Administrative and Professional Assembly

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

213 Foy Union

Minutes--Approved as corrected October 16, 2006

 

The meeting of the A&P assembly was called to order at 2:05 PM by the Chair Drew Burgering.

 

Harriette Huggins called the roll in the absence of the secretary. The following were present: Barnese Adair-Wallace; Latresha Brady-Pinkston; Drew Burgering; Maria Folmar; David Hennessey; Jane Hoehaver; Harriette Huggins; Teresa Logiotatos; Katie Mantooth; Ellen McManus; Vivian Miller; John Owen; Kirsten Perkins; April Staton; Tony Ventimiglia; Mark Wilson.

 

Absent were: Pat Deery; Lisa Fleming; Missy Long; Julie Nolen; Todd Storey

 

There were 29 visitors in the audience.

 

The minutes of the June 20, 2006 meeting were approved as corrected.

 

The chair opened the meeting with Open Forum, explaining the Executive Board wanted to give A&P employees the opportunity to raise issues without waiting until the end of a long meeting when some attendees might have left the meeting. The rules observed for Open Forum follow:

1.      The time allotted for Open Forum will be 15 minutes.

2.      Each speaker will be allowed statements up to 2 minutes.

3.      No speaker may speak a second time until all who wish to speak have had an opportunity.

4.      Assembly representatives will not respond until all members of the audience who wish to have spoken.

5.      The Assembly and/or its committees will respond with information and/or action as soon as possible.

There were no speakers who came forward.

 

Comments from Drew Burgering, Chair,

1.      Drew announced the formation of an Ad Hoc committee to examine the issue of the Grievance Procedure approved by the Administration March 1, 2006, which is not reflected in the A&P Constitution. The committee consists of Cindy Selman, Chair; Kathy Harmon; Victoria Tate; Tony Ventimiglia; and Altamese Stroud-Hill. The committee is charged with developing a report citing the background and including recommended action for the Assembly in order to resolve the issue The committee is to report at the November meeting.

2.      At its September meeting the Board of Trustees removed Interim from the title and named Dr. Richardson the 17th President of Auburn University. There had been some concerned raised that such action might hinder the search for a new President. John Kuhnle, of Korn-Ferry, the search consultant indicated this action whould in no way interfere with the search.

3.      The Presidential search committee has reviewed 50 applicants characterized as being “Highly regarded and sought after.” Drew noted the Department of Communications and Marketing has sent a number of informational packets about AU to applicants. Charles McCrary says the goal for naming of a new President remains the end of 2006. That date the new President takes office will be negotiated.

4.      The Board committee responsible for the annual review of the President noted that the Forums when faculty, A&P, staff and students commented to the search committee a constant desirable characteristic for an AU president be “openness and accessibility." The review committee suggested to Dr. Richardson that he follow that example for the remainder of his tenure. Drew noted that Dr. Richardson will speak at the October meeting of the Assembly.

5.      The following visitors were recognized:

a.      Kathryn Flynn, Secretary of University Senate

b.      Tissie Walker, Chair of Staff Council

c.      Wendy Pechman, Chair-elect of Staff Council

 

Update on Classification and Compensation Project

 

Drew Burgering then presented Lynne Hammond, Asst. Vice-President for Human Resources, to begin the presentation. She noted the importance of communication with employees in all phases of the project. She reminded there is a website containing information about the project; answers to frequently asked questions; and a place to submit questions and request information. She also noted the importance of participation. That is the reason all employees were asked to submit position questionnaires at the beginning of the project and then respond to job descriptions distributed in March and April, 2006. She continued by addressing the why the project is taking so long to complete:

1.      Feedback documentation has been slow being returned to HR. When the project began it was expected that questionnaires would be completed by employee, reviewed by the supervisor and submitted to HR. The administration asked for further review by Deans, VPs.

2.      HR underestimated the staff requirements to complete the project. Three full-time staff have worked on this in addition to their regular duties and assignments.

3.      Determining market data and how it’s used to build a competitive pay-structure is complicated. For faculty with three or four definitive ranks, this is an easy process. It becomes more difficult for other employees because of the number of job titles. At the beginning of the project there were 1300 job titles. These have been trimmed to about 600. Reviewing them is a time consuming process.

Ms. Hammond noted several items that need to be kept in mind:

1.      The pay structure at AU is outdated; though salaries in most areas are OK.

2.      The project does not come with a pot of money with big pay raises for all employees as they are reclassified.

3.      There are likely to be isolated adjustments for employees who may fall below the minimum. In rare cases there may be others above the maximum.

4.      Implementation strategy is yet to be decided by the administration.

 

Chuck Gerards, Director of Compensation and Classification provided a more detailed explanation of the status of the project. The project consists of three components: Classification; Compensation; and Performance Management. [A graphical representation of the tasks within each component can be found in the PowerPoint® presentation.] Much of the Classification component has been completed, includidng Job Analysis Questionnaires, which started the process.; Job Descriptions, which were sent to employees in the spring.)  One thousand employees submitted comments on these job descriptions. Final decisions are yet to be made regarding the final classifications and job families.

 

[Mr. Gerards noted most institutions do not work on all three components at the same time. Because Auburn made the choice to do that, the process has taken longer that anyone anticipated. Everyone thought the process of job analysis would have been complete in 6 weeks and it took five months.}

 

The Performance Management component has been rolled out and is being used with the previous job descriptions.

 

The final work to be done is in the area of Compensation. This is a melding of the other two components. There are administrative policies and procedures that will need to be developed and adopted before that process is complete.

 

Questions:

Greg Ruff (College of Engineering):  I understand there was review of the original job questionnaires by supervisors and it was expected that a representative job description would result. When we reviewed job descriptions in the spring we found they were not very descriptive and such was noted on a cover memo when they were returned to HR. Were there any visits to job sites to see what employees actually do.

 

CG: No. Quite honesly, it would take an army of people to do that. All should keep in mind that job descriptions are not written for one person. The challenge is to look for similarities of what several people do and capture the functions, not specific duties to determine the job description.

 

April Staton (School of Pharmacy): We have a number of employees eligible for promotion, but have been told promotions are on hold until the project concludes. Is this true?

 

CG: No

 

April Staton: Are deans aware?

 

CG: There have been a number of promotions in job families that have been processed since the project began.

 

Jim Dewitt (Art Department): Each job description sent to employees for review contains a list of “Essential functions” There is the implication that these must be performed in the position. In reality some of these functions were not performed. I would suggest use of a different term.

 

LH noted the “Essential functions” terminology is a standard for Americans with Disabilities Act.

 

Joseph Cartland (Alumni): Between the time of job questionnaire completion and the job description return, it should be noted some promotions were not captured. Will the promotions be reflected in the reclassification?

 

CG: We are making every effort to ensure that promotions are reflected in the reclassifications.

 

Ann Adrian (CES): Will there be a process for remedy for things that do not match.

 

CG: There are plans for an appeals process. A decision has not yet been approved for how that process will work, but there will be one.

 

Kelly Birchfield (CGS): Will adjustments be made by October 1, 2007? Will the market data be out of date?

 

LH: The Administration will decide if adjustments are made within a budget cycle or at the beginning of the budget cycle. That is one of the issues “to be determined.” When the adjustments are made the data will be aged to reflect the market trends.

 

Drew Burgering: We all know there is inconsistency across campus related to performance review. Some units do and some units don’t. What mechanism is in place to insure that the performance review is done?

 

LH: The recent Budget guidelines from the Administration required that for all “merit” increases, a current performance review be on file.

 

CG: Note that the new performance review includes “Competencies” on which employees are rated. All supervisors have a “supervising” competency. One of the requirements of fulfilling the supervisory role would be completing reviews of employees and submitting them on time.

 

Drew Burgering: There have been discussions about the concept of review of supervisors by employees. Is this included in the review process.

 

CG: The concept of 360 degree evaluations is passing out of favor. This process is not included in our process.

 

David Hennessey (Contracts and Grants Accounting): Will any market place data information be available to employees?

 

CG: Because of the complexity of the information it is difficult to summarize the data. A key factor is determining the market – i.e. local, regional, another university, other organizations; national?

 

Jim Dewitt noted the three forms for performance review might be a hindrance to the process and suggested they might be condensed into one shorter one.

 

LH: Some of the forms are optional. The performance review itself is the only form submitted.

 

Mark Wilson (OIT): How do you account for special skill sets?

 

CG: Sometimes it is covered in qualifications. For example, a position requiring a degree in Finance or Accounting would assume a special skill set of standard accounting procedures which would not be listed separately as a requirement.

 

Victoria Tate (Facilities): What is a job family? Are there any in facilities?

 

CG: A job family is defined by competency within a job title. An entry level position will be at the minimum level of a title. Service and requisite competencies would result in promotion to a higher rank and salary. HR looks for positions where competencies inherently increase with time on the job. The ranking is an opportunity to move up in the position.

 

LH: The job families were created originally in response to office administration personnel who were happy doing the office work and did not want to apply for a new position in order to be promoted. 

  

Committee Reports:

 

Nominations & Elections:

Karen Rankin, Chair, reported appointments for three year terms beginning October 1, 2006 and ending September 30, 2009, to the following University Committees:    

 

1.      Institutional Bio-safety Committee: Niki Johnson (VP for Research)

2.      Insurance and Benefits Committee: Kelli Henderson (Human Resources)

3.      Multicultural Diversity Commission: D’ablo Hunter (Alumni Association)

4.      Student Discipline Committee: Gregg Prigerson (Office of Admissions)

5.      Traffic Appeals Board: Scott Greenwood (Outreach Program Office); Cathy Ramey (OIT); Randy Lee Rogers (Facilities)

 

She also reported appointments for three year terms beginning October 1, 2006 and ending September 20, 2009, to the following University Senate Committees:

1.      Welfare Committee: Henry Cobb (Research Electronics)

2.      Calendar & Schedules Committee: Melissa (Missy) Long (OIT)

 

The Assembly passed a motion by the Nominations and Elections committee to approve appointments to the following A&P Assembly committees, most serving terms beginning October 1, 2006 and ending September 30, 2009:

 

1.      Calendar and Schedules: Kimmie Barnes (Fisheries & Aquaculture, Place 15); Sandy Pouncy (College of Agriculture, Place 15). [It was noted these nominees will draw straws to determine which will serve a term expiring in 2007].

2.      Grievance: Barnese Adair-Wallace (Facilities, Place 3); Sue Ann Balch (International Education, Place 8); Linda Bankston (College of Agriculture, Place 15); Bob Karcher (College of Engineering, Place 11); Sandy Pouncey (College of Agriculture, Place 15)

3.      Nominations & Elections: Kimmie Barnes (Fisheries & Aquaculture, Place 15); Harriette Huggins (Learning Resources Center, Place 10); Michele Owsley (College of Agriculture, Place 15).

4.      Professional Development: Gina Bailey (Contracts & Grants Accounting, Place 17); Glenda Freeman (AL Cooperative Extension System, Place 5); Marcella Harrison, College of Liberal Arts, Place 10); Sid Nakhjavan (College of Human Sciences, Place 14). [It was noted these nominees will draw straws to determine who serve one two year term ending in 2008.]

5.      Welfare: Missy Kennedy (Business Office, Place 17); Janet McCoy (AL Cooperative Extension System, Place 5); Jessie Shealey (Office of Admissions, Place 11); Brenda Wood (College of Agriculture, Place 15).

 

Professional Development Committee

Talitha Norris noted Don Large, Executive VP, had asked for information on Consulting Policies at other universities. Betsy Terry was able to obtain information from Cara Mia Braswell in the Office of Institutional Research & Assessment, which has been shared with Representatives. A motion from the committee requesting that this information be forwarded to Don Large in order to get a sense of possible reception of a policy was passed. Talitha said, “If there is a favorable response, the committee will then move forward on drafting a consulting policy.”

 

Executive Committee

Maria Folmar presented the summary report of the Sub-Committee of the Executive Committee Regarding Attendance.  Members of the committee are Vivian Miller, Missy Long and Maria Folmar

 

Maria’s report included these references from the A&P Assembly Constitution

Article IV, Section 1F. ABSENCES

"An Assembly member who misses more than one quarterly meeting per year will be removed from the Assembly and replaced in accordance with Article II Section 3e."

 

Article IV, Section 2F. ABSENCES [Members of the Executive Committee - Executive Committee meetings]

"An Executive Committee member who misses more than two of the six scheduled Executive Committee meetings per year will be removed from the Executive Committee and replaced in accordance with Article III Section 4c."

 

Issues noted:

 

Background:

  • Constitutional change in the number of Assembly meetings from 4 to 6
  • Change in the number of Executive Committee meetings to monthly (from 6 to 12)

Practical Aspects:

  • Serving to provide sources of communication and information
  • Representing needs of constituent group to the Assembly
  • Consistency in serving in designated roles as noted and elected by constituents

Issues Identified:

  • Dealing with Representatives who don’t attend meetings/are not interactive or communicative
  • Constitutional content regarding absences

Potential Solutions:

  • Apply a percentage of attendance/absences, 25%, of meetings (rather than a number)
  • Allow for work-related, specific absences
  • Provide for proxies
  • Put a greater emphasis on expectations of attendance
  • Revise the Constitution
  • Others? – input requested

Maria noted the information reflects responses from members of the executive committee. Several of the potential solutions will require revisions to the Constitution. She asked that all representatives provide input so that the committee can bring forward a proposal to be submitted to all A&P employees for input.

 

Welfare Committee

Vivian Miller reported support of projects on which the Welfare Committee has worked during the past year.

  1. The Welfare committee supported a tuition waiver for retires, dependents of deceased retirees and/or deceased employees, which was presented to the university Budget Advisory Committee, by the university Insurance and Benefits Committee.  The Budget Committee did not present the policy for consideration for approval by the Board of Trustees at the June meeting.
  2. The Welfare committee also supported a tuition waiver for employees to enroll in Distance Learning programs, for an amount equivalent to five credit hours of resident courses per semester. The University Insurance and Benefits committee did not recommend this to the Budget Advisory Committee.
  3. The Welfare committee began looking at expanding the optional employee paid dental plan to cover the cost/partial cost of crowns as it does for root canals. No recommendation has been made.
  4. The Welfare committee began to revisit BCBS health coverage of well check-ups for children older than age 10. No recommendation has been made.

 

Plans and Recommendations for Future Projects:

  1. Continue discussions of existing projects listed above.
  2. Re-visit adding an additional tuition-free course credit allowance to full-time employees, which would increase from 5 to 6 credit hours allowed per term. This would allow employees to take two classes per term as opposed to one with two hours left over.  As it is now, employees have to pay tuition costs for one credit hour to complete the second course.

 

At the July 12, 2006 meeting of the Welfare Committee, Brenda Wood, Agronomy and Soils Department, was selected as the new chair of the Welfare Committee.  Her one-year term begins on Oct. 1, 2006.

 

Grievance Committee

Ben Shell reported there have been no grievances filed since the new policy and procedure went into effect in March. Human Resources will provide a combined training session for the A&P and Staff Council Grievance committees in November.

 

New Business

There was no new business to come before the Assembly so the Chair adjourned the meeting at 4:10 PM.

 

Harriette Huggins

Acting Secretary