University of Alaska Staff Alliance

Presentation by Wendy Redman

Wendy Redman, Vice President for University Relations, presented information on university advocacy. She said that our message last year, focusing on being relevant and responsive and accountability, was very successful. Next year, the university’s budget success may be seen as a target. Also, the long-range fiscal picture isn’t good and in three years the state may run out of reserves. In our favor next year is that fact that a large proportion of legislators face re-election, and the university is very popular with voters.

Wendy Redman said that the long-term fiscal planning group is holding meetings in October, and she encouraged members to participate if they choose to.

Wendy Redman pointed out that enrollment and student retention are key accountability measurements. The university is extending its Noel-Levitz Survey.

When asked what the Staff Alliance could do to help her efforts, Wendy Redman replied that it could help the university do better at communicating. She said that the Staff Alliance meetings in Juneau are helpful, positive, and successful. She discussed the initiative process and said that it would be great if staff talked with legislators about changes in morale. A member brought up the UAF Staff Council’s campus tours as a morale-building event. Wendy Redman also mentioned the value of staff being involved personally in campaigns and the importance of voter registration.

Presentation by Janet Jacobs

Janet Jacobs, the Executive Director of Human Resources, made three presentations. They were regarding Classification Systems and the Professional Development Program – Career Planning. The latter included an overview and an executive summary of focus group results.

Some questions arose after Janet Jacobs left. What do annual step increases mean, and what are they meant to award? Are they based on merit as proven by performance evaluations or are they simply to award longevity? What do the annual step increases cost the university each year, and how is that amount calculated? Why should annual step increases cost the university anything at all? Given that some employees leave the top of the scale while others enter at the bottom, therefore the savings from the one group should theoretically cancel out the costs of the other. When the legislature funds the annual step increases for non-represented staff, how do those funds get distributed to the staff in self-support departments? Has the represented staff ever received salary grid or step increases when the non-represented have not, or vice versa?

Presentation by Joseph Beedle, Pat Pitney, and Dave Veazey

Joseph Beedle, UA Vice President for Finance; Pat Pitney, SW Budget and Institutional Research; and Dave Veazey, SW Academic Affairs gave a presentation on budgeting and initiatives. They gave a budgeting overview and described how the budget aligns with the university’s mission, goals, values, and planning. Only $11.5 million of the $21 million in money for FY2001 & FY2002 initiatives has come from state coffers. Currently the state appropriates $205 million to the university from the general fund.

It was mentioned that President Hamilton has requested that the FY2003 budget be prepared with the assumption that non-represented staff would receive a 1.5% salary grid adjustment that year.

Two web pages have information on initiatives and accountability. They are http://www.alaska.edu/swacad/ and http://www.alaska.edu/accountability.

Goal Setting Discussion

Members brainstormed about important issues to work on this year. The following list emerged, in no particular order.

Issue	Category
1. Remain Informed About Classification	Communication
2. Salary	Compensation
3. Redlining	Compensation
4. Salary Flexibility/Bonus	Compensation
5. Clarification of Step	Compensation
6. Clearly Define Step	Compensation
7. Salary Grid Adjustment, and	Compensation
8. What, If Any (Salary Grid Adjustment) Constitutes a Reasonable Amount	Compensation
9. Communication with Membership in Regards to Goal	Communication
10. Hard Skills for Departments (Within Professional Development Program – Career Planning)	Staff Development
11. Costs Staff Incur (Per diem on one day trips; Parking)	Compensation
12. Cash Out Annual Leave	Compensation
13. (Improve) Employee Orientation	Communication and Staff Development
14. Volunteer Leave Program	Advocacy
15. Outreach to Rural Sites	Advocacy
16. Advocacy for UA Budget	Advocacy
17. Enhancing Staff Visibility	Advocacy
18. Staff Recognition	Staff Development

Each of the issues was assigned a category – compensation, advocacy, staff development, and communication. The categories were prioritized in that order. The top issue under the compensation category is salary; the top issues under the advocacy category are Advocacy for UA Budget and a Volunteer Leave Program; and the top issues under the staff development category are Hard Skills for Departments (Within Professional Development Program – Career Planning) and Staff Recognition.

Presentation by Jim Johnsen

Jim Johnsen, UA Chief of Staff, made a presentation about leadership development and current issues. With regards to leadership, he made the observation that if you’re not a bit uncomfortable, then you’re not leading. He encouraged members to think about the university in terms John F. Kennedy might use, essentially to ask not what the university can do for the Staff Alliance but what the Staff Alliance can do for the university.

Jim Johnsen talked about some leadership practices, such as maintaining some degree of perspective, distinguishing yourself from your role, and building alliances. He mentioned that the Staff Alliance is essentially without authority of its own. He mentioned that leadership takes passion and intelligence. One of the observations he made was how we can work over time to increase our area of productivity with regards to our level of discomfort, as illustrated below.

He mentioned that after the university’s “decade in the desert,” departments are now being asked to participate in the budgeting process. He repeated that common themes in our budget advocacy are responsiveness to the state and accountability. 2009 will be the year of the fiftieth anniversary of Alaska statehood. Where will the university be then and what will it take to get there?

The question was raised about what step increases are meant to reward. Jim Johnsen pointed out that we start new hires out at higher steps in a range than we used to do. There was a discussion of the costs of high turnover and low retention. It was pointed out that the state also was giving 1.5% salary increases last year, and the audience that matters where salaries are concerned is the legislature. It was mentioned that a new faculty member takes approximately one year to hire; a new staff member about three to six months and it takes about three to six years to build additional office, classroom and/or laboratory space.

A member noted that there has been a change in the message of staff governance in recent years from negative to positive.

The 2001 UA Employee Survey being conducted by the McDowell Group will be released in September 2001. The survey has been previously conducted in 1998 and 1999. In 2000, individual Chancellors conducted some of their own staff surveys.

Salary

MOTION ON SALARY: Moved by Wright, seconded by Nuss, passed as amended

“The Staff Alliance of the University of Alaska recommends the University of Alaska fund a 3.0% increase to the salary grid for non-represented staff in FY2003. This action is effective August 14, 2001.”

The question was asked, if President Hamilton declines to endorse the increase request, should the Staff Alliance petition the regents to implement it? The consensus was yes. If the regents decline to implement the increase request, should the Staff Alliance petition the governor and/or the legislature? The consensus was no, that unity with the regents regarding the university’s budget request is more important.

If the Board of Regents says yes to a salary increase in FY2003, but the legislature doesn’t fund it, will the cost of the increase be absorbed by the university? It was concluded that this question may be asked when and if that situation actually occurs.

It was pointed out that a 3% increase represents a long-term investment by the university.

1^st AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION ON SALARY: Moved by McCrea, seconded by Nuss, passed without objection

“The Staff Alliance of the University of Alaska strongly recommends the University of Alaska ~~fund a~~ invest in the university by providing a 3.0% increase to the salary grid for non-represented staff in FY2003. This action is effective August 14, 2001.”

President Hamilton came to visit with the Staff Alliance during the afternoon of August 14, 2001, after the motion and amendment above were passed. The motion was not shared with him during his visit. The motion was reopened for further discussion and amendment after his presentation.

A consensus was reached that today’s motion on salary should deal only with potential salary grid adjustments in FY2003, not with future years.

2^nd AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION ON SALARY: Moved by McCrea, seconded by Savatgy, passed with three in favor, none against, and two abstentions

“The Staff Alliance of the University of Alaska strongly recommends the University of Alaska invest in the university by providing a 2.0% ~~3.0%~~ increase to the salary grid for non-represented staff in FY2003. This action is effective August 14, 2001.”

The transmittal memo to President Hamilton was sent on Monday, August 21, 2001:

http://gov.alaska.edu/Staff/correspondence/2001-08-15-hamilton-salaries.pdf

Volunteer Leave Program

MOTION: Moved by McCrea, seconded by Wright, passed unanimously

“The Staff Alliance of the University of Alaska hereby forms an ad-hoc committee for the purpose of examining a volunteer leave program at the University of Alaska. This action is effective August 14, 2001.”

Scott McCrea, Cheryl Wright, and Lola Savatgy all volunteered to serve on this ad-hoc committee. Staff contributions to the university’s mission of public service need to be recognized, documented and promoted. Public service is already a major part of faculty workload. Scott McCrea described a program of UAF University Relations whereby brochures are produced and distributed that recognize the contributions and accomplishments of faculty, students, and alumni; but there is no similar brochure for staff. John Mitchell explained the generous policy of his previous employer, Information Insights of Fairbanks, regarding volunteer leave. It was mentioned that SAA had worked on this issue in a previous year and encountered difficulties, which caused the idea to be abandoned.

The file memo is at:

http://gov.alaska.edu/staff/correspondence/2001-08-15-volunteer-leave.pdf

Presentation by President Hamilton

President Hamilton described the role of the Staff Alliance as essential. In this year’s legislative advocacy message, he said that there will be themes of accountability and responsiveness to state needs.

He mentioned that almost 200 full time faculty have been hired in recent years. New staff members have also been hired. As a consequence, a space problem has developed in some areas. In 1996, there were x number of students, y faculty, z staff, and “s” amount of space, which was more than adequate. Now in 2001, the number of students is x’, faculty is y’, staff is z’, and x’<x; y’<y; and z’<z. But the amount of space is the same as it was in 1996. So how can be running out of space? The answer, apparently, is that expectations have changed.

President Hamilton mentioned that enrollment is a key indicator of the university’s success or failure. He said there is one thing about a country that can easily measure its worth: Are people trying to get in or are they trying to get out? The same can hold true for a university.

President Hamilton mentioned that this year, UAF is getting more Alaska Scholars than UAA. This shouldn’t happen, because Anchorage is a greater pool of scholars, and the difference is that UAF student recruitment efforts have been restarted earlier.

President Hamilton mentioned that in order to persuade legislators that university staff needs higher salaries; he needs something to justify that argument. He mentioned that the new job classification system would provide a means of comparison.

President Hamilton commented that 2009 is the golden anniversary of Alaska statehood. Where does the university need to be at that time? How does it get there? If a gas pipeline gets built, the first royalty payments to the state might come about that time. How does the university make itself more relevant so some of that revenue will be invested in it?

President Hamilton mentioned that many people spend time doing tasks (75%), working on conditions (5%), or standards (20%) and illustrated this point.

It was mentioned that in past years, the state has funded adjusted the salary grid for its employees and eaten the cost of step increases while the university has eaten the cost of adjusting the salary grid (in fact, the salary grid was never adjusted between 1994 and 2001) and funded step increases.

Wrap-Up

A member mentioned that it was important to tell positive stories about the contributions of staff. Robert Sewell made a presentation regarding “Staff Connections,” a newsletter that would be a vehicle for sharing information with university staff constituents.

MOTION: Moved by Nuss, seconded by McCrea, passed unanimously

“The Staff Alliance of the University of Alaska will develop and send a newsletter to constituents at all Major Administrative Units (MAUs – UAA, UAF, UAS, and Statewide) each month. The editor/composer shall be the chair of the Staff Alliance and the members of the Staff Alliance shall be contributors and shall serve as the editorial board. This action is effective August 14, 2001.”

The file memo is at:

http://gov.alaska.edu/staff/correspondence/2001-08-15-newsletter.pdf

There was a discussion regarding the SWOHR classification project. The consensus of members, which had been stated by President Hamilton during his visit, was that the two-year timeframe to complete the classification process as described by Janet Jacobs in her presentation the previous day was too long. Members noted that some initial deadlines had already come and gone several times, especially with regards to the initial group of IT workers. One explanation of why the classification process is taking so long is that the first group of workers must necessarily take longer than subsequent groups/families, so the project may move faster with future groups. It was also noted that recent turnover in SWOHR has impacted the staffing of the classification project and that SWOHR apparently does not have enough staff positions to complete the project any sooner than the two-year timeframe.

July 1, 2002, was agreed upon as a reasonable goal for completion of the staff classification project. It was mentioned that completion before the advent of a new fiscal year could be advantageous. It was anticipated that completion of the project by then would allow better comparison and justification of staff salary and benefits to legislatures in the spring 2003 session.

MOTION: Moved by Mitchell, seconded by McCrea, passed without objection

“The Staff Alliance of the University of Alaska strongly recommends that the University of Alaska provide the resources and funding necessary for the Statewide Office of Human Resources to complete the staff classification project by July 1, 2002. This action is effective August 14, 2001.”

The transmittal memo to President Hamilton was sent on Monday, August 21, 2001:

http://gov.alaska.edu/Staff/correspondence/2001-08-15-hamilton-classification.pdf

More Information

Also see the retreat evaluation questionnaire and results and the web album of retreat photos.

RETREAT SUMMARY

Presentation by Janet Jacobs

Presentation by Joseph Beedle, Pat Pitney, and Dave Veazey