Draft Minutes

Tuesday, May 11, 2004

9:30am-11:30am via audioconference

1. Call to order and roll call

Rory O’Neill, UAF Staff Council, Chair	Mel Kalkowski, UAA APT Council *
Lisa Sporleder, Statewide Administration Assembly, Vice Chair	Kimberly Stanford, UAA Classified Council
Juli Gillispie for Tammi Ganguli, SAA	Josh Steadman, UAF Staff Council

Absent a quorum because neither of the UAS members were present at the time of roll call, the meeting was turned into a workshop. Rita Fuller and Robert Sewell from the UAS Staff Council joined the meeting later so quorum was achieved and action items were taken up.

Others present:

Jim Johnsen, Vice President for Faculty and Staff Relations

Jeannine Senechal, Director, Compensation and Classification

Pat Ivey, Executive Officer, System Governance

Hans Gunderson, Admin. Coordinator, System Governance Office

2. Adopt agenda

The agenda was not adopted because quorum had not been reached at the beginning of the meeting.

3. Approve April 6-7, 2004 minutes

http://gov.alaska.edu/staff/minutes/2004/2004-04-06.html

http://gov.alaska.edu/staff/minutes/2004/2004-04-06.pdf

MOTION: passed

“The Staff Alliance moves to approve the minutes of the April 6-7, 2004 Staff Alliance meeting as amended to rectify minor clerical errors. This action is effective May 11, 2004.”

4 Chair’s report

Rory O’Neill and Lisa Sporleder participated in the last Board of Regents meeting by audioconference. O’Neill was engaged in dialogue with the Board of Regents Human Resources Committee. All the motions regarding the proposed changes to regents’ policies that came before the Human Resources Committee were deferred. The item regarding governance spokespersons being able to address the regents will be retained. O’Neill had not been keeping close tabs on the Compensation Task Force and trusts that everything is going well.

The fourth and final candidate for UAF chancellor is currently on campus. The committee will meet on May 14 and May 18 in wrap up sessions to generate the recommendation letter to President Hamilton.

5. Public comments

There were no public comments.

6. Staff governance reports - SW, UAS, UAA, UAF

Statewide Administration Assembly

Lisa Sporleder reported that at the last SAA meeting, Jeannie Phillips discussed the last regents meeting. SAA had no objections to most of the proposed deletions to Regents Policy with the exception of the governance policy deletion. The one problem SAA did have was with adding a probationary period for promotions. Jeannine Senechal gave a reclassification project update as well as a Compensation Task Force Update. Juli Gillispie talked about the second ACAS meeting. There was some discussion of benefits open enrollment. SAA is also discussing awards criteria for outstanding statewide employee awards that are given every year. The outstanding employee awards are based on nominations from statewide staff and funded through the president’s office. The awards are taken care of through the Human Resources office but the determination of who gets them is handled by SAA. These awards are presented in late March or early April at a luncheon for all statewide staff.

UAS

There was no report from UAS Staff Council.

UAA

Kim Stanford reported that the UAA Classified Council met last Thursday in a windup session with lots of information items, updates, and a brief discussion of the Board of Regents consent agenda items and what had happened with that. Officers were elected. Kim Stanford was elected to her second term as president of the UAA Classified Council. The UAA Staff Development Day is tomorrow and should be a good day. See http://curric.uaa.alaska.edu/sdd/. UAA longevity awards were held April 16. The UAA Assembly meets this Thursday.

Mel Kalkowski reported that there was not a huge rush of people running for UAA APT Council. Mel Kalkowski agreed to be president again only if the UAA APT Council elected a vice president who would be willing to step in as president next year. The biggest issue is the erosion of the numbers of APT at UAA because of FLSA. Ten to 12 percent of the APT were reclassified which impacts operations in general and employees specifically. There is some question as to whether the UAA APT Council was a viable group any longer and if not what we will do to change it. Kalkowski noted that UAS and UAF have combined Classified and APT serving on the respective staff councils and wondered what the percentage of classified and APT in the group. O’Neill reported that there was no mandatory percentage at UAF. The same is true of Statewide Administration Assembly.

UAF

This year, the employee longevity awards were split off from recognition. This Friday is the inaugural ice cream social for staff. UAF Staff Council always has some staff appreciation event and this year it was the ice cream social. During that two-hour event, the chancellor will be presenting the Chancellor’s Recognition Award. There are two nominees forwarded by a committee that looked at all the nominees that came in. There will also be a couple of governance contributor recognition awards at that ceremony. The evening prior will be the annual UAF Staff Council planning retreat or workshop from 4-7pm.

The UAF Council has been gathering a lot of input regarding the amendments to the probationary status policy. Responses range from very positive to very negative.

There is still an interest in electronic voting and electronic polling. Saichi Oba suggested that perhaps it should be re-proposed. The UAF Staff Council will work on that this fall.

The UAF Staff Council subcommittee on performance based budgeting has been interacting directly with Pat Pitney’s office and working shoulder to shoulder with Russ O’Hare. I promised to bring these items to the Staff Alliance for information and will email that information to that group.

Action Items

7. Amendments to Probationary Status Policy

http://www.alaska.edu/bor/agendas/2004/040414hr.doc

This was not acted upon due to lack of a quorum. Jim Johnsen reported that there was no intention of having the Board of Regents approve the proposed policy change at the April meeting. The idea was to generate discussion about it. The purpose is to meet the interests of employee and the employer. Some employees have expressed a concern that promotional opportunities tend to favor outside hires as opposed to internal promotions because there is only one probationary period and that is for new hires and a supervisor has greater flexibility to hire from outside. On the other hand employees might wonder if they will be promoted in order to be rejected during a probationary period. Having worked at the State of Alaska for about five years where every promotion was probationary, Johnsen didn’t see that kind of abuse. From an employer perspective, the university would like to have an opportunity to address performance issues with a probationary period after promotion. This language has been crafted substantially from a State of Alaska labor agreement. We are going to need some regulations to answer a number of questions from management and from staff on this policy. Johnsen hopes he can relatively soon begin working on the draft regulations and hopes to be fully informed by the Staff Alliance in writing about elements that need to be included in a regulation. In an ideal world, it would be nice to have something to show the Board of Regents as information in June.

Probationary employees are at will employees, meaning they can be terminated with no reason or notice given, where procedures relating to just cause for termination do not apply. There are, however, types of termination that are non-culpable where the person was just not working out but were excellent at their previous position but just couldn’t do the work of the new position. In this case, there is no culpability and should not go through a just cause for termination process. At the University of Washington, employers were unwilling to take on even lateral transfers because there was to non-disciplinary procedure. The University of Washington implemented a “no harm-no foul” policy that took care of it.

O’Neill asked Alliance members to send him all the feedback they had received about the proposed policy change. Johnsen will accept one or two nominations from the Alliance to serve on a small committee to develop proposed regulations. The Alliance will take volunteers at the next meeting. Johnsen asked that the Alliance have a spokesperson to speak to the proposed policy at the next Board of Regents meeting. Johnsen wants all the input as soon as possible on the policy and someone to serve on the committee to draft the regulation. O’Neill asked that all the input be sent to him by this Friday.

O’Neill asked that communications come from governance about employees being eligible for retroactive overtime pay if they are reclassified from APT to Classified because of FSLA. Senechal said HR is working on a Q&A section of their web page on this topic and other compensation questions. She asked that questions be sent to her for inclusion on the web site. She preferred having one place where everyone can get the same information.

8. Other action items

There were no other action items.

Information/Discussion Items

9. Future HR Initiatives - Jim Johnsen, Vice President for Human Resources

Johnsen appreciated the opportunity to give the Staff Alliance a heads up on things that are coming down the pike over the next year or two.

In the health arena we will be expanding choice in the UA Choice plan. The next move probably is to add a wellness program to it. HR has contracted with a firm called Summex Corporation (see http://www.summex.com), a nationally recognized wellness program developer. Premera Blue Cross brought them to the attention of the university. Through that relationship with Premera Blue Cross, the university is working with Summex to develop a wellness program here. Wellness programs vary in terms of comprehensiveness, intrusiveness, savings, etc. Usually the more intrusive, the more comprehensive, the more money can be saved. We have to tailor it for the university, probably not mandate participation but will probably include incentives for employees to participate. Wellness programs have an effect. If wellness programs don’t actually save money, they certainly moderate the rate of increase in health costs. There is some discussion of recalling the healthcare review committee or some sort of leadership group that will develop the actual wellness program.

The university will be auditing Premera Blue Cross’s administration of the university’s health plan and has had some preliminary discussions with them. We have a meeting with the university’s internal auditor at 11am today to work on the scope of that audit. The university doesn’t anticipate any problems but believes it is prudent and responsible to conduct an audit, especially now that the university is moving into the UA Choice plan. UA Choice itself will not be within the scope of the audit because we are not going to have any data or experience to audit. The university will certainly look at compliance, claims processing and the pharmacy management program. These are typical components of a health plan audit. It is not yet know exactly who will be conducting the audit. HR has a list of firms with specialized expertise in this area. HR has asked Mercer for suggestions but will not use Mercer to conduct the audit. It may be that more than one firm will be used. For example, there are firms who specialize in pharmacy management programs.

Around the third week in July, HR is planning a health summit and will bring in national experts on health benefits costs and economics to Anchorage for a day or day and a half. Public sector people from around the state will be invited and will certainly invite those on the Staff Alliance who are interested in this to participate, if only electronically, but hopefully physically. The issue of health costs is not being addressed in Alaska to the extent that it ought to be. We think the university is the right place in which to have that conversation.

Coming down the road next year, the university hopes to do open enrollment on line. This is one of the many ideas that have come up through the human resources community of the university to the ACAS.

In the retirement area, the university may look at the pension plan. While it is a retirement issue per se, it certainly has been addressed in the compensation task force. There are a number of things coming out of the task force that may have an effect on healthcare, retirement, leave and other kinds of benefits. O’Neill asked that any changes coming out of the compensation committee be brought to governance for input prior to implementation.

The first goal of the compensation task force is to produce a body of informed employees who know enough about compensation to give informed input. The task force would then recommend that we look at personal leave, look at other areas. The group is not a decision making body. This group will serve us well over the next couple of years in the study of the broad scope of compensation. O’Neill wanted to make sure that the task force did not undermine the scope of staff governance. Johnsen envisioned that once the task force work was completed this summer, that the Staff Alliance would take the work and weigh in and use the current governance structure of communication and advocacy to bring governance suggestions forward.

In the area of automation, HR is looking at on-line position descriptions and a long list of other automation ideas provided in the ACAS documentation. Pay stubs go away the second week in July. HR wants to make sure that pay changes are implemented before the pay stubs go away so errors can be corrected first. HR is also looking at putting together a better printable form on line. Senechal said that the on-line printable form will be on line a couple of pay periods before the pay stub goes away so people have a chance to look at it and get used to it beforehand.

With respect to the classification study, the question is when are we going to do a market study? Since we don’t have classifications for most of our jobs, we don’t have any thing that allows us to compare ourselves with other organizations. The university will be participating in a survey this year to the extent we have classifications that are matches in the survey with a company that does a lot of surveying in Alaska. The State of Alaska also participates in that survey. As the university develops more classifications, the university will increase its degree of participation in the survey.

On the systems and automation front, there are two main categories that came out of ACAS, one big one is automation of transactional processes and the other is assessment, training and professional development. The HR Council is meeting on May 17 to consider the Business Council and vice chancellors’ feedback on the HR Council’s work and also work that Vicky Gilligan has done in taking the automation ideas down a level or two of specificity in terms of what is involved with automating certain aspects, how that relates to other processes, is it something that should be outsourced, how long will it take and how much it will cost. We will be focusing our effort on the 17th so we can be ready when decisions are made later in May and in June regarding the distribution of the FY05 budget.

Assessment and training will be a bigger challenge. There will be training needs as we automate across the system. Processes will change and employees will need to know how to employ the new processes. Hopefully there will also be some time freed up as a result of automation, some savings in employee time. There will not, in most cases be enough time saved to eliminate a full time employee. Most of the savings will be in employee time that can be redeployed to other duties within their respective departments. This, too, may require additional training.

We are thinking of engaging Sue Herman, a business professor whose expertise is organizational development and behavior, to help HR conduct this kind of assessment and which then could be used to develop training programs.

The FLSA review of jobs was completed in March and those employees whose jobs changed from APT to Classified or vice versa were notified. There is no appeal process per se but if a department believes the decision was made in error or there is new information that needs to be reviewed, Senechal has asked the reviewer to look at it again. The outcome of that review is the final decision. Different campuses have communicated with departments and affected employees in different ways. UAF sent out a memo to everyone in January or February notifying that this was going on and inviting them to talk with HR if they had any concerns. UAA talked with most of their departments about this. The changes will be implemented later this month with the payroll cycle. Letters will go out to the affected employee notifying them of the change. Any additional costs associated with the changes will come out of the departmental budgets. Overtime claims have to be reviewed by the department, and by HR and payroll on a pay period by pay period basis.

Sporleder asked if the half percent, or any portion thereof, saved from the reduction in the increase to the salary grid that was to be used for compensation would be used to offset overtime claims. Johnsen responded that was not the intent because that is retrospective money and the half percent is prospective money to be spent in fy05 that would address the cost of moving employees from current grades to new grades.

Changes in proposed federal regulations governing FLSA overtime may or may not impact the university. Nothing is final yet. Also the outcome of recent court cases have shown that one cannot sue a state for alleged violations of federal regulation. Regardless of outcome, no changes can be implemented until August.

Regarding Premera Blue Cross quest to move from non-profit to for-profit, if this occurs, it would mean at the most, a five percent increase in the administrative costs of processing claims. If Premera Blue Cross is successful, it would have to divest its assets and place them in a foundation. The university wants a seat on that foundation board so that money can be used for training and research on health related issues.

10. Overview of Committee on Accountability and Sustainability

http://www.alaska.edu/acas/history/docs/details.xml

http://www.alaska.edu/acas/history/index.xml

A memo was sent from Joe Beedle explaining the process and mechanics of what is going to happen between now and the end of May. The balls are now in the hands of the executives who are responsible for the particular areas. For example, human resources issues are now back in Jim Johnsen’s office who will coordinate with other entities, bring priorities to the Business Council on May 19, then on to the Chancellors on May 26 and then prepare for the Board of Regents in June. Administration is looking for basic support from the regent for the direction administration is taking. The regents approve and distribute the budget and some of the ACAS recommendations take lots of money.

There may be a need to track the ACAS recommendations and may be a need for

some position or positions to do this and/or implement some of the recommendations.

11. Outcomes from the Board of Regents April Meeting

See item 4 for discussion.

12. Preparation for the June 9-10, 2004 Meeting in Anchorage

Kim Stanford may be gone during that week as will Mel Kalkowski. Sporleder will be available as will O’Neill.

13. Report on the Compensation Task Force

See discussions under other items. The task force spent a fair amount of time looking at the university’s strategic plan, goals and values and ways that the topic of compensation aligns with those and where the common interests are.

14. UA Choice Update

http://www.alaska.edu/hr/benefits/open_enroll_042004/index_open2004.xml

http://www.alaska.edu/hr/benefits/index.xml

Open enrollment closes Friday and things seem to have settled down. The input from staff that emphasized clear communications really helped, resulting in surface mail, email, websites and meetings around the state to get the word out, and this had a very positive effect.

15. Other items of interest

15.1 Governance Regulation

http://gov.alaska.edu/staff/2004-04-27.governanceregJJ.pdf

Kim Stanford reported that the ad hoc committee met yesterday. The committee will go over the changes they made to make sure they have what was agreed upon. The next step is to send it out to the governance groups for input. Any changes that are not cosmetic will be held until the end of the next comment period. That comment period will go through the end of October. Input can then be considered and implemented and placed before the System Governance Council in November for final approval.

15.2 Discontinuation of Dialups

http://gov.alaska.edu/staff/2004-05-10.disofdialups.pdf

Dialups are used by faculty, staff and students. The university is a subsidized service provider. Some see it as a requirement of the job when they are on call, or working off site. Fuller said modem discontinuance would affect the Sitka campus.

Steve Smith will be at the next Alliance meeting to discuss this further.

15.3 Date for President’s Retreat

Alliance members preferred the second week in August but staff had some conflicts so Pat Ivey was directed to see if the President’s schedule would work for the first week in August.

16. Agenda items for the next meeting – Tuesday, June 8, 2003

Agenda items for next meeting will include, but may not be limited to:

* Discontinuation of dialups

* Finalize retreat date

* Draft FY2005 calendar

* Summer operations

17. Comments

O’Neill needs by Friday:

* One volunteer to serve on probationary status regulation

development committee with Jim Johnsen

* One or more volunteers to serve on the wellness program executive committee

with Jim Johnsen. Kim Stanford is interested in serving.

* Input on the probationary status amendment so O’Neill can get it to Johnsen

next week.

18. Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 11:45pm.