity.

4.I. Job Evaluation Implementation

4.I.1 – the Budget Office initiates budget transfers for all E&G and SLTC (alpha) salary lines. Departments are only responsible for numeric index budget transfers. A Payroll/Personnel Action Form should be submitted anytime a change is made to a position.

Thank you for your comment. Typically, a PAF is needed; however, there are instances where a PAF is not required. The current language in the revised policy allows for these exceptions.

Hyperlink Suggestions

Consider creating a link to the Compensation webpage. There are a lot of helpful documents on that web page. However, some of the documents may need to be updated. Also, regarding the documents, they may need to be revised when SLCC hires a chief of staff.

Thank you for your comment. A link to the Compensation webpage has been included.

4.A.1-The Staff Hiring Handbook should be a link in this policy.

Thank you for your comment. The Staff Hiring Handbook is currently being revised. Once revisions are completed and the Handbook is available on the web again, the link will be added to the policy.

4.A.5-The Job Analysis Questionnaire should be a link to the policy.

After revisions, the Job Analysis Questionnaire is no longer referenced in the policy.

4.A.6-There should be a link to the Job Evaluation Request form.

There is no official Job Evaluation Request form. No changes were made to the policy.

Comments

On page 5, 4-F-c, if the college is eliminating the PARS system, what online tool will be used for the job evaluation process? On page 7, 4-G-2-c, Does the Budget Office approve funding? The Budget Office confirms funding availability and documents the source of funding, which is signed off by the Sr. Director of Budget. On page 8, I-1, the Budget Office initiates budget transfers for all E&G and SLTC (alpha) salary lines. Departments are only responsible for numeric index budget transfers. A Payroll/Personnel Action Form should be submitted anytime a change is made to a position.
1. Policy A. This is a policy that may be understood by PWC, but it is not understood by supervisors and staff. It is “wonky” and “hard to follow.” Consequently, supervisors and staff are in the dark as to how this process works. B. It seems like there should be in this policy or another policy a section on the GPS evaluation system. Given the title of this policy, one would this this policy is about how supervisors are to evaluate employees. Consider adding a section to this policy or creating a new policy which does this. C. Keep in mind that NWCCU accreditors recommended that SLCC “implement, clearly communicate and sustain standardized practices for . . .evaluation. . .promotion of employees.” (Recommendation #4) Furthermore, NWCCU recommended “standardized evaluation practices based on written criteria that are published, easily accessible and clearly communicated. . .which provide meaningful feedback on performance.” (Recommendation #5). While this evaluation process is part of these recommendations, our GPS system is also part of this problem. In the AFPRT policy, we painstakingly create process for faculty tenure and professional advancement, but SLCC seems to be lacking criteria for “exceeds job requirements,” “performing” or “needs improvements.” Either this should be included in this policy, or a new policy should be created to provide standards for job evaluation or performance. 2. References A. Consider create a link to the Compensation webpage. There is a lot of helpful documents on that web page. However, some of the documents may need to be updated. Also, regarding the documents, they may need to be revised when SLCC hires a chief of staff. 4. Procedures 4. A. General Information 1. Section 4.A.1-The Staff Hiring Handbook should be a link in this policy. When Googled on the PWC website, it states: “The resource you are looking 2. Section 4.A.5-The Job Analysis Questionnaire should be a link to the policy. 3. Section 4.A.5-There was a question as to what a “desk audit” is. It should be explained or defined. 4. Section 4.A.6-There should be a link to the Job Evaluation Request form. 5. There should be a diagram linked in this section so supervisors and staff can visually see the job evaluation process. On the Compensation webpage, there is a link entitled “Job Evaluation Process Flow Chart” which could be used once it is updated. It is a 2011 document. 4. B. Position Titles 1. Having a link to a diagram would be helpful regarding standard position titles at the college so they can be visualized. For example, it could look something like this. Coordinator 3 Manager 3 Specialist 3 Coordinator 2 Manager 2 Specialist 2 Coordinator 1 Manager 1 Specialist 1 4. C. Job Description 1. Section 4.C.1-Consider changing second sentence to “Supervisor must review job descriptions every three years.” There is a real problem at the college with Supervisor not updating employee job description in a timely manner. 2. Section 4.C.1.e states that “job descriptions can assist . . .in evaluating employee performance” Yet the PWC Compensation document entitled “Understanding the Job Evaluation Process” states “neither the job description nor the evaluation process reflects upon the personality, credentials or performance of an incumbent, or upon salary considerations.” These statements contradict one another. 3. Section 4.C.3 has two problems: a. It seems to contradict with the 5-year requirement in section 4.C.1 because it suggest that reviews and revisions should only be conducted on an “as needed” basis. b. Consider revision or deletion of the last sentence. If higher or lower job revisions are discouraged, does that mean a supervisor can not do them. This should be clarified. Also “discouraged” should be replaced with “are not allowed.” 4. Section 4.C.4-Consider revising this section to require that the affected employee be given notice of the proposed change and the opportunity to provide input; however, it is up to the supervisor which to accept that input. There is concern that some supervisors change job descriptions without providing employees notice. 5. It should be required in every supervisor’s job description that he or she must review job descriptions. At the current time, which is not the case. 6. We have a significant percentage of employees who do not have up to date job descriptions. PWC needs to initiate college wide practice to increase the percentage of up-to-date job descriptions. The first part of this process should be for the supervisor to sit down with the employee and find out what the employee is doing and whether the employee’s job duties match the job description. The second part of the process is for the supervisor to revise the employee’s job description. The employee should be given notice and an opportunity to provide input, but the final decision on the job description lies with the supervisor. 7. Finally, SLCC does not have published criteria for the requirements for a position. For example, one committee member described using a 2001 student affairs document as the basis for written an upgrade proposal. The committee member is not in student affairs, but it least it had criteria for what should be required of a Coordinator 1, Coordinator 2, and Coordinator 2. We need published criteria. 4. D. Salary Commitments 1. Section 4.D.1-Consider revising this section, so it is in plain English. For example, “a supervisor’s promise to increase an employee’s salary is not enforceable unless approved by PWC Compensation after following the procedures set forth in this policy” or words this effect. 2. Section 4.D.4 is a run-on sentence. Consider rewording it. 4. E. Job Evaluation Roles and Responsibilities 1. It seems like 4.E.2 “Department Supervisor Responsibilities” should become before 4.E.1 “Compensation’s Responsibilities in Job Evaluation.’” 2. The PARS system is antiquated and not user friendly. We understand that new software will be purchased to maintain job description and conduct hiring. Supervisors will need training on how this software works and should be provided training on how to write or modify a job description. 4. F. Job Evaluation Process 1. Rename section 4.F.1-Creating New Positions; and 4.F.2-Revising Existing Positions. 2. Section 4.F.2(a)(3)-There is a strong belief that supervisors abuse the job description requirement of that 10% of duties are “as assigned.” While flexibility is important, supervisors are requiring employees to do a lot more than 10% of their work that is not in their job description. This section requires a job description revision when duties change by 10 to 15%. This job change is occurring frequently, but no job description is being conducted. This problem is particularly prevalent with Administrative Assistant’s duties. 3. Section 4.F.b.3 allows employee-initiated requests. However, the PWC Understanding the Job Evaluation Process states “Requests for evaluation can come from: The Human Resources Office or the position’s supervisor.” There is no mention of an employee-initiated request 4. G. Approvals 1. In the Job Evaluation Process document, it states in Step Four that there is an “Evaluation Committee” who evaluates the request. Section 4.G makes no mention of the Evaluation Committee. This should be added to the policy. However, it should also be clarified who should be on this committee. While we suspect this is a PWC dominated committee, it may be prudent to put one member of the Staff Association, after they have been trained on this committee. 2. In section 4.G.2 change heading from “Re-evaluated Existing Positions” to “Revised Existing Positions.” 3. In section 4.G.3, it states that “exceptions are rare.” It is the committee’s experience that application of the standards is subjective, and exceptions are given based on who you know. There is a perception, as one committee member stated, of “a lot of loopholes in this process.” 4. The “Understanding the Job Evaluation Process” document should be linked to this policy. 4. H. Appeals 1. Neither the policy nor the Appeal Process for Job Evaluations document states the following: a. Who is on the Staff Salary Appeal Committee? It is recommended that one Staff Association member be appointed to that committee. b. Furthermore, neither document discusses what the appeal standards are like the college has done in the Anti-Discrimination and Harassment policy. c. It is proposed that an Appeal procedure be established for this policy in a manner like the Appeals committee in the ADA and Reasonable Accommodation policy. d. The “Appeals Process for Job Evaluation” Document was developed in October 2009 and should be updated if necessary.

SLCC Policies and Procedures