Second Draft Clarification letter for Overspent

[Programme Coordinator]

Dear Ma Nwe Zin,

I have reviewed and made some correction with spelling and reorientation of the wordings with focus on the request of PR for clarification on the overspend budget line of HR. Please kindly see the revised on under here;

Dear Ma Ei Ei Paing,

I would like to request your kind support to provided scanned version of the HR new grading and salary communication and approval letters so as to provide PR as supporting documents. (For example File Name : Annex 1, 2 , 3, 4, etc. in order of the process) Thanks.
...........................................................................................................................................
 

According to the high staff turn over rate of the Global Fund Project, PGK has requested the budget revision of Year 2 of the Global Fund as a part of reprogramming during 2012.

PGK also has 5 levels of staff in our organizational structure  in Fiance Manual since 2010 and we also developed grading for staffs with five factors in 2011. However, PGK was not able to apply this grading and salary scheme because existing staffs in GFATM project were paid according to proposed budget. It means that most of staffs in GAFTM project were not in line with standard grading and salary scheme according to their education, qualification and experience.

During the audit exercise of GF for 2011 period, PGK was suggested to practice grading and salary scheme according to their performance and not based on the budgeted figures. Thus, PGK conducted staff performance review and appraisal in early 2012 using the process under here;

• Self-grading by staffs and review by each immediate supervisor
• Discuss with the result with each staffs by performance appraisal review team which included ED, PC, Admin/HR officer and one executive committee member.
  
• Submit to the chairperson of the organization for approval for all grading and salary.
  
• Revised contract according to the grading.

(Benefit calculation was included in this new grading process but current GF budget was not covered the benefit. There is also only GFTAM project in 2012. Thus, PGK decided to include staff's benefit when PGK receive new project from other donors in 2013. Only 90% of net salary in each grading was charges from GFATM project. (Please see the Attached Supporting Documents)

As a results, there is a changes in performance rating of each staffs and salary grading after this process. Thus, the staff are contracted according to their grading and performance which is varies with individual budget of the project as some over and some under. However, the total contracted salary is made to be within total Human Resource budget of the project.

PGK also informed to PR that PGK has been conducting this process and PGK also wait the approval from PR and the reimbursement is made after the approval is received from the PR with is within the total HR budget.

(Please also see the attached supporting documents that will give you more information about the process.)

Additionally in December 2012, PGK conducted 360 performance appraisals with all staffs in order to meet their qualification and performance according to their post with the consideration for 2013 period. Similarly in the process, the grading in each level is confirmed according to their performances feed-back results.

PGK provided contracts for 2013 to all staffs according to their performance such as three months or one month. The contracts for the staffs are provided only after all grading was confirmed with performance appraisal process. PGK will include staff benefit after three months of GFATM project. PGK will charge only % of time in each level when we start other new projects.

[Executive Director]

That is great . EI EI paing, Let me see attachments please. Please send it to me.

 

thanks