Human Resources - Compensation

Market Data Results for Benchmark Jobs

This link will take you to a Login page. Enter your eTime user ID and password to view the Compensation Study market data for the benchmark titles (titles that had 5 or more matches in the market). Not all positions will be found in this ACC FY07 Salary Survey.

Helpful hints to using the Adobe Reader PDF File:

  • You can use the Adobe Reader “search” feature to find specific information in the document, such as position title, etc.
  • Be careful when printing. If you hit the “print” key, all 130 pages of the document will print. Individual pages may be selected to print through the software’s print feature.

Frequently Asked Questions

The Phase II (FY07) Project


Frequently Asked Questions

March 29, 2007

  1. Why was it the goal was to get employees to midpoint, but not beyond?
    The goal was to pay staff employees with five years of experience in their current position at market midpoint. Market is generally defined as 5-8 years in position. At ACC under the Compensation Study, midpoint equals five years of experience in position. Staff that had worked at ACC for five years in their current position but was not at the market level compensation or more was moved to the midpoint of their pay grade. There was a budgetary cap at midpoint. If an employee’s salary was higher than the midpoint, their salary was already above the market.

  2. Why were the employees with less than one year re-evaluated to include past experience and education?
    Employees with less than five years of experience in their current position at ACC and hired before September 1, 2006 were not initially evaluated based upon experience. They were placed at a percentage of the market based on years in their current position at ACC. In FY07, as we hired new employees, it became obvious that the employees with less than five years of experience in their current position and hired before September 1, 2006 needed to be evaluated based upon experience to ensure equity with newly hired employees.

  3. Some employees ended up with extremely higher salaries, yet the level of responsibility was minimal compared to other employees.
    The job description identifies what an employee is expected to do in a position. The supervisor is responsible for ensuring that an employee is performing the job duties at a certain level. If an employee feels that other employees with the same title are not carrying their weight, the employee should talk with the appropriate supervisor.

  4. Were all employees reviewed in the study?
    Yes, all staff employees were reviewed and their compensation was determined based upon the job duties and the employee’s experience.

  5. What does it mean that Administrative Assistant III's are considered the "foundation"?
    Administrative Assistant III’s represent the broadest category of employees who are in a support position and thus, serve the departments.

  6. Why were only those who appealed looked at again?
    This is not a true statement. The appeal was the process for employees to indicate that they did not agree with the consultant’s decisions. However, at this point, all employees have been reviewed based upon the guidelines.

  7. Why were some Administrative Assistants told there was nothing to appeal when they felt all their experience was not considered?
    When Administrative Assistants were classified, their years of experience were considered.

  8. Why were Administrative Assistant I's reclassified as Administrative Assistant II's (and Administrative Assistant II's as Administrative Assistant III's) when there was no evidence that an increase in the job skills and duties was required?
    The study indicated that there was little difference in the job requirements and expectations of Administrative Assistant I and II’s and therefore, they should be combined. Also, there were very few employees in the Administrative Assistant I category. The same review was done for the II and III classification.

  9. What was the financial impact of the study to the college?
    There were 672 employees that received market increases. A total of 83.9% of Classified and 93.6% of Professional-Technical employees are at the midpoint or above. These salaries should make us more competitive in the market. The budget impact for market increases was an additional $1,602,921 in compensation that will be continually built into the budget.

Other Questions

  1. Why are applications being sent forth to interview committees when there is no demonstration of the applicant having the minimum skills or requirements for the position?
    Screening applications is a service that HR provides. However, the supervisor is responsible for hiring the best person for the position. We attempt to provide the supervisor with all applications that might meet the requirements in a variety of ways. In some cases, a candidate may have more of one criteria or the other, therefore, rather than screen applicants out, the supervisor will receive all applications that appear to meet the requirements. In other cases, there may be requirements that can be substituted and only the supervisor would be able to make that determination.

  2. Testing Center Employees--Can employees work with Dr. Sharon (King) Frederick regarding approval on a case-by-case basis for those employees wanting to use vouchers for courses that do not tested in the test centers?
    Yes, employees in the Testing Center may take any class that does not use the Center for its test. Check with Dr. Frederick for approval.

Phase II (FY07) Project

Last year the College conducted a Compensation Study that was approved by the Board of Trustees and implemented September 1, 2007. As a result of the study, the College implemented new placement guidelines. When we hire new employees the placement guidelines are used to ensure equitable evaluation of employment records. After implementation of the Compensation Study and new placement guidelines, it became obvious that the employees with less than five years of experience in their current position and hired before September 1, 2006 needed to be evaluated based on their experience to ensure equity with newly hired employees. As a result, some employees received salary adjustments retroactive to September 1, 2006 and compensation has been calculated effective that date, including overtime.

The HR Compensation team has worked diligently to ensure that all employees are placed according to work experience and education and are compensated in accordance with the market. (Phase II)

Market Pricing: Phase II (FY07)

Compensation Project

In FY06, the Compensation Study was completed on all Classified and Prof-Tech positions. The objective of the Study was to implement a market-based compensation program. A consultant was engaged to conduct the Study. The results were presented and approved for implementation by the Board of trustees in July 2006.

When the FY06 Compensation Study was completed and salaries of ACC employees were converted based on the Market Pricing Methodology, employees with 5 years of experience or more in their current position were adjusted to market midpoint. ACC employees with less than 5 years in position were placed at a percentage of the market midpoint based on the following scale:

Years of Experience

Percent of Market Targets

0-1 Year

80% of midpoint

1-2 Years

84% of midpoint

2-3 Years

88% of midpoint

3-4 Years

92% of midpoint

4-5 Years + Less than 5 Years in Position

96% of midpoint

5 Years and Over + 5 Years in Position

100% of midpoint

After the conversion, there was a concern among ACC employees with less than five years of experience in their ACC position but more years of outside work-related experience that their outside work-related experience had not been counted in the conversion. HR-Compensation determined that placements should be conducted on these employees.


  • HR-Compensation conducted placements on the 284 employees included in Phase II (less than five years of experience in their ACC position as of 9/1/06).
  • No Administrative Assistants were included in Phase II because the placements (education and experience) for those employees had already been reviewed for market adjustments and internal equity.
  • New placement methodology included these calculations:
    • Directly related experience counted at 100% (ACC or outside)
    • Closely related experience counted at 50% (ACC or outside)
    • Deduction taken for required work experience
    • No additional credit for degree over the educational level required
    • 5 Year Cap at Midpoint
    • Corresponds with the consultant’s recommendation that 5-8 years experience is market midpoint
  • All placements were checked twice by HR-Compensation for correct dates and analysis of placements complying with the new placement methodology.
  • All proposed adjustments have been reviewed for internal equity issues.


  • 187 employees show that salary adjustments need to be made, based on their experience, to get them to the correct percentage of market midpoint. (123 Non-Exempt; 64 Exempt)
  • 97 employees are currently at or above their placement percentage of market midpoint, and thus, require no adjustment. (62 Non-Exempt; 35 Exempt)

Budgetary Impact

  • The cost will be $522,804 for Phase II (not counting overtime adjustments for classified employees).

Timeline for Implementation

  • Final review was completed by PLT/Supervisors February 23.
  • Notification to immediate supervisors of Phase II employees was made on March 2 and a letter sent to Phase II employees on March 6.
  • All Phase II adjustments, including retroactive pay and overtime, was paid on March 30 for Classified and Professional-Technical employees.