David Montgomery reports that South Dakota Democrats are raising a stink over the 60 new employees Governor Dennis Daugaard wants to add to the executive branch staff. Let's expand the view and talk about the swift bloating of state government under the conspicuously austere Daugaard Administration.
The final budget of the M. Michael Rounds administration paid for the equivalent of 13,200.5 full-time jobs (FTEs) in state government in fiscal year 2011. Governor Daugaard's first budget, which pressed 10% spending cuts across departments, cut that number by 250, 1.9% of the state workforce. The current FY2013 budget put back those FTEs and 500 more, a 5.8% increase over FY2012.
Yesterday, Governor Daugaard called for increasing the state workforce just 0.8%, with 107.7 new FTEs. Halfway through his term, Governor Daugaard wants to oversee a net increase in the state workforce of 4.6% over the extravagantly state spending expansions of his predecessor, Senate candidate Rounds.
Now the state doesn't hire teachers directly, but the amount of aid it provides to public schools have a direct impact on the ability of the schools to hire and pay teachers. If we look at general fund expenditures for education, Governor Daugaard hacked almost 11% from education in his FY2012 budget, then put most of that money back in FY2013. Now he proposes to increase general fund expenditures for education another $19.2 million, to a total 3.8% higher than the last Rounds budget.
That number alone shows Governor Daugaard is growing state government faster than he is increasing the state's support for education. And already, one school official is contending that the percentage increase on Daugaard's paper exaggerates the actual increase schools will get to cover pay raises and new hires.
Your legislators are home from the budget address. Befor they head back to Pierre for business in January ask them where they want to spend your money: on more workers in the Governor's office or on more teachers in your hometown?
When speaking about adding to state jobs, the language is in FTE's -- not dollar amounts; people are added -- not just a cost. I point this out to ask a question: how well do state jobs in SD compensate compared to other states?
In schools, a dollar amount is added to each district and too often people think that means a direct raise for teachers. That money goes toward all the operating costs of that school; fuel price increases and needs, books, increased staffing, and teacher hopefully compensation. A 3% raise to a district will not automatically mean a 3% raise for teachers, especially when a district is looking to replace funding to programs cut two years ago.
I feel at odds: I want funding for programs important to the success of students in my district; I want funding to raise the salaries of teachers. Those two wants are competing for the same dollar. I believe this resource competition is a big reason salaries for teachers in SD lag so far behind other states.
Legislators and school boards should resist percentage wage increases. Instead look at the lowest wages, consider the percentage rate increase on those and then add that dollar amount to all salaries. Otherwise, the huge gap between lowest paid and highest paid grows practically exponentially.
Steve, that question about the relative rank of state employee salaries vs. teacher salaries is a good question. GOED offers this 2011 wage study that calculates relative ranks like that, but I don't see separate categories for state workers.
The education system should audited for waste and corruption.
I emailed Cory to share with him that the numbers he is using to calculate FTE growth are inaccurate. I thought I would post the same information that I emailed him.
Here are the correct numbers:
The final Rounds budget, which was the FY11 budget that was adopted by the 2010 Legislature, budgeted 13,612.1 FTE.
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?File=SB196ENR.htm
The FTE number in the proposed FY14 budget is 13,810.0.
If the FY14 budget is adopted, the increase over the three-year period would be 1.5%. That is an average annual increase during that period 0.5%.
That growth rate is less than one-third of the 4.6% rate that Cory calculated.
(I would comment that SD's population grew an estimated 1.2% in the single year from 2010-11. There is no census estimate yet for 2012, and of course not for 2013. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/46000.html)
The source of this mistake is understandable and I don't fault Cory for it.
The chart Cory looked to in the budget book refers to "Actual FY11" and "Recommended FY14" budgets. Each year includes an FTE number, and Cory calculated growth based on those two numbers.
(You can see it here: http://bfm.sd.gov/budget/rec14/SD_Total_Recommended_2014.pdf)
The chart doesn't make this very clear, but those numbers are not comparable because the FY11 number is an "actual" number, and FY14 is a "recommended" budgeted number.
The difference? The FY14 number is the maximum number of FTE that the state is allowed to employ. The FY11 number is the actual number that were employed - which is always lower than the budgeted, maximum number. This is because there are always vacancies throughout the year due to turnover. For example, if I employ a person in my office, she would account for 1.0 budgeted FTE. But if that person resigns, and the position is vacant for three months before I hire a replacement, I would have only used 0.75 FTE for the year. The other 0.25 FTE was budgeted, but not actually used.
The difference is obvious if you look at the "Actual FY12" and "Budgeted FY13" columns. There was not an increase of almost 750 FTE last year - I think we can assume we would have heard about that if it had happened. Rather, it is because the FY10 and FY11 columns are measuring a different thing than the FY13 or FY14 columns.
I agree that this aspect of chart is confusing, but the point is that in order to compare year-to-year, one needs to look at the BUDGETED FY11 FTE number, not the ACTUAL FY11 FTE number. It is the Budgeted FY11 number that is comparable to the recommended FY14 number.
Thank you, Tony!
Yes, that makes perfect sense. Comparing Actual to Recommended is... well, red apples to green apples.
But are you banking on your recommended hiring level and the concomitant appropriations overshooting the actual number of FTEs we end up with by a certain amount? From the outside, it seems that the Recommended FY2014 is the statement of what the Governor wants state government to look like next year. The Governor looked at the Actuals for 2011-2013, saw how things ran (and are running), and said, "Hey, we need more guys!" So it seems valid to state that the Governor wants a 4.6% larger workforce than the previous administration left us with.
I understand that by the same token, you can say, "Hey! Our current ideal state workforce is only 1.6% greater than Rounds's last ideal state workforce." And indeed, if that Actual-Recommended gap is a constant, then that's all the growth we'll see by the end of FY2014.
So I'm curious: what is the expected underutilization of FTEs? I guess if I were really ambitious, I could pull all the appropriations bills and the state budget books and compare....
So the current 13,612 FTE's represent proof of the GOP belief that the government doesn't create jobs. ;-')
On a more serious note, we should thank Tony for stopping by to clarify a complicated chart. Rather than let an incorrect narrative build and grow, he stepped in and made sure there was a better understanding.
Please come back Tony and engage a little more often. We may not agree on everything, but you are right that at least we should all have the right facts so we can ask the right questions.