CEBC Meeting on July 25, 2006
1. Ideas from Steve Lund about possible changes that CEBC could examine.
* Domestic partner health benefits. UW is alone in the big 10 in not having them. May be unsolvable problem in the political environment because legislative approval would be needed. This is not an economic barrier. For example, six month waiting period for health benefits, about 10 years ago the UW System offered to pay. Economic cost of domestic partners at about $1-3 M statewide.
* A 3 year or more break in service to university means does not let sick leave reinstated. Classified staff, it takes a 5 year break in service before loss of sick leave.
* Program manager titles. Would like to see these made a promotional series. Moving through other titles straightforward and expected. Program managers have Roman numeral I, II and III. They are not “promotional” titles. They are management titles. A PQ questionnaire is used to measure the worth of a job. A Pay Equity study was used to develop it. System doesn’t want to redo the study (due to cost, hassle). Point values are used to establish “value.” Not performance-based. Actually based on size and scope of job. The system doesn’t fit the way things actuall work. Keep the numerals, but make them a promotional series. System HR managers (besides UW) have not shown much interest.
o Academic staff reps are positive.
o System’s concern is to avoid changing the Position Questionnaire (PQ), not economic.
o To change would require:
+ Board of Regents approve
+ Recommended by Al Crist.
+ Other campus HR managers would need to be positive about it.
+ Systemwide staff reps would be asked. They should try to influence their campuses to avoid opposition to the proposal. Here, CEBC could recommend this to ASEC or directly to UW-Madison’s rep.
* Pay ranges need to be examined. Category A academic staff have pay ranges (statutory requirement). No requirement re how wide. Some 450 academic staff are within 50% of the top of their range. About 100 people are so close to the top of their range that they cannot receive more than the average pay increase. Talked about with System. OSER would have to approve because it would have to be submitted with the Pay Plan. Eventually, JOCR approves pay plan.
o In state classified service, “broadbanding” exists. Used for academic staff. Means that people can be hired anywhere with the “band”. These positions have wider pay ranges than other positions. Usual band is the “50%” range, or 50% of the minimum. In some cases, it can be double the minimum.
o Otherside: desire to keep similar to classified. People not hired in at the minimum levels, thus compressing the range. Also, need to consider the aggregate pay range of the appropriate promotional title series.
o Marcia Jezwinski has been working on a report from a sub-committee on the pay range issue, coupled with a meeting with Crist and Lund to discuss the results. Tom will follow-up with Marcia on the status.
* Legislative Audit Bureau conducting audit on HR issues. Such as consultant title, backup, leave. A particular issue is the sick leave program. Hasn’t been an issue over the last 7 years of so. Before then, Legislators were concerned that faculty didn’t use much sick leave and sick leave is worth money in retirement, so this was viewed as a “financial bonanza”. Result was a cap on sick leave. Secy of Dep. of Admin. could waive. Waiver still on statutes. Sick leave audit may bring legislative attention to the sick leave policy.
o Faculty only report about 1 day per year in sick leave. 9 month academic staff, too. 12 month academic staff report about 3 1/2 days per year. But need to make comparisons based on type of work.
o Monthly reporting compliance is a problem.
o Problem is sick leave is an hourly benefit, but faculty don’t work on hourly basis. Colleague coverage may be sacrificed as a result of this audit.
o Eventually ALRA may become an issue at some point. The University if building up quite a liability with the use of ALRA.
o Note: Legislators have the same sick leave benefit that we do, and they also don’t take sick leave. Like faculty, legislators don’t have a 9 to 5 job.
o Legislative Audit Bureau looked at 50 people’s records, and they didn’t see any serious cases of bad reporting. May provide a positive result.
o One option: only give 9 months of sick leave to 9 month employees.
o Major concern: possible loss of waiver.
* Sue Chamberlin (Benefits person at System): We may see an initiative to make state employees contribute to the state retirement fund.
* Sometime in the future perhaps look at difference between classified and academic staff sick leave amounts.
* Note: Some changes require changes to the Administrative Code, approved by the Legislature. The 3 to 5 year break would require such a change.
* Other comments:
o Dave: Concern that max of pay range is indexed by the pay plan average increase rather than a cost of living index. Steve also noted that the ranges don’t keep up with the market. He noted that “extraordinary salary range” can be used if absolutely needed (with 200 or so academic staff using it).
o Karen: No new professional titles since Hays-Hill study? Steve noted that none have been created.
o Dave: Accounting for sick leave and vacation. Classified accounts for it in 0.1 hour increments; academic staff in 4 hour intervals. Perhaps 1 hour increments would be a standard measure.
o Karen: There are very few “perks” and discounts for employees. For example, there aren’t any reduced employee costs for participation in UW sports facilities or tuition or meals, etc.
o Bill: May see a push for a change to a defined contribution system for retirement. Note: Typically, employees pay 5%. Unions argue that salaries were held back to keep the retirement benefit.
2. Distinguished prefix review committee report.
The committee is looking at the ways that the Distinguished prefix title is used. only 36 people have Distinguished title. About 1/2 of academic staff titles don’t have the Distinguished prefix. one possibility is the use of Category A maximums. How to define “work unit” is an issue. Recognition must be beyond the “unit” to get the Distinguished title. Here, the “unit” is the campus, thus making it more difficult to get the title. Academic staff governance defined “unit” so this change can be done through governance actions. May make sense for small campuses, but not one as large as the Madison campus. Dave suggested that it may be easier to redefine “recognition” than “unit”. Looking at changing the “work unit” to school, college or division. It’s a Madison campus document - title guidelines (from unclassified personnel guidelines). Some smaller campuses don’t use the Distinguished title. Revisions to the guidelines would be approved by the Academic Staff Assembly. Basically, the approval criteria are “tight”.
* This committee is looking at “max” titles.
* Suggestion is to get Steve Lund to look at possible title changes and to get agreement in the committee. Then take the recommendations to the Assembly.
3. General discussion of Academic Staff Leadership conference. 4. Meetings: Second Thursday of the month beginning in october, 9:00 AM. No meeting in August. September meeting will be on third Thursday.
submitted by Dennis Ray
CEBC Meeting Notes, 21 Sept. 2006-09-21
Attendance: Drummond, Steffenhagen, Susan Crowley, Beth Workmaster, Karen Tusack
1. No additions to agenda
Staffing for benefits fair table Useful handouts o Domestic partner benefits (new chart), benefits eligibility, part-time and LoA benefits, 403b issues
2. Next meeting o Move from October 12 to October 19 because of benefits fair.
3. Benefits fair o staffing 9 o 11 Steffenhagen, Crowley 11 o 1 Workmaster, Tusack 1 o 3 Drummond, [Tusack will recruit another]
4. ASPRO update Steffenhagen Met with new regent Cuene. Dynamic individual. Also involved with WEAC. Discussed lack of communication among UW System lobbying organizations compared to good communication in Technical College System.
Tuition increases will be 3% or less in both years of the new biennium. Regents are requesting $144 MM new GPR. $77 MM is cost to continue. Remainder is growth initiative. Growth initiatives involve declarations from each campus, which may pit campus against campus in front of the legislature. This could damage Madison worse than others.
Pay plan will be issued after election—expectations are low.
There is no word on the LAB audit but it is expected in October. May lead to benefits reductions. Steffenhagen will continue as ASPRO chair.
5. Category A maxima Two ways to approach: 1) Ask regents to expand the range 2) Try to obtain change in the statute. #1 is best choice. OSER will be involved in either case but the OSER broadbanding precedent will help with #1.
6. Question raised about adding titles because it is currently difficult to slot people in some categories, e.g. technology.
7. ASEC discussed domestic partner benefits. Illinois uses a cafeteria benefits plan to offer domestic partner benefits. Ban on domestic partner health insurance in Wisconsin is written in law, hence difficult to change.
submitted by Dave Drummond
CEBC Notes Oct. 19, 2006
Present: Steffenhagen, Ray, Tusack, Drummond, Schoenherr, Workmaster
1. Add to agenda—distinguished prefix committee. Meeting being scheduled. Report anticipated in early 2007
2. Benefits Fair—Two comments received, both on domestic partner benefits. Table was in poor location. Low traffic, perhaps because of location. Consider combining tables with ASEC.
3. Meeting dates/conflicts—Steffenhagen will get back to Tusack on conflicts. Current schedule is 2nd Thursday at 9 AM
4. LTE and Background Check policies—Email Tusack if you want copy. General support for LTE policy. Background check policy wasn’t passed through governance processes. There are questions about details. UWSA is contracting with outside organization to do background checks on prospective employees. Not clear yet which current employees will be subject to periodic checks. Will start in January, 2007.
5. LAB report on sick leave and vacation use—Major issue is underreporting by faculty. Political issue derives from cost of health insurance paid by accrued sick leave. Average escrow account at retirement:
1. Faculty—$222K
2. Academic staff—$112K
3. Classified staff—$47.6K
4. According to report, differences are largely explained by number of hours escrowed rather than by salary. Some faculty never turn in sick leave/vacation reports. Discussed possible legislative responses. Ray will discuss options with Steve Lund. Discussed options for communicating important issues such as this with academic staff. Tusack will raise the communication concern with ASEC because many reps do not forward communications to their districts.
6. Category A maxima, how to proceed—CEBC needs to create a resolution and forward it to ASEC for consideration. Eventually, OSER would have to buy in. other system campuses may not support Madison because they do not have a problem with current maxima. The change wouldn’t directly affect the other campuses. other possibilities include adding a level between Senior and Distinguished or placing Senior at two levels above no-prefix level. Major apparent issues are
1. People are mostly hired around the mid-point of the range
2. Policy is to hire at highest salary, lowest level. However, these may not be the root causes.