Draft Minutes

 

Tuesday, July 13, 2004

9:30am-11:30am via audioconference

 

1.          Call to order and roll call

 

                Present:

 

 

Mel Kalkowski, UAA APT Council *

Lisa Sporleder, Statewide Administration Assembly, Interim Chair

Robert Sewell, UAS Staff Council

Maya Salganek, UAF Staff Council

Rita Fuller,  UAS Staff Council

Kimberly Stanford, UAA Classified Council

Juli Gillispie , Statewide Administration Assembly

Josh Steadman, UAF Staff Council

               

                Guests:

 

                Wendy Redman, Vice President for University Relations

                Mike Humphrey, Director, Benefits

                Jeanine Senechal, Director, Compensation

 

                System Governance:

 

                Pat Ivey, Executive Officer

                Hans Gunderson, Administrative Coordinator

 

2.         Adopt Agenda

 

            MOTION:  Moved by Kalkowski, seconded by Salgonek, passed without objection.

 

“The Staff Alliance moves to adopt the agenda for the July 13, 2004 meeting.  This action is effective July 13, 2004.”

 

3.         Approve June 8, 2004 Minutes                                                       

 

            MOTION: Moved by Kalkowski, seconded by Fuller, passed without objection.

 

“ The Staff Alliance moves to approve the minutes of the June 8, 2004 meeting.  This action is effective July 13, 2004.”

 

4          Interim Chair’s report - Lisa Sporleder

 

Lisa Sporleder met with former Staff Alliance Chair Rory O’Neill regarding the last Board of Regents meeting that O’Neill attended.

 

As part of the Board of Regents Human Resources Committee proceedings and as arranged and encouraged by Vice President Johnson, O’Neill was asked to present the aggregate sentiments from staff regarding Board of Regents policy amendment, Promotional Probationary Period.  Regents picked up on many points and asked managements to perhaps differentiate between probationary treatment for new employees to the system from that for employees already serving the university.  It was concluded from the conversations that the promotional probationary period would apply to competitive promotions but would not apply to reclassifications where an employee is not actually assuming new responsibilities.

 

The regents were accepting of staff sentiments that checks and balances would come from university regulations for this new policy.  Vice President Johnson indicated that regents would have the benefit of seeing revised university regulations on this matter at their September 2004 meeting.

 

Regarding the elimination of the modem pool subsidies, on behalf of both the Faculty Alliance and Staff Alliance, O’Neill gave public testimony regarding the elimination of the modem pool contract with ACS at the end of calendar year 2004.  Again, sentiments and reactions collected from faculty and staff were conveyed to the regents.  Testimony was backed up by Chief Information Technology Officer Steve Smith regarding usage.

 

The main point made by O’Neill was to encourage management o favor students over faculty and staff regarding discount access to the Internet via commercial ISPs. 

 

Due to the timing of this action, the regents were alerted that returning students in the fall would be vocal upon learning of the retraction of this subsidy, compounded by the increased tuition and the two percent network access fee going into effect.

 

O’Neill made observed that the regents declared that the quality of the deliverables from the University of Alaska management is at an all-time high. President Hamilton cautioned that funding from Juneau next year cannot be assumed to follow that achieved this year.

 

The multi year reclassification project is slowly proceeding with 13 percent overall FLSA conversions to date. 

 

Regarding the university budget, the university always does better in an election year like this year, but in off-election years, the university seems to struggle for every dollar. 

 

Summer gives the Staff Alliance members a chance to identify priorities and identify what they want to do in the coming year.  One of those things wrapping up this summer is the UA Compensation Task Force.  The task force should have its final wrap up report at its August meeting.  Then it will be in the hands of the Board of Regents upon review by governance.  Governance regulations draft is out for review by local governance groups.

 

Also this summer, the wellness committee is going to get under way.  People have been nominated and we will find out the make up of that committee soon. 

 

As Sporleder was putting out messages to statewide staff last week requesting feedback on the staff compensation task force key issues and was rewarded with a very good response.  Sporleder said, “ Communication works.  When we do it, we get response.  When we don’t do it, we don’t and we don’t know what the constituents are thinking. Constituents don’t expect us to communicate with them and when we do, they are very appreciative.”

 

The vice chair’s responsibility is to do a monthly e-newsletter for Staff Alliance members to share with their local constituents but due to the vice chair’s back surgery and staff turnover in the system governance office, only one newsletter was produced.  Sporleder hoped that the Staff Alliance would try again and put this on at the top of the list of priorities for the coming year.

 

Next month, there will be Staff Alliance officer elections (chair and vice chair). Sporleder encouraged members to step up to the plate and volunteer to take on the positions.

  

5.         Public Comments

 

There were no public comments.

 

6.         Staff Governance Reports - SW, UAS, UAA, UAF

 

            UAS:

 

Rita Fuller reported that she posted the requests for candidates but elections have not yet taken place.  She expects that UAS Staff Council elections will be completed by the August Staff Alliance meeting.

 

UAA:

 

Mel Kalkowski and Kim Stanford reported that the UAA APT Council and the UAA Classified Council do not meet in the summer.  The UAA provost is leaving.  With those changes and absent the advent of the new chancellor, staff are wondering how the new UAA administration will shape up.  The interim provost seems to be working out well.  The stoppage of the pay stub has confused some staff.  

 

Wendy Redman commented that both new chancellors are concentrating on learning about the external and external elements and concerns of the university.

 

UAF:

 

Maya Salganek reported that the UAF Staff Council officers have been charged with continuing the work of the UAF Staff Council over the summer. The group has met with the new chancellor who expressed great interest in attending Council meetings and even wishes to attend Council committee meetings.  This is viewed at the Council level as a very positive thing.

 

SW:

 

The Statewide Administration Assembly is meeting July 14th. The SAA president has been charged with the communication on the compensation task force. Sporleder was pleased with the response of the constituency of the group.

 

Action Items

 

7.         Approve Revised FY2005 calendar                                    

            http://gov.alaska.edu/staff/calendar/

 

            MOTION:  passed without objection

 

“The Staff Alliance moves to change the September 14 meeting of the Staff Alliance to September 7 to accommodate the Board of Regents meeting September 14-16, 2004.  This action is effective July 13, 2004.”

 

8.         Other Action Items

 

            There were no other action items.

 

Information/Discussion Items

 

9.         Preparation for the August 3-4 President’s Retreat in Fairbanks

 

The Staff Alliance retreat will be held in Room 501 of the International Arctic Research Center on the Fairbanks campus on August 3 and 4, 2004, concluding with a regular business meeting of the Staff Alliance.  Members were encouraged to submit items for discussion during the retreat and items for the Staff Alliance meeting agenda to Pat Ivey as soon as possible.  Suggested topics for discussion at the retreat included the role of governance, advocacy for the university, MyUA, the University budget, presentation on the university’s pension plans, a benefits overview and outlook presentation and a report on the UA Wellness project.

 

10.        Report on the Compensation Task Force Activities

http://www.alaska.edu/hr/classification/Compensation.xml

 

Sporleder reported that at the last compensation task force meeting, the group looked at all the key issues that had been presented and discussed changes that needed to be made before those could be presented to a wider audience.  The result was a streamlined list of four categories, including grid structure, benefits scheduling and overall compensation.  That list was put out on the web, along with the list of task force members and the remaining part of the timeline.  Sporleder sent a message to all statewide staff requesting comments and asking them to prioritize the issues.  She received a 20 percent response. 

 

Statewide employees thought that their number one issue was providing for cost of living adjustments to the salary grid.  Statewide employees’ number two issue is establishing a new pension plan in addition to the existing plan.  Filling out the top five issues were: making all steps in the salary grid equal in percentage of pay increase, limiting the increase in employee deductions for healthcare, eliminating red-lining, and allowing flexible work schedules.  Many respondents were adamantly opposed to combining annual and sick leave.  Five of the 44 respondents listed it as a top priority.  Fourteen said don’t do this.  Sporleder received many paragraphs and pages about why the university should not combine sick and annual leave.

 

Robert Sewell suggested that combining sick and annual leave be made an employee choice that could be chosen during annual enrollment.

 

Jeannine Senechal responded that she would suggest it to the rest of the team. She is having information compiled to get it out to the task force for its meeting a week from Friday and being to incorporate the results into a final report and recommendations.

 

The recommendations will go out to governance for input and are scheduled to go to the regents in time to be incorporated in the FY2006 budget.

 

10.        UA Choice Wrap-Up

 

            Kalkowski reported that the state just announced that if employees are covered under additional insurance such as that of a non state-employed spouse, that the state will pay 20 percent and the other employer will pay the 80 percent.  If we assume that many university employees have spouses who are state employed, what is the impact of that shift?

 

            Mike Humphrey said the state estimates this would shift over $1 million in costs from the state employees plan to other employers.

 

Employee eligibility under the new UA Choice plan has finally gone into the Blue Cross computer database.  We won’t know what the claims costs will be for a couple of months after the plan goes into effect in July. 

 

One problem has arisen with VSP (vision) benefits.  The VSP system apparently only identifies employees by their new employee number and not by their social security number.  This means that employees have to give their vision care providers their new employee number or the VSP will reject the claim.  UA Choice provides $100 for vision coverage, regardless of provider.  The difference between choosing a preferred versus a non-preferred provider is that the preferred provider may send in the claim for processing and gives reduced rates.  The non-preferred provider cannot send in the claim.  The employee has to do that.  In addition, the employee will not receive the same price breaks they would get from a preferred provider.

 

Employees must report problems to their human resource officers as soon as possible. If they wait several months, there’s not much that can be done.

 

Sporleder said her vision care providers are frustrated with all the VSP restrictions placed on becoming preferred providers.  For instance, the optometrist cannot be a preferred provider because she has a basement office, which is not handicapped accessible.  The place where Sporleder gets her glasses couldn’t get on the plan because they aren’t owned by a doctor.  Humphrey will look into that.

 

Blue Cross sent out a summary of the UA Choice program on their own.

 

Enrollment on the UA Choice plan was close to projections. Ninety-three people opted out, or 3 percent.  The university estimated 5 percent.  Three hundred fifteen took the economy plan, or 11 percent.  The university estimated 10 percent.  The standard plan netted 2,137 or 76 percent.  The university estimated 75 percent.  On the deluxe plan 264 took part, or 9 percent.  The university estimated ten percent.

 

In the second year, when the program is well established, the pattern may begin to change.  It takes about four years before we will be fully comfortable moving between options.

 

Costs between programs will be closely monitored.  It will be three to six months before there is any claims information available, or around January-February, 2005.

Employee contribution costs have been blended over a two-year period, directly resulting in reduced costs in the first year.

 

All the campus benefits webs will be taken down and a link inserted to the system benefits web page. (http://www.alaska.edu/hr/benefits/index.xml).  Gunderson suggested developing a “dummies” guide for new employees.  He said the current web site is fine for knowledgeable employees but not for new employees.

 

As to Blue Cross and their push for for-profit status, the insurance director for the State of Washington will announce his decision soon.  His staff are pushing for a negative decision.  Alaska will likely recommend whatever the State of Washington recommends.

 

11.        Wellness Task Force Status

            http://www.summex.com/smx2/index.asp

 

Mike Humphrey reported that he would be having a conversation with Summex this week about how to begin to develop and implement a risk awareness program.  He invited participation from the Staff Alliance on the task force, along with human resource officials and labor-management officials.                  


12.        Other Items of Interest

 

            12.1      Probation Regulation Amendments - Draft

                        http://www.summex.com/smx2/index.asp

 

Senechal reported that the policy amendment was approved by the Board of Regents in June. The objections regarding the length of the promotional probationary period were many and varied.  On one end, some thought six months was too long and on the other end thought three months was too short.  For consistency, both new hire and promotional probationary periods will be six months.

 

The Board Human Resources Committee discussed the regulations in general.  Jim Johnsen said there would be some changes to the regulations.  The regulations attempt to address several concerns.  The regulation now includes four weeks notice prior to termination for promotional probationary employees.  Language was also added so that termination for promotional probationary employees requires approval by the human resource officer at the campus prior to the supervisor notifying the employee.  This will assure some oversight in the process.  Regulations also specify that the promotional probationary period does not apply to someone who is reclassified in the reclassification process.  Human resource approval is required prior to sending out the four-week termination notice.

 

Guidelines will be provided for supervisors and incorporated into supervisory training. 

 

Questions:  If a supervisor adds duties to my job description and it is reclassified into a higher position, will that mean I am in promotional probationary status?

 

Answer:  No.  That is reclassification and the employee is not subject to the promotional probationary provisions.  Promotional probationary provisions only apply to competitive promotions, where a current employee successfully competes for a job more advanced than the one the employee has now.

 

Question:  What if my job is eliminated and a new position is created in its place?

 

Answer:  Regardless of whether your current position is eliminated, if a new position is created and is required to be filled by competition, then that would be a promotion.

 

                        Question: What about direct hires?

 

Answer: A direct hire is not a reclassification so it would be subject to a probationary period.  A direct hire is an exception to the competitive process.

 

Question:  Will there be an appeal process for termination during the promotional probationary period?

 

Answer:  No appeal process was anticipated but Senechal will follow up on this.

 

Question:  How do career development plans fit with the promotional probationary provisions?

 

Answer:  Career development plans that mention adding increased responsibility leading to advancement after the employee has taken the necessary steps (training, practice, etc.,) constitutes job reclassification and is not classified promotional for the purpose of promotional probation.

 

Question:  Is there any recourse for misuse and abuse of the promotional probationary provisions by supervisors?

 

Answer:  None at the present time but Senechal will follow up on this.

 

            12.2      Reclassification

                        http://www.alaska.edu/hr/classification/

 

Senechal reported that the administrative job family team met last week, looked at the administrative job family drafts.  The drafts are going up on the web and out for public comment.  The team recommended that the two job families be called administrative generalist and administrative specialist.  As soon as the drafts are up on the web, they will go out for comment.  The timeline for implementation is the first payroll in October.

 

13.        Agenda items for the Next Regular Staff Alliance Meeting – August 4, 2004

 

Agenda items are due in the system governance office ten days in advance of the meeting.  Agenda items should be submitted to Pat Ivey.  Items may include but may not be limited to: elections, probationary guidelines, presentation on pension plans, Staff Alliance goals and objectives, the role of governance, the governance regulation and training on governance.  The issue items may be discussed during the retreat with the president and executives.

 

14.        Comments

 

            There were no other comments

                                                                                               

15.        Adjourn

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:16am.