Members Present:
 Kate Wattum, President           Jim Chapman
 Michele Trickey                  Pam Bradley
 Beverly Jackson                  Marcy Sutton
 Pat Bishop                       Joanna Harris
 Jerry Fica                       Lisa Sporleder

Members Absent:
 Betty Dupee

Others Present:
Wendy Redman                      Jeannine Burnett

"The September 14, 1994 agenda was approved as part of the consent agenda. This action is effective September 14, 1994."

3. Approve minutes of August 10, 1994

"The August 10, 1994 minutes were approved, as amended, as part of the consent agenda.

Amendments:

1. Delete paragraph 8, "Pam Bradley brought up that..." from Item No. 5.
2. ADD, page 5, paragraph 8. "Since the implementation of Aetna's pharmacy management program, INSULIN has proven..."
3. CHANGE WORD, page 5, paragraph 1. "Humphrey wants SAA to think about EXPLORING explore the feelings of..."

This action is effective September 14, 1994."

4. Constitution & Bylaws amendments, first reading

a. Constitution [amended copy attached]

MOTION: (Moved by Fica, seconded by Sporleder, passed unanimously)

"The Statewide Administration Assembly members approve Articles I, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the Constitution. This action is effective September 14, 1994."

MOTION: (Moved by Sporleder, seconded by Fica, passed unanimously)

"The Statewide Administration Assembly members approve Articles II, III, IX and X of the Constitution, as amended. This action is effective September 14, 1994."

b. Bylaws

The first reading of the Bylaws was deferred to the October 12, 1994 meeting so that members may have more time to review them.

5. Program Assessment Update

Wattum stated that she had included two memo's from John Lehman with the agenda about how he sees UACN's role in program assessment. She stated that most of Statewide has been put into Category "C", or will eventually be put there, including UACN. Lehman would prefer that UACN did not undergo the same kinds of scrutiny, and have their own "tailor-made" program assessment. Chapman stated that he felt Lehman doesn't want to not undergo program assessment, but would prefer to have an external review of information technology.

Jerry Fica stated that initially in program assessment, UACN could see some potential serious political impacts, based upon the members of the evaluation teams. Therefore, it was their desire to not be exempt from program assessment, but to have it done by an independent force.

Wendy Redman stated that a packet of information would be out by September 15, which would include the latest, most up to date, information. The campuses were given until September 15, to get in their initial categorization of programs into the A, B, and C lists. This deadline was extended from September 1, primarily because UAA just hired a new chancellor and he needed some time to get up to speed.

With the systemwide administration, there is an externally staffed review committee (Team). This recommendation came from the system governance groups, and that there be nominations from the governance groups themselves to handle the evaluation of the statewide programs. This group is referred to as the PAC, and is an 11-person committee made up of 10 representatives from the campuses, Redman to represent the Statewide Administration, and is chaired by Paul Reickart from UAF. This group has made their initial recommendations to the president, which put almost all of the programs on the "C" list. There was also an internal working team, appointed by the president, to work with the PAC and provide them information. This group only had a few differences with PAC's final recommendations. They recommended that the System Governance Office be in Category B. The full committee has a lot of questions about governance, and are mostly concerned about the cost of governance at the campus level, but also wants to look at what the totals costs are that go into governance within the UA system.

This group had also recommended that Investment Land Management be in the "B" category, as it is a totally non-general funded program and they felt that they have been doing a very good job and didn't need any assessment at this point. PAC's main reason for putting this in Category C is every penny which goes into hiring staff for Investment Land Management is a penny that is not going to support programs.

The other change PAC made was to move Development to Category B. Team felt this should be in Category C, as they thought it should be reviewed. PAC also moved Advanced College Tuition to the B list since one position has already been eliminated. The final difference was, Team had the President's Office in Category B because there is only the president and his secretary in that office and it is very unlikely that the president's position would be eliminated in the process but, PAC decided they wanted it reviewed and moved it to C.

The process that PAC is using is they have divided themselves into four working groups to proceed with the full assessment, which will begin on October 1 and continue until October 31. These four committees are as follows: 1) UACN, which consists of over 50% of the total statewide budget; 2) Human Resource Development and Affirmative Action; 3) Academic Affairs general operations, Public Affairs and Governance; and 4) Finance, which will be divided into two working groups, one dealing with the accounting functions (finance policy, investment management, financial accounting, financial systems and budget) and the second group will be dealing with everything else in the finance area.

PAC seems to be most concerned with departments that appear to overlap with departments at the campus level, such as Human Resources and Public Affairs, and are reviewing them to see if there is any duplication of duties.

The working groups will want to meet with the staff who are involved in each program and the supervisors and directors of these offices have completed some very informative questionnaires regarding their departments and their budget. Both the Public Affairs Office and the System Governance Office each have a complete set of these questionnaires.

Redman stated that this is also an opportunity for employees to submit suggestions and ideas. She stated that they are really intent on trying to get a handle on the situation.

UAF is looking at about a $12 million deficit over the next three years, UAA is about $6 million, UAS approximately $1 million and Statewide is about $2.5 million. The campuses have the ability to offset their deficit with additional enrollment, tuition, as well as any new federal money and overhead they may get. At the system office there is no offset. The target numbers were established based on their best guess as to what the inflation factors will be over the next three years, what is anticipated in salary increases and what is to be expected in state general fund increases.

Redman is hopeful that out of this process, for the system level in particular, those on the committee will come out of it educated on who does what, and just how much is accomplished by these departments.

Redman stated that she feels there are going to be some very significant changes in the system and in the statewide administration, as there has to be to accommodate the dilemma that the university is in. In terms of how it will impact employees, she isn't quite sure, but she does know that this process was established so that statewide would not be in a situation where we had to abrogate normal processes for termination's, layoffs, transfers, retraining opportunities, etc., so that whatever personnel decisions have to be made, that they give the first priority to trying to handle, through attrition, the elimination of positions and to be able to move people around to new vacancies as they exist. One possibility could be an early retirement incentive program, although from the legislature's standpoint, it would be a very tough sell for the university, since this would be very costly.

Chapman asked what she felt UACN's position was. Redman responded that they have sent out a lot of confusing messages on the issue. They had intended to proceed, prior to the program assessment process, with their own review using external reviewers, this came out the suggestion included in the Miller Report. Then, subsequent to that, the provosts came out with a proposal, wanting to do an intercampus review of all telecommunication areas, and they've divided up into about five different functional categories that touch all campuses, including UACN. Then the program assessment committee came in and said that UACN needed to be reviewed along with the other programs, no matter if they going forward with their external review.

Marcy Sutton asked what kind of time frame was being established. Redman stated that the process would start moving as of September 19. Recommendations will be due in from the campuses to the president on October 31. The president will then make all of those recommendations, along with his comments, public on November 6. There will then be a 10- day period for public response to those recommendations. At that point the chancellors and the president will make a final list of recommendations, which will go to the Board of Regents on November 26. The Board will take action to lay out a plan for the implementation of these recommendations at their December 2 meeting.

Chapman asked if there had been any serious consideration for unification of the three academic MAU's. Redman stated realistically, no. However, she stated that if you took a vote of the Regents' right now, they would probably vote almost unanimously that there will be a single university. That is the movement that they want, but there has been a lot of frustration because they keep hearing that it is politically impossible. Redman stated that there are other things that can be done though, which will make the university look like a single unit. If the university could move to greater coordination and collaboration between campuses, i.e., if there are three education departments, create a single education department for the system with one dean. The Board likes this idea and are pushing to get these areas of unity achieved, but the chancellors are resisting this idea.

Chapman asked if a hiring freeze had been established. Redman stated that there hadn't, but it had been discussed a lot. She recommends that if not a "hard freeze", then at least a major slow down, so that a pool of vacancies could be created. She feels that the governance groups could help to get this freeze implemented.

The SAA members created the following motion, to be sent to Wendy Redman, SW University Relations.

MOTION: (Passed unanimously)

"The Statewide Administration Assembly requests that a hiring slow-down be enacted systemwide at the University of Alaska. Rationale for this slow-down includes the formation of vacancy pools. If and when layoffs occur as a result of Program Assessment, there can exist some vacant positions for these people to move into. Such a slow-down would show concern on the part of the university for its current employees; and costs such as new employee orientation, external personnel searches, and new hire administration can be minimized. This action is effective September 14, 1994."

Redman stated that two information items will be sent out. One, a letter to statewide employees from her, outlining the whole program assessment process and two, the president will be sending out a larger newsletter which will go out to the entire university community. They will try to communicate every two to three weeks with employees to let them be aware of what is happening and where they can interact if they desire. She also noted that all meetings are open meetings.

6. Report of Leave Share Group

Lisa Sporleder reported that she, Marcy Sutton and JoAnna Harris had met together to discuss the leave share program, mainly to look into its appeal process to determine whether the university needs to make some changes, and whether those changes would ensure more equitable use of the program systemwide.

After reviewing the current regulations, particularly the changes that went into effect in June, they decided there wasn't a problem with leave shares application, most of the abuse of the program appears to have been with the new regulations, and if there was an equitable application of leave share, they felt that employees would probably be appealing the original decisions, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

The lack of appeals indicated to them, that employees were applying for leave share only in cases of true catastrophic illness, and that leave share was being granted when it was warranted.

The only figures they had to go by were those that were prior to the new regulations. The amount of usage doubled from 1992 to 1993, but this could possibly be because in 1992 the program was brand new and many employees were not aware of its existence. Sporleder stated that it is their recommendation that the program continue in its present form, and that they once again review the program in one year to ensure the program is still running properly.

The changes which were made in June to the program were, an employee must take 80 hours of leave without pay before the leave share program would come into effect, at which time 50 of those hours would become retroactive. Harris stated that according to the figures they received, the majority of the employees used in excess of 80 hours, and the new regulations would have only affected a very small percentage of employees. Therefore, the changing the plan doesn't appear to be saving the university a great deal of money.

Wattum stated that she would be interested to find out how the new rules will effect future usage. Sporleder has suggested that SAA look into this program again in one year to see how the numbers have changed.

7. Benefits

a. Vision Plan - Discuss responses

Jeannine Burnett sent a Quick Mail message out to statewide employees asking for their feelings on implementing a new vision plan, which would give better coverage, but there would be a monthly dependent coverage charge.

Wattum asked JoAnna Harris if there has been updates on the vision plan. Harris responded that at this time they are going through the proposals and there will be no updates until this process is completed. First of all, they have to find a vision carrier that would be able to work with the dollars that have been used in the past, but so far they don't feel as if they've gotten any real good responses.

Chapman stated that he would like to see actual figures and possible scenarios that could be presented to employees.

8. Forced Leave Without Pay - Administratively Ordered

Wattum stated that it had been her intention to look deeper into this situation, but because of absences, she had not been able to. The Staff Alliance would like SAA to look into this further. Wattum asked if any of the members would like to meet and discuss the issue.

ACTION: Wattum, Sporleder and Sutton will meet to discuss administratively ordered forced leave without pay.

9. Discussion of Temporary Disability Leave

a. Taking Sick Leave while on Annual Leave

Jim Chapman reported that he had received a memo proposing a change to the University of Alaska Regulation 04.07.03.7b (changed from 6b) concerning temporary disability leave from Marcia Boyette.

He stated that specifically, one of the things that employees do is, when they take vacation, they will schedule medical treatment outside because it is much less expensive. Her intent in writing the memo, is to ensure that employees can use sick leave for scheduled medical leave.

Fica stated that in one particular case, an employee was on vacation, ended up sick, and charged it as sick leave. The sick leave charges were denied because of this regulation.

Sutton asked if, as the regulation reads now, this means that you are absolutely forbidden to use sick leave if you are currently on annual leave. It was stated that the answer is yes, unless it is more than three days.

Chapman stated that if they put in the regulation that there must be proof of illness, this could possibly prevent any abuse of the program.

It was decided that this item would be put on the October agenda.

b. Funeral Leave

Boyette also was concerned about the ability to take disability leave for funerals. She points out that there are some inconsistencies in the way this is being handled and would like to see it more uniform.

University Regulation 04.07.03.8c states the following:

"Up to one (1) work day of temporary disability leave may be taken to attend the funeral of a friend or relative not in the immediate family."

04.07.03.8d states:

"For the funeral of a deceased employee, the department head determines the number of employees who may attend. Up to one- half of a day of temporary disability leave is permitted, and the attendance must be reported as disability leave."

Boyette is suggesting that 04.07.03.8d be removed from regulation.

Sutton stated that if an employee dies and co-workers want to attend the funeral, this could leave an entire department deserted for an entire day, therefore a half-day could be considered reasonable. Chapman stated that an co-worker can also be a "friend" and it should not be considered as two separate items. Chapman stated that it could, then, that the department head needs to make arrangements for the office to be adequately staffed.

Chapman asked that the members think about this issue and discuss it at the October meeting.

10. Statewide Staff Award for Bonnie Williams

The members of the Statewide Administration Assembly presented Bonnie Williams a staff award, signed by 190 statewide employees of the University of Alaska.

The plaque stated the following:

"Resolution of appreciation for Bonnie Williams, Director Advance College Tuition program. We are very pleased to recognize Bonnie Williams for her achievements over the years for the betterment of the University of Alaska, and of its employees.

Bonnie has faithfully served the university for nearly 20 years. During that time, she served in many capacities, including payroll technician, payroll manager, director of advance college tuition program, and governance leader extraordinaire.
She staunchly defended university employees, so they would have a chance to be paid equitably according to the compensation system everyone can understand.
We will miss Bonnie Williams and wish her well to her future endeavors."

11. SAA budget update

This item was deferred to the October meeting.

12. Agenda items for next meeting October 12, 1994

1. Bylaws, first reading
2. Temporary Disability Leave
3. SAA Budget update

13. Other items of concern

14. Adjourn