Public employment continues to grow steadily
Increase of nearly 1,800 full-time equivalent employees in 2002
Despite so-called hiring freezes and FTE reductions in state government
over the last year, overall employment has increased by nearly 1,800 full-time
equivalent (FTE) positions (1,775.8 to be exact).
To measure growth and spending over time, the state compares fiscal years
(FY), which run from July 1 to June 30. The numbers show that state employment
grew from 102,042.5 FTEs in 2001 to 103,818.3 in 2002. This upward trend
is continuing in 2003.
Comparing employment trends in 2003 with the same time frame in 2002 shows
that FTEs are up by 468.6 over last year. If this continues,
2003 will mark the seventh straight year that state FTEs have increased.
State employment has grown steadily since 1997.
State (public) employment growth
Fiscal year
Avg. total compensation*
FTEs
FTE increase
FTE percent increase
1997
$46,303
93,608.3
1,849.9
2%
1998
$47,973
95,028.5
1,420.2
1.5%
1999
$48,708
97,906.9
2,878.4
3%
2000
$50,961
99,929.2
2,022.3
2.1%
2001
$53,436
102,042.5
2,113.3
2.1%
2002
$55,311
103,818.3
1,775.8
1.7%
Source: Office of Financial Management.
* Includes salary and benefits.
Because the number of FTEs fluctuates each month due to seasonal employment,
the most effective way to measure current trends is to compare months with
their corresponding months in previous years. Comparing January 2003 to
prior years, we see that while state employment has decreased in some areas,
it is still increasing overall:
State FTEs by Sector
January
General
Human Services
Natural Resources
Transpor-tation
Education*
Total
2001
8,840.8
33,058.2
5,629.1
10,255.8
45,248.2
103,032.1
2002
8,928.8
33,490.5
5,618.8
10,558.7
45,672.7
104,269.5
2003
9,112.6
33,046.4
5,596.2
10,264.9
47,041.3
105,061.4
Difference 2002/2003
183.8
(444.1)
(22.6)
(293.8)
1,368.6
791.9
Source: Office of Financial Management. * Excludes K-12
teachers.
The numbers show a decrease in some of the agencies subject to Locke's
hiring freeze, but overall state employment is growing, despite attempts
by the state legislature to reduce FTEs.
Achieving meaningful FTE reduction will require more than a hopeful note
in the budget summary. It will require explicit statutory language in the
budget itself. Anything less is susceptible to being ignored or overlooked,
as current numbers show. At a time when many private citizens are dealing
with lost jobs and struggling to make their own ends meet, adding more people
to the public payroll is unwise and unfair.
Prepared by Jason Mercier, Budget
Research Analyst (360) 956-3482
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]?"