Testimony:
Jeannine Warrener
Programmer/Analyst II (UNIX/SQL)
I am employed by ETSS (Enterprise Technology Strategy and Services) and assigned to the Rhode Island Department of Health as a Programmer Analyst II, primarily supporting the Kidsnet/RICAIR program. I submitted a request for a desk audit in 2024 for reclassification to Programmer/Analyst III, as my responsibilities have consistently extended beyond the scope of my current classification.
Despite performing duties aligned with the higher classification, my request for reclassification was denied on the basis that I do not sign employee timecards or approve leave requests. This was the explanation provided in the desk audit decision:
The employee’s requested classification, Programmer/Analyst III (UNIX/SQL), was reviewed. The classification’s general statement of duties reads, “Within an assigned specialty, to plan, supervise and review the activities of an applications team engaged in the development and maintenance of automated systems including relational databases; to act in an advisory capacity with user agencies.” The incumbent’s job responsibilities (as listed above) focus on overseeing and supporting all Oracle Application development activities across the Department. Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) encompasses 10 divisions and 32 centers, with a significant portion of my work concentrated in the Center for Health Data and Analysis (CHDA) and Public Health Informatics (PHI) within the Kidsnet/RICAIR program. (Kidsnet secure database for critical information about children's health/ Rhode Island Child and Adult Immunization Registry (RICAIR). The incumbent works for Department of Administration’s Division of Information Technology and is one of two Programmer /Analyst II(s) that support other agencies, the incumbent supports Department of Health and informally directs a number of Department of Health personnel who serve as Sr Human Services Policy and Systems Specialists. The incumbent does assign work to a group at the Department of Health; however, the incumbent does but does not sign timecards, approve leave or absences, and does not discipline nor mandate training. Inconsistent with this classification, the incumbent does not perform formal supervisory job functions with staff.
The Supervision exercised component of the classification reads, “Plans, supervises and reviews the work of an applications staff assigned to assist in systems development activities.” The supervision described in this classification is mandatory and not discretionary. When supervision is mandatory, and an incumbent is not performing such supervision, an incumbent cannot be reclassified without demonstrating that the incumbent is performing the requisite supervision. The incumbent does not supervise any State of Rhode Island full-time employees. Therefore, the classification is not considered an adequate fit for the position.
For the reasons listed above, the incumbent has not demonstrated that they are more substantially performing the duties of the requested classification of Programmer/Analyst III. This process is predicated on the employee's actual job duties as they relate to the specification for their actual job classification and the requested job classification. This office determines that there is no classification that more substantially describes the incumbent’s job duties and responsibilities and therefore, this office recommends that the incumbents remain classified as Programmer/ Analyst II (UNIX/SQL)”
I felt that this decision was particularly unfair, as I did in fact supervise staff in the Kidsnet unit indirectly and carried out supervisory responsibilities. The only tasks I did not perform were signing timecards or approving and denying leave requests, and those administrative functions should not negate the supervisory duties I consistently fulfilled.
It is also important to recognize that I was never given the opportunity to supervise additional employees. My unit has only two Programmer/Analyst II positions, so there were no staff members available for me to directly supervise. Under those circumstances, it would have been impossible for me to sign timecards or approve leave. The absence of those specific tasks was a result of the unit’s structure, not a lack of supervisory responsibility on my part.
