County Government Pay Classification Studies in West Virginia
Michael John Dougherty, Extension Specialist and Associate Professor, West Virginia University Extension Service
2104 Agricultural Sciences Building, P.O. Box 6108, Morgantown, WV 26506-6108
Phone: 304-293-6131 Ext. 4215, Fax: 304-293-6954. Email: Michael.Dougherty@mail.wvu.edu
County governments in West Virginia are often among the largest employers in their communities. However, many of them are disorganized and lacking in formal or modern administrative structures. For instance, less than half of the counties in the Mountain State have professional administrators, managers, or assistants. Thus in most cases, elected officials 1 are left to sort operational matters out on their own. Further complicating matters is the explicit separation of functions and constitutional requirements which often can lead to intramural squabbling among county officials. One area where this situation is most pronounced is with respect to county employees.
County governments were envisioned to have limited functions when founded but increasingly are expected to provide residents with more services. This expansion of responsibilities has resulted in the additional persons working in the courthouse – either for one of the constitutional offices or directly for the County Commission.
Whenever a new activity is undertaken or demands increase for an existing activity, new employees typically have to be added. This situation is exacerbated where elected officials in constitutional offices can hire and fire personnel at will and pay them whatever they wish.
The West Virginia University Extension Service has recognized the need to help counties with personnel matters. It has worked with four counties on five separate projects in the Mountain State over the past seven years through the
“Local Government Technical Assistance” program. This has involved the creation of job descriptions and pay classification systems for county government employees. Personnel policies and benefits packages have also been examined as part of some of these studies.
This paper will examine the involvement of the WVU Extension Service in doing county pay classification studies, the process and instruments used in doing these studies, the results and impacts of the pay classification studies and related work done, and the educational aspects of these efforts, including the use of interns from the WVU Division of Public Administration. The end result is to identify and delineate the work that that Extension in West Virginia can and has done to help counties upgrade their personnel systems.
Project Descriptions
The WVU Extension Service became involved in performing county pay classification studies at the request of the then-WVU Department of Public Administration 2 in late 1996. The department received a request from a Hancock
County Commissioner for assistance in formalizing its employee pay system. After making inquiries regarding the project, the public administration faculty member contacted Extension for assistance in the endeavor.
An initial meeting with the County Commission involved the public administration faculty member, a prospective student to work on the project, and myself. After that meeting, it was decided that I would oversee the project in my capacity as an Extension Specialist and work directly with the County Commission. I would also be in charge of the
Masters of Public Administration (MPA) student intern(s) on the project. Meanwhile, the Department of Public
Administration would provide administrative support to the effort.
First and foremost, this arrangement was made because of my prior experience working on pay classification studies. I also had previously worked directly with local governments. Both of these were a direct result of positions
1 The elected officials include the three County Commissioners and the constitutional officers. The constitutional officers are the
Assessor, Circuit Clerk, County Clerk, Prosecuting Attorney, Sheriff, and Surveyor, the last of which is an as-needed position without staff. All governmental functions and activities not directly prescribed to these offices are discretionary and fall under the jurisdiction of the County Commission.
2 It became the Division of Public Administration in what is now the School of Applied Social Sciences at WVU in July 1998.

I had held in Extension, both in West Virginia and in Virginia prior to that. Related to this, the scope of the project fit more directly with the outreach mission of Extension, particularly given the high degree of direct faculty direct involvement required.
This began the efforts of the WVU Extension Service in conducting pay classification studies. Over the last seven years, five such studies have been done in Hancock County (twice), Jackson County, Fayette County, and Taylor
County. These projects have generally taken anywhere between six months and two years to complete, with most lasting one year or less.
The initial Hancock County project took place throughout all of 1997. The initial development of job descriptions and classifications took place in the first half of the year. Then the job descriptions and grades were refined and a pay system developed during the second half of the year. A different MPA student worked on each half of the project to fulfill their internship requirement. A total of 54 persons in 35 different positions had their jobs reviewed and rated as part of the project. Also, the project included a cursory review of the county’s personnel manual.
Next, Jackson County requested a project because it had heard of the merits of the study from a Hancock County
Commissioner. There were some differences from the previous project though. The most important of these was that the administrative home for the project moved from the WVU Department of Public Administration to the WVU
Extension Service.
3 All subsequent projects have been managed directly within Extension. Second, this project and all that followed it have had slightly more defined roles for the intern and faculty member. Each project now would have only one MPA intern. This individual would work throughout the entire project with their assignment concentrated on developing job descriptions, making initial pay grade determinations, and conducting salary surveys. I would then refine the pay classification system to ensure its acceptance by the County Commission.
Work began in Jackson County during the fall of 1998 and concluded in mid-1999. Again, job descriptions were done, then jobs classified, and a pay system put together. However, unlike the first study, this time there were more opportunities for intermediate review of the recommendations. The student intern worked during the Fall 1998
Semester when the bulk of the project work took place. A total of 91 persons in 41 positions had their jobs reviewed and rated as part of the project.
Then Hancock County asked for its pay classification system to be re-reviewed in 2000. This came at the request of the County Commissioner who had originally called for the study as well as the new County Administrator. The process followed a compressed timetable because much of the information associated with this type of project – such as job descriptions and pay grades – already was in place from the 1997 study. Instead, what had been done three years earlier needed to be reviewed and, if necessary, revised and reworked. Thus, the study took only about half the time associated with a standard project – six months from mid-spring to mid-autumn. About 60 persons in
42 positions had their jobs reviewed and rated as part of this project. This was slightly larger than the first study in the county because additional positions were included – both existing positions not part of the first study and new positions created in the interim. Also, the project included a brief examination of the county’s newly revised leave policy.
Then in spring 2001, Fayette County sought information regarding a pay classification study. Again positive feedback from previous studies (especially the original work done in Hancock County) had led to the request. The study got underway that summer and was basically ready with job descriptions, grades, and pay system proposals for presentation by spring 2002. The post-graduate intern (a recent MPA student seeking experience) worked on the project during this period. However, delays in providing reviews and recommendations for final action as well as requests for additional pay system scenarios and other information by the County Commissioners and the County
Administrator resulted in the project taking another year to finalize. As a result of some of these requests, the final report included three different proposed pay systems. All used the same position grades and starting point. The differences were in the percentage of increase between each of the steps within a pay grade. A total of 117 persons
3
The actual home unit within Extension has varied because of reorganizations during the last few years. They have included the
Division of Community and Economic Development (until late 1998), the Center for Community, Economic, and Workforce
Development (late 1998- mid 2001) the Center for Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Community Development (mid 2001-end of 2003), and the Community, Economic, and Workforce Development Program Unit (beginning to 2004-present).
Page 2 of 8. Working draft paper for 2004 SRDC CRED Conference in Tampa, Fla. Please do not cite without permission .

in 56 unique positions had their jobs reviewed and rated as part of the project. Also, the project included a brief review of the county’s sick leave policy.
Most recently, the Taylor County Commission sought to have a pay classification study done. For several years, an
Extension Agent thought the county could benefit from such a project and knew that the Extension Service had the necessary expertise for such an undertaking. Finally, a meeting with the County Commission took place in May
2002 and as a result a two-part project initiated. The current pay for the positions would be examined immediately for major discrepancies and deficiencies and recommendations would be made for corrective action in the FY2003 budget. This work was done in a six-week span. Then job descriptions would be created and pay levels reexamined for any additional adjustments for the FY2004 budget.
There were some unique characteristics to the Taylor County project, however. The county elected to maintain a less structured salary process (basically annual percent raises to the newly-established base and as needed salary corrections), so a complete pay-classification system was not created. Meanwhile, the County Commissioners wanted to provide supervisors with additional information to help them run their offices. To that end, task lists for employees were developed from the Job Analysis Worksheets as well as the normal job descriptions. The work on this project was done from August 2003 to March 2004. The intern worked on the project during the Fall 2003
Semester while job descriptions were developed and a salary survey conducted. A total of 42 persons in 24 part-time or full-time positions had their jobs reviewed as part of the project. Also, task lists for 34 employees were generated using the information gathered as part of the process to create job descriptions. Also, the project involved a quick review of the county’s personnel manual, including the drafting of a proposed sexual harassment policy. (Currently, a small project with the county is working on upgrading and recodifying is personnel manual).
Also during this period, more informal pay and related information has been requested by and provided to three county governmental entities: Hancock County Schools, Roane County Commission, and Randolph County
Extension Office. A briefing and proposal were done for the Hancock County Commission in early 1999 at the request of the School Superintendent, but he then decided not to move forward with the project. Information from the Jackson County study was forwarded the information to the Roane County Commission by an Extension Agent in early 2000. The data was used to adjust salaries throughout the courthouse beginning in FY2001. Finally, salary data on support staff positions, including examinations from the pay classification studies as well as other resources, was requested by and sent to an Extension Agent in Randolph County in Spring 2004.
Project Methodology
The basic methodology for the pay classification studies has been used in each effort. While there have been refinements during the past several years and while each project has its own peculiarities, there are many more similar characteristics than differences.
For example, each county had its own mix of covered positions in the courthouse. All studies have examined deputy clerks (or clerks) in various constitutional offices (County Clerk, Circuit Clerk, Assessor, and Sheriff’s Tax Office).
Also all the studies have included the support staff in constitutional offices (the four offices listed above plus the
Prosecuting Attorney) and other county departments and associated agencies as well as central courthouse employees under the auspicious of the County Commission such as custodians. Other positions studied varied by county. These included law enforcement officers, dispatchers (sometimes known as telecommunicators), and individuals in specialized and/or administrative positions.
Once the parameters for which positions to study had been established, the projects started the same way – asking employees to complete a “Job Analysis Worksheet.” The form used is based upon instruments used at other Land
Grant Universities to conduct similar studies.
4 Depending on the paper size, the form would be either four pages
(legal) or six pages (letter). Regardless of layout, the form consisted of 11 sections:
4 The WVU Extension form is the third-generation form. It is based upon the Virginia Tech form, which was used in the Division of Community Resource Development of Virginia Cooperative Extension (Virginia Tech) to do pay-classification studies. That form was a second-generation form, directly based upon the form originally developed at Auburn University.
Page 3 of 8. Working draft paper for 2004 SRDC CRED Conference in Tampa, Fla. Please do not cite without permission .


Identification – Identifiers such as Name, Title, Department, Supervisor, Length of Service

Job Duties – List of duties as well as their frequency and importance

Job Qualifications – Characteristics such as Knowledge/Skills/Abilities, Physical Qualities, Education and Certifications, Experience and Special Requirements

Supervision Received – Ranges from immediate supervision to general directions to policy guidelines

Supervision Given – Involves both direct and indirect supervision

Contacts – Includes Person (interdepartmental to interagency to intergovernmental), Purpose, Frequency

Responsibilities – Type of decisions made, whether they are reviewed, and if so by whom

Consequence of Error – Error and its effect

Working Conditions – Percent of Time in office, outdoors, travel, shop, etc.

Additional Comments – Pertinent information not covered elsewhere on the form

Supervisor Review – Sign off and corrections to be made in red pen
The next step in the process is to interview the county employees to be covered by the study. This is done after the
Job Analysis Worksheets have been completed by the employees, reviewed by their supervisors, and returned them to the WVU Extension Service. Once received, the project intern would read the forms and made any necessary comments on then with respect to contradictory or unclear information.
These annotated worksheets served as the outline for the 15-minute private and confidential interview held with each covered employee. In addition to providing additional insight on the positions and seeing the person at work in their job setting, these interviews served the useful purpose of allaying any fears of county employees with respect to the study.
Then, the intern would make the initial ranking or classification of the positions studied. The data from the Job
Analysis Worksheets, augmented with any additional information that emerged from the interviews, provided the basis for this “grading” The positions were examined using an expanded set of the “Universal Job Factors.” 5

Education

Experience

Initiative and Ingenuity

Physical Demand

Mental Demand

Equipment or Process

Material or Product

Safety of Others

Work of Others

Working Conditions

Purpose of Contacts
Each of these factors was scored on a five-point, where the greater the number indicates a higher degree of complexity or higher demand (mental or physical) associated with that particular job factor. The sum of the 11 factors produced a raw score for each employee. These raw scores then were converted to position-based scores in cases where several persons were in the same job class. In later studies, factor weighting occurred at this stage to give greater meaning to aspects of positions that required independent thought, had a high consequence of error, and/or had a high potential for dangerous situations. Finally, scalar and technical adjustments were made to the grades for sake of simplification and uniformity.
6
5 The base 10-item set of “Universal Job Factors” comes from the Public Administration Course “Human Resource Systems”
(PUBA 771). An 11 th item that examines contacts was added to the set to create the list used in these pay classification studies.
6 Positions could be scored from 11 to 55 using the expanded set of “Universal Job Factors” – 45 possible grades. This is generally simplified to between 15 and 20 grades. Also, efforts are generally made to ensure similar jobs in different offices
(departments) in the county receive similar grades before the system is finalized.
Page 4 of 8. Working draft paper for 2004 SRDC CRED Conference in Tampa, Fla. Please do not cite without permission .

After the job factor analysis had been completed, all the positions covered in the study were listed in ascending order using their preliminary grades. Then the current salary range for each position and salary paid each employee in that position was entered into spreadsheets. These were used to determine the range for each position as well as information on the salary adjustments for each individual employee.
Before finalizing the salary ranges however, it was necessary to ensure the appropriateness of current pay levels in the county. To accomplish this, a “Salary Survey” was done. It involves both the private and public sector entities.
Businesses in the county that employed about same number of persons who worked in the courthouse received a survey. All municipalities in the county received a survey. Selected municipalities in an adjacent county received a survey. And all counties bordering the study county or in the same Tax Class (defined by property values) received a survey.
The first page of the survey collected information on general conditions of work and benefits packages. These included the definition of the workweek, leave time accrued annually (vacation, sick, and other), insurance coverage available, and other programs offered. The remaining pages of the survey sought information on salaries paid in particular positions. Like the catalog of positions included in the study, the exact composition of the salary survey varied by county. Generally, each survey included administrators, bookkeepers, clerks, janitors, maintenance workers, secretaries, and tax officials. Some of the other types of positions found on at least one survey were dispatchers, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), law enforcement officers, mechanics, park workers, prisoner transport officers, and receptionists. Regardless of the positions included, the same three pieces of information was requested for each job: (1) Entry wage; (2) Top wage; and (3) Number of employees in that position.
After the salary surveys were returned to the WVU Extension Service, the range and median for each included position was computed. If a great discrepancy existed between the current salary in the county for a particular position and the market salary as determined by the salary survey, the position would be re-examined to determine if it should classified at a higher grade or if the pay for individuals needed to be adjusted within the assigned grade.
What this means was additional raises might be recommended for the employees in those positions, particularly in situations where the County Commission expressed a desire for its pay to be competitive with the private sector or with other local governments.
Once all the information for the pay classification study has been collected and analyzed, an initial draft report was prepared. This report would be distributed to the County Commission and any administrative officer (County
Administrator, Manager, or Administrative Assistant) for review. That group made the determination as to whether or not and to what degree to share the preliminary findings with the other elected officials and other supervisors in the courthouse. After the county officials have had an opportunity to assess the report, they then forwarded comments and make any recommendations for changes in the system to the WVU Extension Service. That information was then taken into consideration as the pay classification system was finalized.
While this last step sounds simple and straightforward, it can and has on occasion caused long delays in concluding a pay classification study. Problems encountered include county officials responding very slowly to requests for feedback as well as the feedback process becoming overly iterative. However, for the project to be approved of by the county – this includes being enacted by the County Commission and being acknowledged by all county officials who must follow its guidelines (especially the constitutional officers) – the time taken to refine the system and its recommendations to ensure their acceptance proved to be a necessary investment.
Results and Impacts
The typical final product for each pay classification study given to the County Commission is the final report.
7 This document ranges between 50 and 100 pages. It includes all the job descriptions for the county, the position grades, the pay system proposal(s), and a background information and a description of the methods used in the study.
7 The Taylor County final report consisted of three separate parts: The Job Descriptions Report, The Task List Report, and a set of memos and information regarding pay levels. It was not combined into a unified report at the request of the County
Commission.
Page 5 of 8. Working draft paper for 2004 SRDC CRED Conference in Tampa, Fla. Please do not cite without permission .

Once this product accepted by the County Commission, the WVU Extension Service no longer has any direct control over its disposition. In other words, delivering the final report technically ends Extension’s formal involvement in the project. But that is only a necessary and not sufficient condition to ensure the study will have any impact. As noted above, action by the County Commission and use by all county officials must occur before the pay classification study can have any effect.
Nevertheless, even if the county never enacts the pay system recommendations, the document itself provides some valuable information. The study has developed complete and up-to-date job descriptions using the information gathered from the people in those positions and their supervisors through the questionnaires, reviews, and interviews. This can help with general administrative functions as well as providing a base for periodic performance review and the hiring of new employees.
Obviously though, the greater impacts come when the county moves forward and puts a recommended pay classification system into place. Such a system helps to bring order to a function of county government that typically is chaotic. It works to ensure that individuals doing the same job or in similar positions in the courthouse are treated equitably. It provides a mechanism for providing regular and uniform raises, using whatever criteria (seniority, merit, special reward, combinations, etc.) is desired.
Heretofore, there have not been any major problems to get the County Commissions to take action on an initial set of report recommendations once it has received them. In Hancock County, the commission voted to move forward with the recommendations of the first study on November 1997, then sought an update to that system when it called for the second study in February 2000. In Jackson County, the commission voted to accept and implement the study in August 1999. In Taylor County, the commission made immediate salary adjustments for FY2003, making only minor modifications to the May 2002 recommendations. It then distributed the job descriptions and associated information when they were completed in April 2003. Finally, in Fayette County, the commission planned to implement one of the three different proposed pay systems for FY2005 when it undertook budget deliberations in
March 2004.
However, efforts have met with little success in those instances when a second report is made to a County
Commission. In Hancock County, the commission received the revisions that resulted from its requested reexamination of the pay system in November 2000 but to date have not taken any action on them. In Taylor County, the commission took the special salary recommendations proposed for FY2004 under advisement because of severe financial constraints.
It should be noted though that the implementation of these recommended pay-classification systems (or pay recommendations) is not without cost to the counties. These “costs” are the employee pay increases needed to put people onto the implemented pay system and/or to bring their pay in line with market salaries for that type of position.
Interestingly, the highest implementation cost was found in Taylor County, which as noted above, decided against converting to a classification system to set salaries in favor of continuing the use of a more informal process for setting employee salaries. The county spent $41,288 in FY2003 to raise salaries of the 37 full-time employees whose position was covered by the study. This translated into an average annual raise of $1,115. Ironically, the special instance raises that were proposed for FY2004 but not implemented would have only cost the county a total of
$1,750 to $2,750. They involved special circumstances increases of between $250 and $500 for six positions.
Other counties had similar experiences, though the implementation costs were quite as high, either on an overall or per employee basis. In Hancock County, the initial 1997 study had an implementation cost of approximately
$196,000. This was about $71,000 more than the county had originally planned for implementation costs. The reason for this increase was that some county employees (specifically law enforcement officers) who were not part of the original study but who were placed on a pay system based upon the scale recommended in the study. The follow-up 2000 study that was never implemented offered suggestions for updating that scale through the use of a percentage multiplier (with five options ranging from 2 to 10 percent). It also proposed upgrades of one or two grades for 18 positions. No implementation cost estimates were ever developed (in part because the scale update was designed to take the place of regular raises one year).
Page 6 of 8. Working draft paper for 2004 SRDC CRED Conference in Tampa, Fla. Please do not cite without permission .

In Jackson County, the implementation of the system cost the county $10,104 or $111 per employee covered by the study. This was above the cost of the regular 30 cents per hour raise given across the board, which had an estimated total cost of $49,686.
The anticipated cost for Fayette County in FY2005 to put a proposed pay system into place ranges from $17,160 to
$37,728, depending upon the system adopted, without factoring in any other increase to the current year salaries.
This translated to $146 to $323 per employee covered by the study. Annual increases will cost the county between
$34,603 and $68,652, if the average raise is one step per employee – or $295 to $587 per covered employee.
Another benefit occurred in those counties that requested to have personnel policies examined, either a part or in total. The result was a professional review with comments and recommendations on use, appropriateness, and completeness of the administrative rules relating to personnel matters.
A final benefit of these studies is the education provided. This is important because the primary mission of the
Extension Service mission is educational. The education associated with these studies takes two forms – education of public officials and education of public administration interns.
The vast majority of elected officials in the counties where the pay-classification studies were done have limited knowledge with regard to personnel administration. This was especially true with respect to the use of formal pay systems. The initial focus of the educational effort was the County Commissioners. They needed to understand the need for and benefits of job descriptions and a pay scale before entering into an agreement to undertake a pay classification study.
Once the study is underway, education activities expanded in two directions. All supervisors (County
Commissioners, constitutional officers, and any administrative officials) were briefed about the study, the processes to be used, and the utilization of the study results. Throughout the study, meetings were held with this group as requested to answer questions and resolve any issues that arise during the project. As stated above, it was essential to get these officials to “buy in” to the ideas behind the pay classification study to ensure its utilization once the project was completed. Also, as described previously, basic information on the pay classification study process and its purpose were provided to all county employees covered by the study during the interview process.
Meanwhile throughout the effort, the public administration intern gained hands-on experience in the development of a pay classification system. The tasks they performed included developing job descriptions, grading positions, and conducting salary surveys. These activities have been described in detail above. The involvement of the intern is essential to the project for two reasons. First, time constraints would have prevented me from performing all of the tasks required on such a project on a timely basis. Second, having an educational component in these projects helped to justify them being done for minimal costs.
8 Six interns worked on the five projects. Five of them used the project to fulfill the internship requirement of the MPA – four in total and a fifth in combination with another project in the county where the study occurred. Meanwhile, the sixth intern was a recent MPA graduate seeking experience in human resource activities.
Lessons Learned and Concluding Comments
Of course, more than just the county officials and the MPA interns have been educated during these pay classification studies. The process continues to evolve as each study builds upon the previous efforts. Thus, I have learned several key lessons while working on these projects.
The first lesson should be apparent from the previous discussions. County officials have the final say on how the pay classification study is used – or not used. Thus, it is necessary to educate them on the importance of and benefits
8 Complete initial studies generally have cost counties between $6,000 and $7,000, while smaller scale studies (studies without pay systems or follow-up studies) have cost counties between $3,000 and $5,250. The counties pay a stipend to the intern that is approximately equivalent to what the individual would receive as a graduate assistant. They also pay the WVU Extension Service to cover all direct and indirect expenses for the project, except for my time, which is covered through my salary from the WVU
Extension Service.
Page 7 of 8. Working draft paper for 2004 SRDC CRED Conference in Tampa, Fla. Please do not cite without permission .

associated with having such a system. This is especially true for the constitutional officers. These individuals did not ask to have the study done (the County Commission did) and they are not used to having any constraints placed on their handling of personnel matters.
Associated with this is the need for someone in the county to “champion” the pay classification study. This is in addition to there being a key contact individual to provide the necessary logistical support. Without the strong support of a County Commissioner or an administrative official, the tangible results of the county pay classification study are usually going to be nil. Fortunately, in each of the efforts discussed herein, there was strong support from at least one County Commissioner to ensure that the project was completed and its recommendations considered and generally adopted (at least in part).
The second lesson is that the “Job Analysis Worksheet” as it is currently structured has its limitations. Part of this is related to the fact that using a single instrument to collect information from a wide variety of positions. Also, the form itself can be a bit confusing (or even intimidating) to some people because of its cluttered layout and its use of some human resources jargon in places. Furthermore, some employees “figure out” the questionnaire, thinking that quantity in responses is more important than quality. This is particularly true when employees have seen the questionnaire or a form similar to it previously.
The third lesson involves the preparatory work needed with respect to the interns. Being a student in an MPA program does not fully prepare the intern for the reality found in county government settings. Taking a personnel course does not fully prepare the intern to interview employees or interact with their supervisors. For example, the most effective interviews occurred when a comprehensive briefing sheet was developed before going into the field.
In all cases, guidance and advice from me became critical to the intern benefiting as much as possible from the experiential learning opportunity. This was also essential if the intern was going to be useful on the project.
The fourth lesson learned is that the finished systems include more positions than would have been expected in a relatively flat organization with a hierarchical structure. It soon becomes evident though that a deputy clerk in one office does not equal a deputy clerk in another office. This is because each elected official (particularly the constitutional officers) feel that the duties of those who work in their officers are unique. Sometimes, this even leads to situations where a deputy clerk in one office does not equal a deputy clerk in that same office. Such peculiarities are necessary when the support of county officials must be gained. They must implement the proposals and recommendations of the pay classification study since they cannot be compelled to do so. Moreover, the use of position grades to determine salary class means that a deputy clerk can still be made equivalent to a deputy clerk.
The final lesson involved the time. There is a project timetable set before any work began. But flexibility quickly becomes a necessity. Sometimes it is essential to ignore the timetable and take more time than scheduled for a particular task. In such situations, not taking the time to addressing the situation at hand – such as unanticipated questions and concerns from the constitutional officers – would have consequences detrimental to the successful completion of the project. This may result in the pay classification study taking longer than originally scheduled but still achieve its intended objectives. But that is a far better outcome than having the study completed on time not having any impact.
In closing, it is considered to be an appropriate activity for the WVU Extension Service to undertake performing pay classification studies in the Mountain State, especially for counties that have no other way to have this work done.
As an Extension Specialist working in the field of Community Development, I have become the point of contact for these outreach efforts and the resultant studies. Others throughout the system, particular Extension Agents in counties which are in need of administrative assistance, can play a role in expanding these efforts by helping to publicize the availability of this activity. By continuing to help counties in this way, the WVU Extension Service can make a valuable contribution to increasing the professionalization and modernization of county governments in
West Virginia.
Furthermore, since having a sound governmental infrastructure is essential for general community development efforts to succeed, taking on this type of activity could be considered appropriate for Extension Educators in other states working in the area of community development. Whether this activity is done alone or done in partnership with a university academic unit or another organization would depend on the circumstances in that particular state.
Page 8 of 8. Working draft paper for 2004 SRDC CRED Conference in Tampa, Fla. Please do not cite without permission .