MARSHALL UNIVERSITY CLASSIFIED STAFF COUNCIL MINUTES
Thursday, February 15, 2001
Drinko Library – Room 138 

GUEST: Jim Stephens, Director, Human Resources 

President Nina Barrett called the meeting to order at 1:00. Motion was made by Charlie Harless, seconded by LuAnn South, to accept the January minutes as written. Council unanimously agreed.  President Barrett mentioned that the President was called away to a last minute meeting in South Charleston and sends his regrets. 

LOGO COMMITTEE REPORT:  Janice Winkfield, staff representative, reported that a meeting was held today at which time a decision was made for green color PMS 357.  She showed an example of this shade of green. Dr. Spears will present to Dr. Angel the committee’s decision of color for the standard logo and the Institutional mark of an M with a bar across it. Marshall will abide by the committee’s decision as they have also developed a unique lettering with a new buffalo not blowing steam. The committee also agreed that the secondary mark would be the John Marshall  statute and Marshall University,  but special permission must be obtained to use them.  This logo will be used by the Athletic Department as well as the rest of the University.  There will be a phase-in period.  

GUEST
Mr. Stephens had two things to discuss with Council.  First, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy (ADR) has been approved. He distributed a packet of information. A form is now available for someone to use if they want ADR. It is totally optional. There is a waiver of time line form that might be used in other circumstances where the parties agree that they cannot complete the hearing in the amount of time provided in the statute. The grievance form has been revised to make it more readable. These forms will be available and can be downloaded from the web site. Mr. Stephens explained how the ADR would work. If a person comes to HR with a grievance at Level II, HR would begin to encounter expense and time hearing the grievance and setting up for it. They might suggest to the party, “Would you be willing to work on a solution to your problem?”  If they agree, an ADR form would be filed. If they decided against ADR, they would continue with the regular process.  If they try ADR and do not like it, they can get out of it.   He continued to explain the ADR process.  

Mr. Stephens passed out a listing of Peer institutions.  A question was raised:  “Where are we heading in terms of  a salary schedule and general salary process for classified staff?”  Concern was expressed that a salary schedule be based on our Peers which Mr. Stephens stated was very unlikely. When we say, Peers we are talking about bench marking--trying to find a way to meet their level of funding. If you want a quality program, we need a similar amount of funding per student. It does not extend from this. This becomes a market, but it is not a labor market and is not useful for grounding the salary schedule. Mr. Stephens feels that our salary schedule should be rates that match our respective markets like hourly paid people might be recruited from the local market and we would have to recruit nationally for Information Technology people.  Discussion continued.  

President Barrett asked Mr. Stephens how he felt about merit pay.  Mr. Stephens feels that merit pay  is a fine process and goal but it is extremely difficult to come up with a merit process that people universally buy into. If we had a certain amount of money to be given out on merit, the people who are awarded would say it is a fine process, but those who do not get it would say it is a flawed process. This is the problem with merit pay. If you had a process that people believe worked, it would be okay.  It is hard to come up with a process with which people are really comfortable. If we had a merit tool available to us, he would support it philosophically. He continued to explain. 

President Barrett mentioned that they are talking about placing higher education employees under the state grievance system and asked Mr. Stephens his opinion.  Mr. Stephens stated he had read both chapters in the State code and there is a different time line for grievances.  The Levels mean different things in the State versus the higher education track. Mr. Stephens, however, is not uncomfortable with the prospect of being under the State grievance statute. He feels that we need to read both State codes to come up with an opinion. He is not sure about the rationale for doing this.

Mr. Stephens is delighted to have a relationship with Council and if we have any suggestions, he would be happy to hear from Council. 

President Barrett asked if everyone received a copy of the Executive Summary--the enhancement to Senate Bill 653. This is the Central Office’s idea of changes they feel should be in Senate Bill 653.  The suggestions are: Placing higher education employees under the same grievance statute utilized by the state employees. Removes the requirement that classified staff salaries are to be compared with peers chosen by the Policy Commission. Allow merit pay to be given to classified employees pursuant to a policy approved by the Chancellor.  A lengthy discussion of Merit Pay ensued.  A motion was made by Muhammad Chaudhry that we stand opposed to any concept of merit pay. David Cremeans seconded the motion with Council unanimously agreeing. 

President Barrett moved on to the next item of concern, which reads as follows:  Allows the Policy Commission to retain the same retirement system for its employees.  This means that although we are already in TIAA-CREF and State Teachers (although they are not accepting any new employees),  this would give the institution flexibility  in coming up with other retirement alternatives. The concern is that the University  might get rid of TIAA-CREF.  If they feel they have found something better, they could force employees to abandon TIAA-CREF and go into a new retirement plan.  Our concept is while choice is nice,  we desire to have the option to stay with TIAA-CREF.  Mr. Wortham said that as an Executive Committee, we support a proposal which allows the institution to offer additional retirement plans, but we want TIAA-CREF to remain and no one be forced to move into another system. Discussion continued. 

President Barrett stated another item of concern, is on page 77 of the Executive Summary. The concern is they propose to take our increment pay out of  the WV Code Chapter 18b-9-5-b.  The danger is that once they take something out of the WV Code, they have no obligation to fund it.  This is going in step with the theory that if the salary schedule is not in code, then the increment pay should not be either. If the salary schedule gets placed in code and the increment is out of code, then we get no increment pay.  The Executive Committee asked that the salary schedule be based on market and be placed in code and with the increment pay left alone.  Bruce Walker is saying that we are protected under Chapter 5-5-1 (definitions) which is fine if the new salary schedule is not placed in code. However, the sticking point is the funding of the salary schedule. If this is still inconsistent come July, we will not receive an increment paycheck. There is nothing in the Executive Summary that informs us they are attempting to take the increment pay out of code. 

Motion was made by Charles Harless that Classified Staff support a new updated salary schedule in code based on market value and the increment pay be left in code.  Motion seconded by Jack Blake. Council unanimously agreed.  The floor was opened for discussion.

President Barrett met with President Angel last month and he is, of course, very sympathetic to our needs.  She spoke to him about a new salary schedule in code based on market value. At the time we did not have a clue about the potential problem with the increment.  The President wanted some figures on redline employees.  President Angel agreed that redlined employees should be taken care of in some manner. The figures that we obtained from Mike McGuffy for July 2001 (right now there are 34 redlined employees) show that there will be 211 redlined employees. Mr. Stephens spoke to President Barrett about the figures and he reported 248 redlined employees. She does not know which figures are correct.  The President wanted figures in case no salary schedule is in place and to know how many redlined employees there will be for the following years 2002-2007. But the initial year is 211 or 248, either of which is totally unacceptable. However, President Angel is not going to sacrifice the University to pay our salaries.  The State is going to have to give MU the funds to pay these salaries. The President pointed out that the legislature has never given the University what they promised. The University has always had to make up the difference. Council is strongly concerned about the salary schedule, increment pay and the number of redlined employees.  Council members voiced their opinions. 

STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

GRADUATE SCHOOL REPORT - President Barrett reported that Martha Pierson could not come to the meeting because of her work schedule. 

FINANCIAL AFFAIRS – David Blackburn had no report at this time. He will try to make contact with David Mills, Chair of the Budget and Academic committee to find out when the next meeting will be. 

SERVICE - President Barrett report that no sympathy cards were sent, but one get well card and flowers were sent.  Donations to replenish this fund will be taken at the Service Awards Luncheon. 

SERVICE AWARD LUNCHEON – Joe Wortham reported that the Service Award Luncheon is scheduled for Tuesday, May 15, 2001 in the Don Morris Room, Memorial Student Center. The committee met yesterday to discuss menu items which he is going to submit to the President’s Office and Keith Spears on some suggestions of the committee since the President’s Office pays for the luncheon. Joe briefly discussed the awards structure of which Council was in favor with the possibility of adding 10 year service certificates. Due to cost considerations, they do not think that the President’s office will approve. There was some discussion whether we would just issue it to people who have 10 years of service this year or whether we would issue to people who have achieved 10 years but who has not reached 15 years yet. The numbers given to us by Human Resources are 29 people that would be 10 year recipients and if we considered everyone up to 10 years it could go up to as many as 205. The committee feels that the President’s office would not approve anything other than a certificate in this case. There was some discussion.  Mr. Wortham has a meeting tomorrow with Keith Spears to discuss these issues.  The committee is going to put on the reservation form a check box for vegetarian platter.  Then it will be the person’s responsibility to notify the server that they wish to have a vegetarian platter. He reported on the cost of the meals per individual.   

PERSONNEL COMMITTEE –No report. But there are a number of unfinished and new items that has been discussed in a confidential nature with Jim Stephens. 

LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS – Mr. Reffeitt is ill today and unable to attend. But he has been meeting with the Faculty Senate legislative committee and coordinating with them. We are trying to speak with one mind. They are supporting our salary schedule. 

MEMBERSHIP/ELECTION – Mr. Wortham had no report. They are waiting on the legislature to make their decision as far as the need to elect one or two people. President Barrett reported that the ACCE supports the one person concept and all of State Staff Councils support two people to be elected to these offices.   Council also feels that the two person concept is better for Marshall.  We support two persons for these offices. 

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT – Mr. Harless reported they did not meet. 

STAFF DEVELOPMENT – President Barrett reported for Janis Winkfield. They had 25 waivers to be given out and they received 28 applications. They decided to award 25 waivers to staff members based on the criteria that was established for qualifications for a waiver. They turned down two people because they were graduate students taking undergraduate classes, which disqualified them. One staff member, who would have received a waiver, was already receiving tuition from another financial aid source which made them ineligible. The committee suggested shortening the applications and making up new guidelines that Staff Council could adopt.  

FACULTY SENATE COMMITTEE REPORTS

BUDGET/ACADEMIC POLICY COMMMITTEE: David Blackburn reported they met on January 26, 2001. The business that was discussed was a revision of academic appeal process in Student Handbook and add changes to the Faculty Handbook through Faculty Senate vote. Among changes:  Faculty Rights, time frame for faculty to respond, selection of hearing officers and consequences if the time frame is not followed.  Mr. Blackburn gave two examples of a case in point and failure to withdraw grade option proposal. They discussed academic dishonesty integrity policy and due process.  New Business discussed in detail - Quality Point Deficit Policy. 

STUDENT CONDUCT/PLANNING COMMITTEE – Student Conduct has not met. 

UNIVERSITY FUNCTIONS COMMITTEE – No report. 

ACCE:  No report. 

INSTITUTIONAL BOARD: Tanya Bobo reported that they have a meeting scheduled for March 6 in Teays Valley. They are going to start an aggressive training program for members who are on the Board of Advisors.  A three-hour training session is planned. 

OLD BUSINESS: None 

NEW BUSINESS – President Barrett mentioned that we have to watch our attendance. We must follow the Constitution. The Constitution states: “…..after two (2) absences the member will be notified by the secretary….”   There will be some letters going out. Council is addressing two unexcused absences; excused absences are not counted.  If you feel that you got a letter in error, please call Mary so that you can go over the records. Please notify Mary, Cora, David, Joe or President Barrett when you are unable to attend a Council meeting. 

With there being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.