Agenda Packets - 1988/03/07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCI�L 13 /� FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATORCL W9 1 DATE: MARCH 2, 1968 SUB3ECT: S.F. 1769 (REICHGOTT) COMPARABLE WORTH LAW AMENDMENT Attached please find a -opy of pages 9 and 10 of Senate File 1769 introduced by Senator Reichgott, which in addition to many other things, proposes an amendment to the Comparable Worth Law of 1984. This pLoposeu amendment would allow the Commissioner of Human Rights to determine that a local governmental unit is not in compliance with the Comparable Worth Law, has not implemented the findings of a job evaluation system, or that the study conducted by the local governmental unit is invalid based upon the require- ments of the Comparable Worth Law. Once the Commissioner has determined that one of these three items has occurred, the State of Minnesota is prohibited from paying and the local governmental unit is prohibited from receiving any State monies until such time as the violation has been rectified. The amendment further provides that an employee of the State or of the local governmental unit is guilty of a misdemeanor they knowingly allow a local governmental unit to receive State monies when they are j not in compliance with the Comparable Worth Law. As I see it, the ranger with this Legislation is not with 1v requiring that cities come into compliance with the Comparable Worth Law but that there are no guidelines established for use by :he Commissioner of Human Rights to determine what studies are valid. At the present time, there are many different forms of studies that have been conducted to comply with the requirements of the Comparable Worth Law and many different opinions as to which of these is actually valid based upon the requirements of the Law. Essentially, the amendment would give the Commissioner an extremely broad authority to determine validity and if a study is determined to be invalid order that a new study be completed by a firm of his/her choosing at the ' ;:s' governmental unit's expense. Although opposition to such Legislation would appear to many to be opposition to the spirit and intent of comparable wortn, my concern really lies with the fact that an individual is given unlimited powers to enforce a law when there is no clear guide- lines provided by the law or by legislative intent as to the methodology for complying with the law. Although I am not suggesting that the City of Mounds View take a public position in opposition to this legislation, it would be my recommendation that should the opportunity present itself the City should voice its concerns regarding this legislation to our own legislators and to any other members of the state legislature while this bill is before it. Your direction in this matter would be appreciated. D P/m j s Attachment: