The Utah Legislature Should Not Abandon "Career Service" for State Employees

The Utah Legislature Should Not Abandon “Career Service” for State Employees

As expected when the Utah Citizens’ Counsel (UCC) last month released its brief, “Concern About Growing Imbalance of Power in Utah Government,” a bill is moving through the Utah legislature to make it easier to dismiss virtually all executive branch employees. House Bill 429, sponsored by Representative Kay Christofferson (R-Utah County), would end all new hiring into Utah’s “career service” as of January 1, 2025, with very limited exceptions. The bill has passed the House Government Operations Committee and is on its way to the House floor. We urge you to oppose HB 429.

Our reasoning follows:

“Career service” employment provides merit-based standards for hiring and, most importantly, gives employees who have completed a probationary period the right to challenge a suspension, demotion, or dismissal to an independent office, which determines if evidence sufficiently supports the agency’s allegations and if the sanction is excessive, disproportionate, or an abuse of discretion [Utah Admin. Code R137-1-21-3(b)]. Unless covered by another statute, removal of other state employees “is at the pleasure of the appointing officer” [UtahCode 63a-17-301(2)(a)(ii)], which is at-will employment.

Based on the presentation of the bill at the House committee on February 9, the case for change apparently no longer includes the argument that poorly performing career service employees are too difficult to remove. A 2021 audit of reforms made to the career service grievance process in 2010 found that earlier reported difficulties have been substantially reduced. The process was streamlined, and some administrative decisions became ineligible for grievances.

Moreover, since legislation in 2022, managerial employees now are finally receiving the training that the auditors had called for in audits in both 2010 and 2021. The rationales that were presented for HB 429 at the House committee hearing were unpersuasive. The bill was said to make state employment more attractive by looking more like the private sector and ending the stereotype of the sluggish government bureaucrat. At-will employment was described as modern, efficient, and effective. Younger workers were said not to want long-term employment, changing jobs every 3 ½ years on average, instead preferring flexible hours, telework, portable retirement, help with higher education costs, and more, but not job security. It isn’t clear why adding any of these desirable features is incompatible with retaining career service protections.

Moreover, shouldn’t some longevity be encouraged? One of the exceptions in the bill is for state employees in positions where they administer federal programs, such as Medicaid. The federal government requires that such employees have career service protections because it understands how complex the related regulations are and thus how important it is to encourage expertise and continuity. UCC believes that this rationale applies to many state agencies, especially where employees’ jobs have no close counterpart in the private sector.

The other exception in the bill is for law enforcement officers. No explanation was given for why they are treated differently. Other state employees face high-stress, potentially dangerous situations, such as Department of Child and Family Service staff who visit homes in response to reports of child abuse. That law enforcement is excluded implies that the shift to at-will status is undesirable for the employees.

The supporters of HB 429 argued that at-will employees will have sufficient protection against unfair termination. They noted that administrative rules require a reason for termination and that state and federal laws banning discrimination against protected classes, retaliation for whistleblowing, and “abusive conduct” will still apply. Moreover, terminations would have several layers of review by senior administrators and state attorneys. Such reviews, however, tend to protect the employer by making sure a termination is procedurally correct and not based on one of these relatively limited reasons prohibited by law. Nothing would protect an employee who draws on technical expertise or front-line experience to encourage a direction different from a superior’s intended decision or who discovers and reports uncomfortable or embarrassing information to superiors.

With state policy becoming more sharply politicized, UCC perceives a greater risk of employees taking positions unpopular with politically powerful interests and individuals. The public will benefit if employees are able to “tell it like it is” to their superiors without jeopardizing their jobs.

We don’t expect that politically motivated terminations would be common, but the risk is not trivial and there is little evidence of a downside to protecting professional knowledge and institutional experience. Career service status should be continued. Please vote against HB 429.