Washington Management Service How does Washington state government define a manager?
A recent Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC)
audit of the state's Washington Management Service (WMS) revealed that individuals
in state management positions created since 1998 supervise an average of
one employee each, and nearly half of them "do not directly manage
any employees."
Webster's Dictionary describes a manager as someone who exercises "executive,
administrative, and supervisory direction." The WMS, on the other hand,
defines a manager as someone who deals with financial, physical, or personnel
resources, legislative relations, public information, or budget preparation.
An individual may also qualify as a manger by consistently using "independent
judgement."
When WMS was established in 1994 as a personnel organizing system for agency
supervisors, it included a total of 445 managers. Since then that number
has increased by more than 1,100 percent to 4,994 managers. Individuals
classified as managers in WMS earn more than non-WMS employees, with annual
salaries ranging from $36,320 to $108,800.
While JLARC auditors were restricted to a "limited-scope review [that]
did not assess the system's overall operations or effectiveness," the
committee expressed concern "about this program's [WMS] rate of growth."
Since 1998, nearly one half of all newly created state government
positions have been classified as management positions. The number of WMS
employees during that time increased by 38 percent, while non-WMS general
state employees increased by 2.5 percent.
Number of employees supervised by WMS managers*
(Abbreviations DSHS: Social and Health Services;
DOT: Transportation; DOC: Corrections; ESD: Employment
Security; DFW: Fish and Wildlife; DOH: Health; L&I: Labor
and Industries; DOE: Ecology; DOR: Revenue; DOL: Licensing)
Agency
Median # of Employees Managed
% supervising
0 employees
% supervising 1 employee
% supervising 2-4 employees
% supervising 5+ employees
DSHS
0
72%
3%
7%
18%
DOT
13
13%
5%
11%
71%
DOC
2
26%
18%
24%
32%
ESD
0
54%
0%
16%
30%
DFW
5
34%
6%
9%
51%
DOH
4
32%
5%
18%
45%
L&I
0
60%
4%
7%
29%
DOE
5
33%
5%
11%
51%
DOR
7
9%
3%
3%
84%
DOL
2
41%
8%
18%
33%
Total:
1
49%
6%
11%
35%
* Applies to management positions added
since 1998
Source: JLARC WMS Audit
A handbook published by the WMS claims the service provides:
Improved efficiency and effectiveness in the management of Washington
state government operations and resources.
Cost-savings through streamlined administrative procedures.
Through better management, improved delivery of government services
to the state's citizens.
Meanwhile, no other state in the nation has a program comparable to the
WMS. While other states have management programs, they are more exclusive
to agency and department heads who oversee many employees. According to
JLARC, the California Career Executive Program includes fewer than one percent
of all state employees. The Senior Executive Service of Colorado limits
management positions to top agency chiefs and has a total of 65 managers.
EFF recommendations:
1. Washington should scale down the WMS to mirror the programs in California
and Colorado which only include the top agency chiefs.
2. The growth of agency management should be restricted to ensure that it
never outpaces the growth of an agency. When agency employment decreases,
agency management positions should also decrease.
3. Only those individuals directly managing other employees or programs
should be classified as managers and receive the management band wages.
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"