University of Nebraska Kearney

Staff Senate Minutes - February 19, 2002

Employee of the Month: Kathy Leibhart, Custodian II, Facilities.

Present:
Directors -- Livingston, Roggasch, Anderson
Managerial/Professional -- Danube, Kucera, McMullen
Office -- Ellingson, Jones, Mitchell
Service -- Hines, Lange, Wilson
Ex Officio: Lakey

Absent: None

1. Call to Order

2. Adoption of Agenda
   Agenda adopted (Danube/McMullen)

3. Minutes and Correspondence
   1. Ellingson stated she needed to make several corrections to the January minutes. She read the original statement and then read the changes. The January 15, 2002 minutes were approved (Roggasch/Kucera) with the following corrected statement:

      Under VI New Business, A. Facilities Update

      • #10 Fine Arts Building - Underneath the stage has been remodeled for storage and a theatre lighting lab has been installed.
      • #11 A.O. Thomas had two office rooms renovated and two additional smart classrooms were installed. There are now 13 additional smart classrooms across campus for a total of 35.

   2. Livingston read a thank-you note from Counseling and School Psychology, for the Department of the Month award. The order of the agenda was changed to allow Deb Schroeder to give her presentation now. (That presentation is under VI. New Business - Bandwidth).

4. Unfinished Business
   1. Budget Schedule
      Livingston stated everyone should have received the information about the budget schedule here on campus. She noted the forum is tomorrow at 3 p.m. in Copeland Hall and encouraged everyone to attend. This afternoon both the Faculty Senate and Staff Senate Executive Committees will meet with the Chancellor. She will share some budget information prior to the forum.

      Livingston stated that she is on the support group for the University which contacts legislators and the governor periodically about the University's budget. The group received notice yesterday that the state revenue receipts for January were much lower than projected which continues a trend that began last year. The Forecasting Board meets Friday and it is widely assumed they will reduce their projections of tax revenues. All of this creates greater budget shortfalls. The budget shortfall for 2002-2003 is at 80 million and it is likely that figure will go to 181 million. So further budget reductions, besides those they are already talking about, are extremely likely. They may even consider some for the current fiscal year. They are also assuming there may be revenue enhancements The support group is being urged to contact the governor and legislators and tell them the University can't take any more of the cuts and remain a quality institution. Solutions, other than cutting the University again, need to be found. Building quality takes years; destroying it can be accomplished overnight. Livingston noted if members just watch the media this next week or so, they will see what the Legislature is doing, what the Forecasting Board comes out with, and then will have a better idea of what we can expect on campus. Livingston said to expect additional budget modifications particularly for the coming year, but it is possible even for this year. She noted that is the current situation that the state is in and the University is in and commented that it is grim.

5. Committee and Search Reports
   1. Election Committee - no report

   2. Employee Recognition - no report

   3. Performance Management
      Danube said he has some notes from the January 17th meeting. They had two guests, Carol Rapstine and Gloria Travis who presented information on the student salary schedule. That whole system is going to be evaluated and updated. They asked for input from the committee and the committee agreed to act as a sounding board. Danube asked if anyone else from Staff Senate would like to be a part of that. Things that will be addressed are what amount students will be paid and how their jobs will be classified. Lakey noted the current salary schedule has been in place for several years and it is time to take a look at it and see if there are ways to update that to our needs. They have visited with the Dean's Council, the Directors in the Divisions of Student Life and Business and Finance, and the Performance Management Committee of Staff Senate just to get some input before they start. They are hoping to have a proposal together by the end of the academic term and then see how it is received. Plans are to implement it during the 2002-2003 academic year.

      The second item was NU Values. The University system is ready to start implementation. The process will include training supervisors and three job families will be used to see how it runs. Members of the Performance Management committee will attend training sessions to gain understanding of how it works. Lakey noted the three job families are the Library, Health Services, and Printing and Material Management. They wanted to use three test families to see how it works and then finish the development before it is moved out to all the job families. These same families are being used on all University of Nebraska campuses. Hopefully that process will begin after July 1.

      Danube noted that Market Level information is still to be complied for use when opportunities to advance awareness of UNK staff salaries exists. Lakey noted this is a key part of NU Values - that we have good market data so that we know where our salaries by job families fit in.

   4. Procedures Committee
      McMullen presented the proposed changes to the bylaws. He noted there are two very minor changes and one major change. One minor change is to add distribution of the agenda to the president's duties; that duty is currently listed under the secretary's duties. The president already has the duty to prepare the agenda and now would also distribute the agenda. The other minor change would be to officially recognize the Employee of the Month Subcommittee which would be in charge of evaluating nominations and selecting the Employee of the Month. Lakey asked what committee the subcommittee would be under. McMullen noted under the Employee Recognition Committee. Lakey asked if that is the only subcommittee of that committee. McMullen stated it was. Roggasch asked about the Department of the Month and if it would be a subcommittee also. McMullen noted they had talked about that, but felt that award was part of the Employee Recognition Committee itself. Livingston stated she felt the Employee of the Month was too and asked why the department award was different. Livingston noted she doesn't remember why a separate subcommittee was suggested. She stated when the Employee Recognition Committee meets, they decide both the Employee of the Month and the Department of the Month. McMullen read the duties of that committee - to promote processes and incentives for rewarding excellence in performance and service. Roggasch suggested instead of creating subcommittees to just add to the committee's duties to award the Employee of the Month and the Department of the Month awards. McMullen stated he would make that change and submit it at the next meeting.

      The major change involves the committee composition. McMullen stated the Procedures Committee was asked to address some of the demands on Staff Senate members' time. Currently each standing committee has to have four Senate members, one from each employee group. The recommended change would be to still have at least four members, but only two of those would have to be Senate members. On a subcommittee or ad hoc committee, there still needs to be four members, but only one Senate member. On all committees it is recommended that all four employee groups be represented. Any staff member may serve on a standing subcommittee or ad hoc committee. Additional appointments will come from recommendations made to the Senate. McMullen noted they did not get specific because of all the committees that we are asked to be a part of. Sometimes the Senate as a whole would meet and make a recommendation and in case of a standing committee, the two Senate members could bring names to the full Senate. He noted they didn't want to require the president to always contact the individuals.

      McMullen noted they also added a paragraph which states senate members serving on committees will report the committee's activities at regular Senate meetings and if official minutes are taken, a copy of them should be provided to the secretary of Staff Senate. Committee composition will be reviewed in May at the beginning of each new term.

      Livingston asked if bylaws changes have to be held over for a meeting - like review them at one meeting and then vote on them at the next. McMullen noted the only requirement is an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the Senate, but it can be done at any time. It was decided members should review the recommended changes and then a decision can be made at the next meeting. McMullen will present the recommended changes to the Employee Recognition Committee at that time. If any additional changes are suggested, he asked that members e-mail him so that he can have those ready for the next meeting.

   5. Professional Development Committee
      Ellingson noted the committee meets tomorrow. However she stated she would like to make some suggestions while she has the opportunity to visit with the full Senate. She noted that everyone probably received the notice that Advance Connections training has been cancelled due to lack of interest. She stated that she felt it is very important that staff take part in professional development. She noted that employees may not be participating for at least two reasons
      1. they feel they do not have support from their supervisors
      2. they are not motivated to attend because they don't feel they get any benefits financially or even any recognition for doing it

      Ellingson stated she went into her supervisor this morning and asked him if he had time to visit with her as to how to get more support from supervisors, employees, etc. for professional development. She noted her first thought was to make it mandatory, but it was pointed out that people don't like to be told they have to do something. It was suggested that instead there be a category on employees' evaluation form which asked if the employee had taken part in any professional development during the past year. Most supervisors want to give their employee a good evaluation so they might just say "yes" because the employee has done some things for self-improvement on his/her own which is great. She noted they don't want to discourage that, but at the same time, they also need to take part in what the campus is presenting for professional development. So she would also like to see a line where the supervisor must list what professional development in which the employee has taken part. She would also like to see a line which asked if the employee has served as a mentor or served on campus/university committees or on Staff Senate. She noted this is not to count against an employee if they do not participate, but to show that an employee is above satisfactory. Ellingson stated if the employee feels that his/her evaluation is going to look better if they participate in such events and are more active on campus, they will be more likely to participate. She stated she will be sharing these thoughts with the committee tomorrow, but thought she would also like to get the full Senate's thoughts before the committee meets.

      Another suggestion when we do promote Advance Connections in the future, is to maybe target certain categories. Like have the training only for either faculty, deans, supervisors, secretaries, graduate assistants, workstudy students or student workers . Then the next time, target another group and really push to get that group involved. She noted Facilities has already gone through the training and Residential and Greek Life is planning on doing the same.

      Ellingson noted we also need a push by Administration for professional development. She stated that they seem to like and approve of what we are doing, but they have not gotten behind us and pushed for employees to get involved. Ellingson feels like they need to push supervisors to get their employees to take part. She noted it needs to come from the top. Ellingson stated the committee needs ideas from everyone as to how to accomplish this. Lakey noted getting administrativesupport would be a function of Human Resources and he would take that responsibility.

      Roggasch noted she felt it will be important with a new administration to make a Staff Senate connection and get them on board early with the whole service culture. People don't sign up for a service connection if they don't think it is going to happen up above. If the Administrative Council would go through the information, it would then spread through all aspects of campus. Lakey noted when Connections training was first started on campus, they sat down and invited specific employees to participate whom they thought would like to go through the training. They also sent a notice to the supervisor that they would like to invite their employee and they would like him/her to encourage that employee to participate. He noted that worked very well. Lakey noted in the earlier training, they tried to mix the participation. It was nice to hear the different sides; interaction in the sessions is very important. He noted you get different viewpoints from different categories. Ellingson noted the suggestion was that there might be better attendance if the training was geared to a specific group. Lakey asked if she meant type of employee or a specific department. Ellingson stated it could be done either way. The question was raised as to how it was done at Facilities. Ellingson noted it was mandatory; everyone had to participate. Ellingson noted she mainly wanted to get Staff Senate's thoughts on the suggestions she received this morning.

      Livingston said she didn't pick up on this Advance Connection training being any different than the original. Ellingson noted it is different. This is done in a university setting and designed for that particular setting. Livingston stated we need to be clear when we promote this, that it is not the same training that was offered before. Mitchell asked if the training will be done by students. Ellingson said no, it will be done by employees on campus. Ellingson noted the training for Facilities was done as a class project and was supervised by a faculty. She stated Roggasch was the one that was going to do the training that was cancelled Wilson stated the Library is such a large group, they could be done as a group and would still have a mix of employees. Ellingson stated she thought by department would be a great idea. It would be just a matter of finding a time that all employees could be free to do it at the same time. Anderson noted that if the whole department is doing it, it would be up to the supervisor to see that everyone attended and you would have a mix of the different categories of employees. Ellingson noted the largest group that can be done at one time is 15, since that is the number of booklets available. Roggasch noted that right now the climate is not right for professional development when employees are concerned about whether or not they will have a job after budget cuts. Lakey stated when they originally purchased the Connections program, they did take it to the Administrative Council. They supported the idea, but it was left to employees to implement it.

      Lakey noted that with NU Values coming they will be designing a new evaluation form so this is a good time to look at that. He stated he thought supervisors are always looking at what tools they can use in the evaluation process so it becomes more objective rather than subjective as to what they can evaluate their employees on. This could work very well as a tool. As to what reward can be given to the employees who are doing this, the campus/departments has moved toward giving various rates to employees depending on performance and merit rather than a flat rate across the board. It will still be tied into how those salaries are distributed and who the people are making the decisions as to how the money is split. They could use this information to support their decision for raises. Ellingson noted if a supervisor is wanting to show a good evaluation, they would be more inclined to give their employee release time to attend professional development. She has had numerous employees note their supervisor doesn't like them taking time off for that. The employee would have a little leverage by saying part of my evaluation will include if I have attended/participated in these so you need to let me. Roggasch asked what about supervisors. Lakey noted NU Values is concentrating now on managerial/professional and office/service. That will include some supervisors, but not all. A lot will depend on each division and how they manage their evaluations. Livingston noted it needs to be brought up that employees feel there is a lack of time to do these things. Wilson noted the sad thing is, it does help morale if you can find time to attend/participate. Livingston noted that in many cases it is the employee who feels the pressure of not enough time rather than the supervisor.

   6. Office/Service Dependent Scholarship Committee
      Mitchell noted the application deadline is March 1st.

   7. Making A Difference Sub-committee - no report

   8. Mentoring Sub-committee
      Ellingson noted they are planning an event on September 26th at 10 a.m. in the Cedar Room for our annual awards and recognition ceremony. At the current time, the committee is looking at the materials that are used for UNK Advantage and are revising some of them. In place of the journal that mentors had to fill out, there will be a mid-way and a final questionnaire that will be filled out by both the mentor and mentee. It has been difficult getting mentors to fill out the journals and get them turned in. This would make the process easier. The committee will meet again tomorrow.

   9. Information Technology
      Danube noted the committee met yesterday and he was not able to attend. From the presentation that Deb Schroeder gave, one of the sheets gave a very nice synopsis of where the money goes.

   10. Strategic Planning - no report

   11. Centennial Committee
       Livingston stated the committee had a half day retreat this week. One of the first things they want to get going on is the logo. Rick Schussler talked to the committee so she is in hopes that that will be coming out soon. Livingston noted that the campus was established in September of 1903 and then classes began in 1905. There will be a two-pronged approach for the celebration. The first would be a celebration in 2003 around Labor Day and continuing on for about three months and will incorporate the Homecoming Activities too. The second celebration will be in 2005 and that is when the major banquet celebration, etc. will be. They will try to incorporate some of this into recruiting materials, etc. Livingston noted there are subcommittees being formed - one of which will work with the community since the community was instrumental in bringing the campus to Kearney. Another subcommittee will be working with Rick Schussler for the selection of the logo. The spillway project will also be incorporated into the celebrations.

   12. Marketing Council
       Anderson stated she did attend the meeting on February 6th. She noted they talked about the NU Identification Standards. She stated this process should be in place on campus. So basically from now on when you have anything printed, you must use the new logo in the approved colors. Also no secondary logo can be used with the University letterhead. The logo must also appear on all printed material. No seal is to be used except the official seal and no changes are permitted on the seal. No competing tag lines with the new identity and no tag lines on business correspondence. So that means you are to use only the new identity with the blue Kearney - or it can be all black.
       The second item on the agenda was the University of Nebraska marketing campaign. The commercials are now running on TV, the radio, and the newspapers. They include highlights from all campuses. UNK have hired the Sacco Agency to prepare a draft for a new marketing plan for the campus. At the end of March the Chancellor will hopefully give her approval so it can go forward. They are also planning some flyers to hand out to the Legislature while it is in session to put on their table each week highlighting what is going on at the different campuses. Kucera asked if the billboards are part of that new campaign. Anderson stated they are.

   13. University of Nebraska Provost Search
       Livingston stated they will meet again this Friday in Lincoln. She is in hopes they can narrow down the list and then provide it to President Smith for his consideration. He has asked for a short list.

   14. Chancellor Search
       Bonnie Mumm noted she is not allowed at this point to share very much, but they did meet for the third time and all the applications have been reviewed. She noted they did have a good number of applications from some very qualified individuals. She stated they will start narrow the list of candidates so that they can soon do interviews. At that time, they will set up the standard questions. They have already talked about reference check questions. If anyone here has sat on search committees you know that when calling your references, you need to ask the same questions. Also when you do interviews, you need to have all the same questions. Mumm stated she would like to know if members had any specific questions they would like to have asked. She noted everyone will have the opportunity to ask questions when candidates are brought on campus. However if you have any suggestions as to what the committee should ask, please let her know. She noted she has started her own list of questions such as - "In any of your past experiences have you had a Staff Senate?", "How do you promote staff professional development?", " How do you interact with staff?", "What kind of employee recognition plans have you been involved with?", "Are staff members included on committees appointed by Administration?".

       Mumm asked for other suggestions. Members suggested questions be asked about the following issues:

       1. describe your management style and incorporate ethics
       2. do you see the position as a public servant position and if not what
       3. how would you bring the administrative and the academic sides together
       4. what part does staff play in the mission
       5. what do you see as the possible vision for the campus

       Mumm noted that it is interesting with the websites available, most of the candidates are very familiar with the campus, mission, and etc. Mumm stated the committee is very critical of any errors in spelling or grammar in the candidates' resumes.

   15. Parking Committee
       McMullen stated this is a very active committee. Originally he thought there were going to be some changes that would affect staff dramatically, but they have decided because of personnel changes in Public Safety to slow the approach down. They plan on implementing a premium parking type of system where you would pay extra for a permit for a premium lot(s). They will only sell the number of permits to fill the number of stalls. Currently they sell (for residence halls) 1700 parking permits for 900 stalls. This fall they are going to sell premium permits for residence halls only. Originally they were going to do this for staff and faculty also, but the committee recommended against this at this time. The committee also talked about what to do with lot #14 which is an overflow lot north of the new College of Education building. That lot will be used a lot more once the building opens. There was also talk about lots #10 & #12 between Otto Olsen and the Health and Sports Center. They are considering making those blue and yellow tag lots, but no decision has been made yet.

       McMullen noted there are so many issues the premium parking permits affect so this committee has its work cut out for it. Kucera stated they will need someone to just ticket the premium parking lots. If students pay an extra $15 for the permit and there are no stalls available because someone parked there that doesn't have the premium permit, there will be unhappy students. McMullen mentioned what would the towing expectations be. Another issue is what about loading and unloading in front of the residence halls for students who do not have the premium permits. They will set up a seniority system; a returning student would have priority over a new student. This could cause a problem of student retention. If a parent finds that a freshman student is having to park five blocks away and walk at night to their residence hall, the parent might have a problem with that.

6. New Business
   1. Bandwidth - Schroeder
      Livingston introduced Deb Schroeder from Information Technology Services who will talk about Bandwidth. Schroeder's power point presentation was titled "Bandwidth, The Facts". This is partly in response to the January 24th article in the Antelope with the headline "On Campus Bandwidth Decreased". She stated in the article itself, she was quoted correctly, but the headline is absolutely not true.

      First she listed what a bandwidth is -transmission capacity of a communications line. A network of computers are connected in some manner (fiber-optic, copper cabling, or some sort of communication lines.). Those communication lines have a transmission capacity. They refer to the speed of the data that can travel over the transmission line and the amount of data that can travel over those lines. The greater the bandwidth, the faster traffic can travel and the more traffic can travel. So the question is "How much bandwidth do we have?" To the desktops on campus and residence halls there is 10 megabits per second. However to some buildings, for example West Center, and to servers on campus there are 100 megabits. Most people are concerned about what we have to the internet. To the internet the campus has DS3-45 megabits per second. Not long ago it was 1.54 megabits per second. She noted in the next couple of years it will go up to 100 megabits per second (Mbps). She noted you can never say there is unlimited bandwidth because somewhere in the network there will be a limit. She noted to help everyone understand the numbers, if you have a dial up modem at home, probably a 56K, 1 megabit is a thousand K so 10 Mbps is a very fast connection.

      As to the cost, it had been $800 per month no matter how much bandwidth was used, but that contract expired on December 31, 2001. Beginning on January 1, 2002, the cost went to approximately $300 per Meg per month on a graduating scale. Currently they (the university) is negotiating a new contract which they hope to have by April 1. They are hoping for $200-$250 per meg. Currently the estimated cost per month is $4,800. Schroeder talked about the different uses of the bandwidth. The uses include e-mail, research (web surfing), FTP (file transfer protocol), chatting applications, games on the internet, downloading files, and file sharing. The one that uses the most bandwidth is the file sharing (sharing files with the rest of the world). Schroeder used a graph to show the analysis of network traffic. Traffic in the spring and fall is three times as high as it is in the summer when students are gone. The majority of traffic is Napster, KaZaA, Gnutella, IRC, and Audio Galaxy. One recent incident involved a student (over a weekend) who downloaded music from the internet. By default that computer became a file server for others (from all over the world) who downloaded music files from it at a rate of 5 meg. Schroeder noted any computer can become a file server unless the individual knows the path to turn off that file sharing. If that had gone on for a month, it would have cost $1500 for that one computer. So if there is 10 megs for a desktop and 45 megs for the internet, it would only take nine people like that to have no space left for internet traffic or for SAP traffic. So there is no choice but to put some kind of regulations on the 2000 computers across campus connected to the internet. There are 1600 students in the residence halls and 700 have computers. If every person used $1500 per month, the bill would be $3,000,000. She asked if that is how everyone wants to spend the resources of this campus.

      Schroeder noted some traffic would not be regulated. Those include the College of Nursing, Academic/Administrative buildings, Foundation/Ag Extension traffic which UNK manages and ISDN (MONA, Safety Center). Basically the rest of the campus is residence halls. Specific applications with high bandwidth usage are regulated such as Napster, Gnutella, KaZaA/Morpheus and NeoModus. However FTP, mail, and web browsing are not regulated in the residence halls. Any leftover categories, which include Audio Galaxy and internet games, are also regulated. Schroeder gave some tips about how to conserve bandwidth. The three main tips are

      1. disable file sharing programs when not in use (applications know how to find the best path to the best server)
      2. Use antivirus software and keep it up-to-date
      3. Don't download large files like MP3s, movies and games

      Other ways to help include

      1. Don't download illegal (copyrighted) files
      2. Avoid peak usage times
      3. Limit streaming media (not academic experience)

      The bandwidth controversy started around January . Schroeder stated that in November and December they had been testing several devices for regulating bandwidth. After about a month, they encountered a problem which brought the campus to a halt and took about two weeks to resolve. Due to that, everyone was up in arms.

      Schroeder mentioned that students are very interested in how the tech fees are spent. She listed the labs which use funds from the student technology fees; those include the ITS lab, West Center lab, College of Education lab, Computer Science lab, Otto Olsen lab, the Student Union lab, the library labs, the residence hall lab, the lab in COPH 240, and the Math Department lab. Those monies also supported upgrades for the Modern Language lab. Over the last couple of years, they have created 20 smart classrooms and have installed six sound systems for students with auditory disorders. Fees have also paid for the anti-virus software license.

      This year they will have put about $400,000 into the student computer labs. This is the end of a three-year lease for labs so it is a little more expensive to get out of the old leases and into the new. Fees also funded two software packages for Career Services which allowed them to investigate possible careers and helps with job searches. About $80,000 is needed per year for the smart classrooms and $375,000 for Blackboard.

      Four hundred and fifty thousand will be used for infrastructure for the College of Education, fiber work for Distance Education, wiring in the library, software needed for managing bandwidth usage and firewall intrusion detection. She stated it had been several years since the lotus notes server has been replaced so the budget will include installing new lotus notes hardware. There is an agreement with Microsoft for licenses for Microsoft Software for all the labs and desktops on campus. The web easi, web smart, and the web interfaces to the students' system for students and faculty are all pretty pricey to maintain. ITS also hires a number of student employees from tech Fees. Those include the tech assistants who help students in the residence halls and students who are assigned to various colleges. There are on-going expenses for the residence halls which include maintenance for their network hardware and expansion of their network hardware. The tech fees pay for one third of the expense and the residence halls pay the other two thirds. Paper for the residence halls' labs is also provided.

      Palm pilots were purchased for the Chemistry Department as a cheaper alternative to workstations in the lab and smart-boards were purchased for Physics and Physical Science. New printers will be installed at the library for ROSI and they will be upgrading the hardware and software for the Adaptive Technology Center at the library. This will be the last year of the contract for the computer based Smart Course training. Some web servers will be upgraded and a pilot wireless project in planned this summer at the library. An additional $36,000 will be spent on increases for internet access. Fees also fund one full-time position - the web master.

      The question was asked as to how much is in the Tech Fee Account. Schroeder noted annually they collect between eight hundred thousand and eight hundred and fifty thousand - $5 per credit hour. Current balance is about 1.3 million.

7. Announcements
   1. Next meeting - March 19, 2002 Cedar Room

   2. Let's Have Lunch - March 13, 2002 - Michelle Fleig-Palmer "The Questions You Never Asked Mom"

   3. Retirement Service Award Luncheon - April 19th

8. Adjourn
   1. The meeting was adjourned (Kucera/Mitchell) at 12:03 p.m.