Staff Senate Minutes - May 16, 2000
Employee of the Month: Beth Reid, Secretary in Student Support Services Office.
Directors -- Terry Gibbs, Deb Huryta, Kathy Livingston
Managerial/Professional -- Dave Bargen, Tim Danube, Tim McMullen, Bonnie Mumm
Office/Service -- Dennis Choplin, Dee Ellingson, Carol Hines, Dannien Jones
Directors -- Ron Roth
- Call to Order
- Amended Agenda Adopted. Livingston (Bargen).
- Minutes and Correspondence
- Minutes of the April 18, 2000 meeting were approved as printed.
- Unfinished Business
- OSAC Merger Finalization
Mumm noted that last month we talked about the OSAC merger and had decided to finalize plans at this meeting. The Executive Committee feels that at this point, we need to determine if we want to incorporate the merger and if so we need to vote to approve the merger concept. At that point, we would instruct the Procedures Committee to work on what needs to be changed in the bylaws to make it all happen.
Mumm asked for discussion. Ellingson, OSAC representative on Staff Senate, responded to concerns raised by Staff Senate at the last meeting. Ellingson stated that at the recent meeting of OSAC they addressed the Senate's concerns about the committee for Office/Service Scholarship. OSAC has agreed to have the committee chaired by a member of Staff Senate with all Staff Senate classifications represented. However they hoped that it could be documented, probably in the bylaws, that the purpose of the committee is for administration of scholarships for office/service dependents. Lakey noted he thought that was the only issue that was different than what OSAC originally proposed. Lakey stated OSAC is ready to move forward. He noted there just needs to be some changes to the bylaws in order to incorporate everything. Ellingson stated OSAC felt it would be a good idea to have an open forum for the whole campus to inform employees what is going to happen. She stated they would like to have all of OSAC and all of Staff Senate at the meeting to address any questions. The plan is to do that the end of June.
Mumm stated she felt we should vote on the merger today and send the bylaws issues to the Procedures Committee. After some discussion, it was decided it would be better to have the Election Committee deal with election issues and have the Procedures Committee deal with issues about the a new committee for Office Service Scholarships, committee structures, etc. and then incorporate all issues into the bylaws. She stated this should all be done and presented at the June meeting so we would be ready for the open forum later in June. Livingston stated she was assuming this would become effective with the election process that begins in September and the newly elected body would take over at the November meeting. Ellingson noted that since the Procedures Committee will be working on the bylaws, she had an additional question concerning sub-committees. According to the current bylaws, a Staff Senate member must chair any ad hoc committee. Does this also apply to sub-committees that would become a permanent part of the committee structure? She noted the Professional Development Committee would like to establish two sub-committees to assist them since their plate is really full. They would like to delegate some of the work out to other people. She noted there are already twelve people who have agreed to assist with the Mentoring Program. She needs to know how sub-committees should be setup since they are different from an ad hoc committee, which is only created for a short-term purpose. She asked if the committee needs to be chaired by a Staff Senate member and does there need to be Staff Senate members of all classifications on the committee? Bargen stated he felt any sub-committee should definitely be chaired by a Staff Senate member and preferably by a member of the committee to which the sub-committee reports. However, it could be chaired by a Staff Senate member who is not on the committee to which it reports. Livingston agreed with Bargen that the committee should be chaired by a Staff Senate member if possible. She noted maybe it could be worded in the bylaws that the sub-committees should be chaired by Staff Senate members if possible, but not make it mandatory. Ellingson asked about having all classifications on the sub-committee. Lakey noted he thought the bylaws only address that issue for standing committees. The bylaws were reviewed and it does only specify for standing committee, but Livingston noted if the sub-committee is going to become a standing sub-committee the same rules should apply. The question was then raised, if the sub-committee has to have all staff classifications represented, do those individuals have to be Staff Senate members? It was decided that they didn't have to be Staff Senate members. Ellingson noted that needs to be clarified in the bylaws. Lakey suggested the bylaws should state that the sub-committee has to be chaired by someone from Staff Senate, but the other members of the sub-committee can be non-Staff Senate members as long as all staff classifications are represented. Bargen noted maybe it needs to state it is preferred the sub-committee be chaired by a Staff Senate member. The exact wording was turned over to the Procedures Committee to refine and present at the June meeting. Ellingson stated there is a Mentoring Meeting tomorrow and she needed some guidelines, so this will help. Livingston asked if both the Mentoring Committee and the Making a Difference Committee needs to be setup in the bylaws as permanent sub-committees of Professional Development. Ellingson suggested as long as we are revising the bylaws, we should get everything setup now. Livingston made a motion to approve the finalization process for the merger between Staff Senate and OSAC. Bargen seconded the motion that passed unanimously.
Mumm noted the open forum that will be held later is to make sure that people on campus know what is happening and why it is happening, and if they have any questions, they can come and ask. She suggested at next month's meeting, members try and think of items that may come up and decide how we want to respond. Lakey asked Mumm if she would contact Jochum, OSAC president, to set up the date and to coordinate it. Livingston asked if OSAC should continue to meet through October so there is no gap in information. Lakey noted OSAC will have to determine that, but they probably will continue to meet. Livingston noted it would go past the time when OSAC would normally have elections. Lakey stated OSAC would have to make some kind of announcement as to why they are not holding elections.
- U-Wide Benefits Committee Representative
Mumm reminded everyone that earlier Amy Charland had resigned her position as UNK's managerial/professional representative on the U-Wide Benefits Committee. Staff Senate forwarded the names of Joyce Miller and Charles McGraw to the Chancellor. Joyce Miller was selected as the representative Mumm didn't know if the letter from the Chancellor had been sent to Miller yet.
- Disbursement of Minutes of Senate Meetings
OSAC suggested that the minutes be sent out to the UNK campus prior to the official approval of the minutes at the next meeting. That way they would be timelier. Ellingson checked with Faculty Senate and they do send the unapproved minutes out to the campus after the Executive Committee has reviewed them. Mumm asked members if this was something they wanted to do. Ellingson suggested that whatever is decided, it should be clarified in the bylaws. Right now there are no guidelines. Bargen suggested the secretary could send them out over e-mail to all members like she does prior to the meeting, and members could look them over and respond to her. Lakey asked if they wanted them to go out to all members to review or just to the Executive Committee? Lakey stated Ellingson would have to know how many responses she needs before she forwards the minutes to the whole campus. Ellingson said she didn't care as long as she has some guidelines. She noted if she is waiting for two weeks for people to respond, it has defeated the purpose. Lakey stressed the importance of reading them. Mumm suggested we give it a try. She asked Ellingson to get minutes out to members as soon as she has time to prepare them and give a deadline as to when responses are due. After some discussion, it was decided to give members three days to read the minutes and respond.
- Committee and Search Reports
- Employee Recognition
Bargen reported they discussed the Staff Celebration Day, which is normally held around July 1st. This year Friday, June 30th, will be the closest day possible. Plans are to have a continental breakfast in the morning and a lunch ($3-$4) available in the courtyard for about an hour and a half. Mumm noted the lunch picnic would be available to everyone, including family members. Exact times for both will be announced later.
Duties were assigned to committee members and they are currently looking for entertainment. They would like to have two different musical groups who include children of staff members.
The question was raised if the Chancellor's tent could be used. That will be looked into. They also discussed procedures and duties for Employee of the Month recognition.
- Professional Development
Ellingson reported the committee had met for the second time this month in order to get things moving. She noted they had already had the first "Let's Have Lunch" and had between 15 and 20 people in attendance, which she felt was outstanding for a first try. Due to scheduling problems at the Union, the next two will be scheduled on the second Wednesday of the month - namely on June 14th and July 12th. These will both start at noon in the Cedar Room.
The main topic of discussion at the second meeting concerned the Mentoring Program. There was a discussion/suggestion of individuals to invite to become a part of a sub-committee. Brenda Jochum established an e-mail distribution list of all staff employees that will be used to send out notices/announcements. The first notice was sent out and anyone interested in taking part was asked to contact either Jochum, Ellingson, or Mumm. She noted they had good response and the first meeting is set for Thursday.
Jochum also reported on "Making A Difference" which will be held October 17th. Due to renovation of the Nebraskan the event will have to be held somewhere else. Plans are to have it in the Fine Arts Building. Because of that, there are a lot of details to be worked out including how to have food available for lunch. The Public Sector will be taking part this year - both by attending and with financial support. Total attendance is expected to be between 250 and 300 people. Jochum asked for two Staff Senate individuals to be on the committee because when OSAC and Staff Senate merge, Staff Senate will be in charge of this function. So Staff Senate needs to be involved this year in order to get some experience as to what needs to be done to host the event. Ellingson and Mumm volunteered.
Ellingson stated that Cheryl Bressington informed the group about some joint ventures of UNK and the Public Sector which include New Staff Training and Rekindling Your Purpose.
The committee also discussed new employee orientation. Ellingson noted the committee has a lot of items on its plate and members have a lot of work ahead of them but they will try to get as much done as fast as they can. Mumm asked Choplin if he knew of anyone from service employees who would be willing to be involved in the Mentoring Program. Choplin suggested personal contacts be made.
- Search Committees
- Vice Chancellor of Student Life
Bargen reported there are three individuals interviewing on campus. The first, Dr. Roy Baker, was here yesterday and today. The second, Dr. Sarah Shumate, will be here Wednesday and Thursday. The third, Dr. John Martone, will be here next week. Mumm encouraged everyone to attend the open forums.
- Assistant Vice Chancellor of Information Technology
Mumm reported that three candidates have been on campus. The three were Deb Schroeder, Alvin Chi, and Don Mihulka. Evaluation sheets were sent to the Chancellor. Mumm noted if anyone attends the forums, they do need to fill out evaluation sheets or send comments to the person chairing the committee.
- Dean - Natural and Social Sciences
Mumm noted she had not heard from John Falconer, but thought the committee had finalized their recommendation so that was in the Chancellor's hands as well.
- Affirmative Action
Mumm noted that is also being searched now and asked Lakey to give a report. Lakey commented that an e-mail had gone out announcing the opening and ads will go out soon in the newspapers. The committee has been formed and Livingston is the Staff Senate representative on the committee. Other members include Randy Haack, Marilyn Hadley, Kurt Siedschlaw, Dora Meyer, Kyle Luthans, and Glenn Tracy. Lakey noted he is chairing the committee. Applications will be reviewed through June 12th. Lakey noted it would be full time position.
- New Business
- Salaries/Evaluations Process
Lakey provided an update and noted the salary worksheets have all been returned. The Chancellor will be reviewing them and making her final recommendations. In early June, it will start with the vice chancellors and then go on down. Notification will be given as to salary changes for all employees within each division. Each supervisor will receive the sealed envelopes with the salary notifications, but they will also receive a listing so they know what the final approved salary is for each person in their department. The supervisor will be responsible for handing out the salary notifications. These should be distributed about mid June. If there are any questions by the employee, they should be directed to the supervisor. Mumm asked if there was a base increase this year. Lakey said no; there was no percent of dollars identified for satisfactory performance. It is all based on performance and merit. Lakey noted that last year it was identified that for satisfactory performance, you would receive a 3% increase and the remaining funds were for merit performance. This year all the monies are to be used for merit performance; there is no minimum percent for just satisfactory. Ellingson asked if it is possible that someone might get no increase. Lakey noted that is possible. Choplin stated he had been told that everyone would get at least 3%. Lakey said that information was not correct. Lakey stated that in most cases, he thought anyone with satisfactory performance did get that, but it was not a guaranteed thing. Gibbs asked how the process works and who makes the decisions. Lakey stated that after the Legislature appropriates the funds, which is based on percent of total salary dollars, it then goes to President Smith. President Smith and the Board then determine the salary guidelines. It is then divided among campuses. That pool of money then goes to each Chancellor. Chancellor Johnston and the vice chancellors make the decisions on the salary guidelines for this campus. The vice chancellors then instruct their directors, etc. as to any additional directions as long as they don't conflict with the general salary guidelines. Lakey noted this could vary by division. Lakey noted that in his division, the directors make the decision with final approval by Randy Haack. In Student Life, it did go down to the directors. On the academic level, he thought the Deans made the decision. The question was raised as to performance reviews. Lakey noted his office has tried to make sure that every office/service employee has an evaluation done. They have also been inching their way into getting every managerial/professional employee evaluated. That had been left to the divisions and it wasn't happening. This year Lakey sent out evaluations to all those and stated they needed to be done and they were. The Chancellor supports the concept that the vice chancellors are supposed to state that evaluations are completed on individuals in their division. Lakey stated the academic division seems to be having the most difficulty. Lakey noted that every year the process is getting better, but it is not 100% yet. Bargen noted that in his division (Student Life) individuals were ranked. Lakey noted that was unique to that division. So it does vary by division, by college, etc. The pool of money is 4.75% for office/service and managerial/professional. For directors, it is 4.65%. The Chancellor has final approval on all salaries. The worksheets have now been turned into the budget office and the vice chancellors have all seen them. Lakey cautioned that people should not assume that just because there is, for example, the possibility of a 4.75% increase for each office/service individual, that does not mean everyone would get that. That is just the pool available. If someone gets more than that, then someone else has to get less. The Chancellor does not want across the board increases. She wants it based on performance and merit. Mumm asked if market also enters into that since they are trying to adjust for market in areas that are below market and have been for awhile. Mumm noted this would give directors the opportunity to raise the salary level. Lakey stated that is correct - they are trying to get salaries up to market standards. Lakey stated there is a lot more flexibility now. They have gotten away from everyone getting the same percent increase. It used to be that employees heard what the Legislature had appropriated and that was what their increase would be. That is not true anymore. Faculty salary increases are based on the bargaining agreement with the union. There is a pool of money there also that is appropriated by campus. The money allocated for any one category has to be used for that category. It cannot be transferred to another category. Some money within a category can be used for changes in positions within the category. So not all money has to be given out as of July 1; it can be held over for a new position, which starts later. Or if for some reason, there are positions that will not be filled, that money can be used for salary increases, but it must stay within the category.
- Reallocation Process
Lakey noted there has been money moved around there also, but he has not heard the final version of the reallocation of funds this year. Every division did have to identify money for reallocation. The Chancellor does make the final decision. Lakey noted there are actually two processes. President Smith directs one; the other is an internal one under the direction of Chancellor Johnston. So there is a percent that President Smith decides to reallocate and also a percent that the Chancellor decides on campus. Livingston noted that a certain percent of reallocation does go into a university-wide pool. Then each campus does get back money back from that pool. But each campus does not get the same amount. Some years UNK gains and some years it loses. As to the reallocation of funds within the UNK campus, some years extra money may go to one division and another year to another division. Mumm noted if members would like to know more about the final reallocation this time, she could ask Vice Chancellor Haack to come to a Staff Senate meeting and present that information or send a report. Mumm noted there should be more information by the next meeting. She stated she felt it was important for Staff Senate members to know the process so if employees ask about the salary process, etc. they get an informed and accurate response. If you are unsure, be sure and contact someone else on the Senate or Lakey.
The next meeting will be June 20, 2000, 10:30 a.m., Art Gallery, Student Union
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m. Gibbs (Hines).