EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Present: Beck,
Bolin, Fech, Hoffman, Moeller, Peterson, Rapkin, Shea, Stock
Absent: Alexander, Alloway, Scholz
Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2006
Location: Academic Senate Office, 420 University
Terrace
Note: These
are not verbatim minutes. They are a
summary of the discussions at the Executive Committee meeting as corrected by
those participating.
______________________________________________________________________
1.0 Call to Order
Beck called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
2.0 Roshan Pajnigar, Director, Compensation
& Employment, Human Resources
Beck stated that concern was raised during a Senate meeting about equity in salaries across campus since promotion and compensation of staff no longer has to go through Human Resources. This could create inequities in salaries for the same jobs. Pajnigar stated that she would be happy to speak individually with the professor who raised the issue.
Pajnigar reported that in the 1990’s an outside consultant was hired by the University system to look at the job classification system. She noted that the consultant pointed out that the system being used was rigid and gave little or no opportunities for promotion for staff and managerial/professional people. She reported that there are approximately 3500 staff and managerial/professional employees at UNL. She stated that back then a person could typically get a raise only when they moved to a different department that had more funding. She pointed out that there was a time when employees did not want to have a grant-funded position because the funding could run out after a specific period of time. She noted that this is no longer the case because grants are where the money is available.
Pajnigar stated that based on the study committees were formed to develop a new system. She pointed out that the previous system was from the 1970’s and a new system was needed but half way through the project the funding for it expired. She stated that the new system developed is called NU Values and it involves all four campuses as well as Central Administration.
Pajniger noted that the old system had pay grades but this system was inflexible in reclassifying positions or promoting staff. She stated that in the old system different jobs were placed in the same pay grades although they were different and required different skills. She noted that the old system made it easier to maintain pay equity but it had limitations and would not necessarily allow the best person to be hired because the pay had to be kept within a certain scale. She pointed out that the University can only hire the best if it pays more and the new system allows the University to keep up with the market.
Pajnigar stated that even under the old system pay discrepancies happened and there is nothing that can really be done with those departments that have the money to pay higher salaries and those that do not. She noted that for the new system common professions were grouped together to come up with 15 job families. She stated that the pay ranges for these job families are based on the market for that field. She reported that within each job family there is a salary band and each band is broken into four zones. She pointed out that the zones are fairly large which allows for greater flexibility. She noted that requests to reclassify positions within the job families do not have to get Human Resources approval but a form does need to be submitted to make sure they are in compliance with Human Resources guidelines.
Beck stated that a department can add on a lot of new responsibilities to employees and not increase the salary. Pajnigar stated that this occurred in the old system as well. She stated that Human Resources will step in and look at the job and inform the department if it needs to pay the employee more. She pointed out that employees have the right to ask Human Resources to look at this kind of situation if the department will not adjust the salary accordingly although she noted that some departments simply do not have the money to be able to increase the salary.
Pajnigar stated that one of the criticisms that some people may have of the new system is that there is now a range for starting pay. She pointed out that Human Resources is here for the employees but it needs to make sure that the Institution adheres to federal and state guidelines. She stated that the Department of Human Resources works hard to maintain equity on campus. She noted that if there is a manager on campus who is showing favoritism than Human Resources wants to hear about it.
Pajnigar stated that Human Resources has tried to get the information out about the new system and she has gone to departments and has spoken to UNOPA and UAAD to discuss it. She stated that an orientation of the NU Values system can be found on the web at http://hr.unl.edu/general/nuvalues.shtml
Moeller noted that the new system appears to allow room for managers to decide on salary increases. Pajniger stated that this is correct and that merit raises can still be given out on January 1st and July 1st.
Shea asked what process was used to decide that a new system was needed. Pajnigar stated that Human Resources went to Central Administration informing them that the old system was not working well and needed to be replaced. She stated that consultants were brought in and helped develop the new system. She noted that competencies needed for jobs were created at each different job level and criteria were developed that enables the creation of the zones. She pointed out that key behaviors were also identified.
Pajnigar stated that in the future there will probably not be recommendations for across the boards pay increases. She noted that recommendations for higher increases may be made for job families that are below the market. She stated that Human Resources will work with the departments to see if people need to be reclassified into different job zones. She noted that she has seen a lot of increases in salaries since the implementation of the new system. For example, she stated that the staff of the Libraries was considerably underpaid and the new system allowed for an increase in the staff salaries although they are still paid below market.
Beck asked whose responsibility it is to reclassify a position when a job changes and more work and greater responsibilities are given to an employee. Pajnigar stated that it should be the manager but the employee can make the request for Human Resources to look at the job to see if it should be reclassified.
As Pajnigar was leaving she thanked the committee for giving her the opportunity to discuss the new compensation system.
Shea stated that he has some issues with the new system. He pointed out that while it may give more flexibility he is concerned about fairness. He stated that under the new system people may be taken advantage of in ways that may not be as obvious in the old system. Beck pointed out that the old system was very rigid and it was very difficult to get staff reclassified. Shea stated that he did not think there were any open discussions about the need for a new system. Peterson pointed out that Central Administration often does things that the campuses do not hear about until after the fact. Shea stated that there should have been some kind of forum on this and it would have been better if it could be part of the normal process.
Shea indicated that this issue is one that some may not consider as the purview of an “Academic” Senate, which is the reason why he is in favor of removing “academic” from the Senate name. Fech noted that the quality of the staff enhances the effectiveness of what faculty members do. Moeller pointed out that work environment is the number one factor in productivity and having staff members that are satisfied with their environment has a direct impact on departments and faculty. Shea agreed and feels these issues should be within the purview of the Senate. Moeller stated that the new system is flexible so it provides a career ladder for employees although there is still some room within the system to misuse it. Rapkin pointed out that adequacy of public resources that are available are critical because any system’s weaknesses will be exposed when there are budget problems.
3.0 Owen Yardley, Chief of Police
3.1 Faculty
Access to Teaching Rooms on the Weekend
Beck reported that a faculty member had difficulty getting into a classroom on Saturday even though he had a class scheduled for exams during that time. She stated that faculty members understand security issues but they need to have access to classrooms they are scheduled to teaching in during the off hours. Peterson stated that the faculty member who informed him of the situation also stated that he felt there was a lack of recognition by the police for the academic activities that occur on campus even on the weekends. The faculty member stated that the officer who responded did not do so in a friendly manner.
Moeller stated that she has had similar problems. She noted that she went through the entire process to get approval to have access to a room on the weekend but had difficulty getting into the room when it was needed. She pointed out that in the past police would stop by a faculty member’s office if they were working late at night to see if they are okay but this does not seem to happen anymore.
Yardley stated that the campus police do understand the academic mission of the campus and they try to support it as much as possible. He pointed out that these are not isolated incidences. He stated that there is a difference between access to general purpose classrooms and department classrooms. He noted that the duties of the police are primarily with exterior building securities including the outside doors of the building. He pointed out that the police are not supposed to open classroom doors and Registration and Records is supposed to be in charge of general purpose classrooms.
Yardley stated that the root of the problem appears to be that there is no clear focus on who is responsible for making sure that general purpose classrooms are open for classes during the off hours. He pointed out that access to department classrooms is to be worked out between the department who owns the classroom and those using it.
Yardley reported that late last fall there was a more concerted effort by the police to do what they are responsible for and there is a clear separation of duties that includes not opening general purpose classrooms and department classrooms. He noted that the police will open the exterior doors to buildings. He stated that the facilities department and police have a schedule for opening up buildings on weekends and after hours. He noted that it was determined a long time ago that only certain exterior doors of buildings are to be open on the weekends so the entire building is not open to the public.
Yardley stated that he recently met with Registration and Records to discuss the problem of the closed classrooms. He reported that Registration now has keys to all general purpose classrooms so when a faculty member has a class during the off hours, they can contact Registration and Records to get the key for that room. He stated that the key will need to be dropped off to Registration at the end of the work day or sometime soon thereafter. He noted that access to department classrooms must still be arranged through the controlling department.
Yardley stated that there are some mechanical issues with card access buildings. He noted that Facilities has put through card access on some buildings but someone within the building needs to take responsibility for managing the system. He stated that the issues surrounding the card access mechanisms are being worked on.
Yardley stated that a new key policy will be coming from Facilities. He stated that under the new policy SAP will be used to procure keys. He reported that the Senior Administrative Team and the Deans are reviewing the proposed new policy.
Peterson noted that it is more difficult for east campus faculty members to get keys for general purpose classrooms. He stated that the faculty member has to get the key taxied out and then returned. Yardley stated that the plan is that in the future when general purpose classrooms are renovated the doors will be controlled on a timer so keys will not be needed.
Hoffman asked how the key pad doors are coordinated. Yardley stated that he is trying to work with Facilities to get a centralized system for the card access doors. He pointed out that when he first arrived on campus there were a dozen different systems operating. Peterson noted that Filley Hall has the card access doors and he asked if there is a central control for opening the building. Yardley stated that this is controlled by Facilities. Peterson asked if the card access mechanism can be programmed from a central place. Yardley stated that it is programmed and police dispatch can open it if needed.
Hoffman noted that in some public buildings there is a plaque on the wall indicating who should be contacted in case of difficulty of an operating system. He stated that it would be good to have a similar thing here at the University. Yardley stated that there is a sign in the general purpose classrooms and Facilities has a central number to call. He pointed out that he does not think such a sign can be posted on the exteriors of the buildings.
Yardley reported that a dilemma for the police is determining who has access to get into buildings and classrooms. He stated that the police get phone calls, faxes, and emails from people requesting to get into buildings but people need to be authorized to get into these buildings during off hours. He pointed out that faculty will often complain if buildings are left open. He stated that this is a problem that needs to be resolved. He noted that having a central coordinator for each building would help. He pointed out that ten different buildings will be opened on the weekend to teach one class in each building. He stated that these classes should be consolidated into one or two buildings if possible.
Hoffman stated that in the past students left to work in labs were given a note authorizing their access to the lab. He asked if this still works. Yardley stated that it used to be that cards could be filled out for them to authorize access but this was not a very efficient process. He stated that is the student has their NU Card on them this is usually acceptable but this is only to allow them to remain in the building, not to gain access to it.
Shea noted that Police time is not being used efficiently if they have to deal with opening doors to buildings and classrooms. Yardley pointed out that there is no one in the Police Department whose only responsibility is to deal with building issues.
Hoffman asked who should be contacted if a door is locked that is supposed to be open. Yardley stated that for the time being if it is needed right away they can call the police but people should know that the police may not be able to respond immediately. He stated that when business hours resume the faculty member needs to contact Registration and Records to resolve the issue. He noted that the police can open card access doors but not individual department doors.
Yardley stated that a major component to the issue is communications. He noted that Facilities, the Police, and the faculty all have different perspectives on the issue that need to be considered. He stated that he would like to see the current system improved so it works better for everyone.
4.0 Announcements
4.1
Beck reported that she received a phone call from Bill Hord who is writing an article comparing the campaign violations between Regent Drew Miller and Regent David Hergert. She stated that he asked if the Senate took action when Regent Miller was fined. She reported that she did not think the Senate took action at that time but she pointed out that the violations were different transgressions.
4.2 Meeting with the
Chancellor to Discuss the Proposed Reduction in Force Procedures
Beck stated that she and Moeller met with the Chancellor to discuss the proposed document. She noted that overall the meeting went quite well even though the Chancellor is opposed to some aspects of the proposed procedures. She stated that he acknowledged that the language of the existing procedures is very convoluted although once you wade through it, the process is fairly clear.
Beck reported that the Chancellor does not think the majority of the faculty would be comfortable in participating in budget cutting decisions to the extent proposed and that the proposed process would not be efficient in making decisions about reductions in programs and having a 2/3 majority vote built into the process will prevent any recommendations from being made. She noted that the Chancellor stated that one of the things he would likely do differently if the situation ever occurred again is to not send the termination letters out so quickly to faculty. Moeller pointed out that the Chancellor stated that he sent the letters out early to give the affected faculty members the longest time to search for a new position.
Beck reported that the Chancellor has no problem with formalizing the process for the Vice Chancellors to remove them from making decisions on the budget cuts.
Beck stated that overall she felt the door was open to make changes to the procedures. She noted that the Chancellor indicated that he is willing to work with the Senate on making changes.
Beck reported that they also discussed changing the Academic Senate back to the Faculty Senate and the two parts of this issue: membership by administrators and a simple name change. She pointed out that this is not an adversarial situation but rather an attempt to regularize current practice which is out of compliance with UNL Bylaw 3.3.1, and to provide a better identify of the Senate for the faculty. She noted that Bylaw 3.3.2 allows anyone to address the Senate and participate in discussions. She noted that the Chancellor has no concerns over the change per se. She stated that she will send him a note asking that he discuss this issue with SVCAA Couture, VC Owens, and the Deans to get their opinion on the membership issue.
Shea stated that he feels that the name Academic Senate leads people to feel that the domain of the Academic Senate is strictly academics but he pointed out that many things that happen on campus affects academics. He stated that he advocates changing the name back to the Faculty Senate or another name without the word “academic” in it.
Stock stated that he thinks the name Academic Senate is more inclusive and that it gives us more credibility. Beck pointed out that many people do not understand what the Academic Senate is because the majority of institutions have a Faculty Senate.
Rapkin pointed out that the issue appears to be an identity issue more than anything else.
Beck stated that the issue will be brought to the Senate in April to see what they think.
5.0 Approval of 2/22/06 Minutes
Peterson moved and Rapkin seconded approval of the minutes as amended. Motion approved.
6.0 Unfinished Business
6.1 ASUN Student Absence
Resolution
7.0 New Business
7.1 Article
on Professor Ari of
Moeller stated that she received a summary of events that happened in the History department regarding the hiring of Professor Ari and the current difficulty in getting him a visa. Beck noted that Professor Garza, a Senator from the History department, may ask to make a statement and perhaps ask for an endorsement at the March Senate meeting. Moeller stated that she believes the endorsement would be to show support and to ask why there is a hold up on the visa. Beck noted that Senator Hagel is going to the State Department to ask for clarification on the situation.
Shea noted that the University, including the Chancellor, has voiced concerns over the issue but the matter is really out of our hands. He pointed out that the State Department may have information on Professor Ari that we do not have that may be restricting the visa. However, he would not object to a statement from the Senate asking for resolution or an explanation for the delay on this matter.
Beck noted that individual faculty members have also added their names to a list calling for an explanation for the delay.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:07 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, March 8th at 3:00 pm. The meeting will be held in the Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Pat Shea, Secretary.