Approved 8/16/12 Meeting
Academic Staff Executive Committee
2:00-4:30 p.m. Thursday, August 9, 2012
67 Bascom Hall
Members present: Daña Alder, Vice-Chair; Marwa Bassiouni, Heather Daniels, Past-Chair; Denny Hackl (by conference call), Heather McFadden; Jim Maynard, Robert Newsom, Jeff Shokler, Chair; Erin Silva
Guests: Russell Dimond, BIPS; Catharine DeRubeis, APO; Kristin Haakenson, Mentoring; Jason Jankowsky, CEBC;Steve Lund, APO; Don Nelson, University Relations.
The meeting was called to order at 2:01 p.m.
The ASEC minutes of Thursday, July 26, 2012 were approved with a minor correction.
Mark Werner, DRC past chair, has down an outstanding job in developing the data used to develop district memberships.
Kristin Haakenson reported that the committee has scheduled a standing meeting on the 2nd Wednesday of each month. They are learning of greater needs for mentoring from all parts of campus. They have named subcommittees for event planning, communications, and the development of a resource bank. They also plan to use this year to get more data on the potential 1,400 new academic staff. ASEC noted the needs for a sustainable mode of mentoring and the potential for drawing on the CASI’s to assist with matches and recruiting mentors. Other approaches to recruiting mentors might include telling the mentoring story at the March Assembly meeting and asking the Communications Committee do feature on mentors. ASEC also suggested a FAQ for mentors and mentees, modeled on the Teaching Academy as a running blog and looking at different modes of mentoring.
Administrative Excellence-Heather McFadden reported on the votes for the next priorities for the AE project. They are: student billing 29%; IT funding model 27%; print services 14%; conference services 14%; catering 7%; research process administration 4%; IT non-core 2%; research administration design 2%; chart of accounts 1% and space 0%. AE Advisory Committee members also expressed concerns about the lack of summary documents and changes in the initial charge for this process.
GUESTS: Don Nelson, Vice Chancellor for University Relations: Don reported that the Joint Finance Committee will meet tomorrow to allocate $400,000 for the State Lab of Hygiene for overtime for analysts, backlogged tests to private labs, some equipment. The campus is preparing a larger budget request to be presented this spring which will show legislators the full mission of the lab. Don also commented that the draft report of the Legislative Task Force has been issued but does not contain any items as transformative as the increase in the university system’s public authority is. As we work with the HR design we should show how this process is good for campus and all employee groups. HR design information presented to the Joint Committee on Employees Relations will emphasize the statutory changes needed for implementation. Meetings with potential new members of the legislature will be scheduled after the August 14 primary.
Don also reported on changes in university relations which including hiring a special assistant for Vince Sweeney and will be implementing a new structure to explore strategic partnerships and communications. The campus is making a concerted effort to bring resources throughout the state and is partnering with UW Extension in these efforts. Partnerships are also being forged with other UW System campuses as appropriate.
GUEST: Steve Lund, Academic Personnel Office – HR Design: Steve distributed a timeline for the development of the HR design that included meetings/milestones and action/deliverables. Distributed timeline. This timeline will allow an initial discussion of HR design at the September 10 assembly meeting. He also presented a UW System document detailing implementation decisions to be approved by JOCR/not approved by JOCR by July 1.
Steve also presented an Executive Summary of the proposed implementation decisions. One issue that needs to be addressed is the process for appeals and if a committee can serve the role outlined in 36.115 (4) or if this needs to be done by a single individual.
GUEST: Catharine DeRubeis, APO: Catharine reported on the current activity with the Critical Compensation Fund (CCF). She has processed 207 requests effective September 1 and has met with L&S. Requests for C basis employees will be in the fall, requests must be submitted to Deans’ offices by October 31 and unused funds will be pulled in mid-December. APO has not been presented with any implementation challenges. ASEC concerns about the potential uneven impact for employees on soft money may be alleviated by the reduction in fringe rates for 2012-2013. At the request of ASEC, APO will request a report from the Budget Office detailing the funding and functional areas for academic staff.
• HR Design:
• Transition and Succession motions-Motions as set forth in the following statements below were moved, seconded, and approved unanimously.
o Without notice periods that would provide both meaningful and significant layoff notice for all academic staff, ASEC opposes shifting to “permanent” appointments for academic staff who have continuing employment.
o ASEC supports discontinuing the practice of nonrenewals for academic staff. Academic staff could then only be: 1) released during a probationary period, 2) laid off, or 3) fired for poor performance/cause.
o ASEC opposes the adoption of a minimum 30-day layoff notice period for academic staff, and supports the continuation of appointment types and notice periods that provide both meaningful and significant (not necessarily equal) layoff notice periods for all employees.
o ASEC does not support the removal of the following appointment types: Probationary, Fixed-Term Terminal, Fixed-Term Renewable (if applicable), Fixed-Term Rolling-Horizon, and Indefinite.
o Former employing units can but should not be required to reinstate a past employee who previously accepted a new state/university position but for whatever reason wishes to return to their former position.
o Please note that motions to edit above were made, seconded, and approved unanimously
• Performance management: Motions as set forth in the following statements below were moved, seconded, and approved as noted.
o ASEC supports requiring all employees, including supervisors (including faculty with supervisory responsibility), to participate in performance management processes that include (but may not be limited to) setting goals, discussing development opportunities, and providing feedback to employees on their performance, and supervisors on their supervision. (Motion carried with one nay and one abstention.)
o ASEC supports requiring all supervisors (including faculty with supervisory responsibility) to participate in in-depth (multi-modal, primarily face-to-face), on-going training related to performance management. ASEC also recommends that all employees participate in performance management training. (Motion carried with two nays and one abstention.)
o ASEC supports the maintenance of and/or creation of corrective action, discipline, and appeals processes by the appropriate governance groups for academic staff, staff currently defined as classified, and faculty that are appropriate to the nature of and conditions of the work within those employee categories. While increased “consistency” (“consistency” needs definition) between employee categories is a worthwhile goal, it should not be the driver for making or changing policy regarding corrective action, discipline, and appeals processes unless there are clear and compelling reasons to do so (e.g. to change existing processes unless those processes are, in fact, dysfunctional/broken). (Unanimous)
• Major concerns discussion: Major concerns regarding the HR process were identified as layoff notice periods, appointment types, salary caps, and levels in title series as well as concerns about the lack of data used in the process.
• UW System Flexible Degree Program-ASEC directed the chair to send a letter to President Reilly on this issue.
Adjourned at 4: 49 p.m.
Submitted by Jo Ann Carr, Interim Secretary of the Academic Staff