March 2, 2006 Provost/Vice Chancellor Meeting
Employee Forum Chair Ernie Patterson called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m., welcoming Vice Chancellor Nancy Suttenfield, Senior Director of Human Resources Services Clair Miller, Forum Vice Chair David Brannigan, Forum Secretary Brenda Denzler, Chuck Brink, Liz Crowley, Debra Galvin, John Heuer and Antoinette Satterfield. Patterson said that the Forum hoped to place more line staff on various University selection committees. Suttenfield said that South Building-originated committees now seek staff representation as a matter of course. She thought that other schools and departments across campus have a varying degree of awareness and compliance with appointing staff to these committees. She asked how the University could best get word out about this idea.
Denzler said that Human Resources' production of the teleworking draft document relied first on focus groups rather than an initial consultation with Forum delegates to produce the draft. She wanted the Forum to find out about policy discussions much earlier in the process. Patterson said that including delegates at an earlier stage in the policy making process could improve the process by getting buy-in from a broader variety of people.
Miller said that Human Resources appreciated that communication about upcoming policies was challenging and she said that the department wanted to do a better job. She said the question has been raised at Forum meetings. She asked if there would be a preferred way to let Forum delegates know that a policy is in the works. Brannigan said that the telework policy process needed a wider range of opinions than a few focus groups. He offered that the Staff Relations, Policies and Practices committee could work with Human Resources in this area. He thought that Human Resources and the Forum could together schedule discussions about upcoming topics.
Concerning the appointment of staff members, Liz Crowley suggested that potential openings be forwarded to the Forum listserv to begin finding candidates. Patterson said that the membership and Assignments committee has had to work to make connections with departments announcing the creation of new search committees. He said that there should be a large effort to build a database across campus for these vacancies. Chuck Brink asked whether the focus was just on telecommuting or also on flexible scheduling, noting a real interest in the latter question among Facilities Services personnel since gas prices skyrocketed this past summer.
Patterson suggested a five year review of various policies. He suggested that the Forum has a legitimate interest in obtaining representation on the Arts & Sciences dean search committee, among others. Suttenfield said that this would be a national search and she did not anticipate the University excluding staff from the committee. Patterson said that he had followed up on one committee run by Dr. Tony Waldrop and had sent a letter with several candidates for the OS1 study committee. Liz Crowley is the Forum's representative on the OS1 committee.
Suttenfield said that only some policies are up for regular, formal review. Others are scheduled on an as needed basis. She proposed that Human Resources could indicate on its website which policies are up for review so that the Forum and other Employees could offer their input. Clair Miller thought this was a good idea and was realistic about what Human Resources could and could not do about informing constituencies.
Denzler asked if Human Resources could establish a "best practices" page so that Employees could have some negotiating leverage with their supervisors in favor of telecommuting or some other policy. Miller thought this was possible. She noted that some state and federal policy changes are non-negotiable and require priority attention.
Patterson hoped the University would be more inclusive of staff concerns throughout its schools, divisions and departments. Suttenfield said that documenting best practices would help departments become more aware and understand a greater variety of proven perspectives. She said that the best leaders refer to best practices as a matter of routine. She said that supervisors need to be accountable for the work done and the way that they relate to the work force.
Patterson asked how the University decides to review particular policies. Suttenfield said that the University does not have the resources to perform a regular systematic review of everything. Instead, federal and state mandated reviews must come first. The impetus for reviewing policies could come from the ombudsoffice, upon receiving comments from Employees. Employees could use the best practices web page in discussions with their supervisors about particular policies.
Brannigan thought that this arrangement could lead to use of informal means to lead to formal failure. He thought that the ombudsoffice has a good role to play, but its use does not address institutional needs. He cited the case of a Facilities Services worker who could not use flextime to change his schedule by one hour to care for a sick mother. He said that instituting a committee review of departmental policies could solve many of these questions more directly. Patterson said that there needs to be a way to move these types of policies instantly in these situations towards positive outcomes.
Patterson praised the team management approach used by corporations such as SAS and Cisco. He hoped the Forum could promote team management among line levels. Crowley said that sometimes a supervisor needs the prerogative not to allow an initiative such as flextime to complete their office's mission. She thought that a best practices page would be persuasive in convincing supervisors that a different approach can meet Employee concerns and remain effective.
Miller said that Human Resources Services could track best practices on its website, allowing generalists to refer to these best practices when questions about teleworking or other such policies arise.
Suttenfield noted that sometimes a supervisor must say that a decision is made and final. She noted that Chancellor Moeser is confident enough in himself to review a decision two or three times, but will make a final decision. Patterson said that the University should create an atmosphere in which supervisors are not punished for revisiting decisions in light of new information.
Denzler asked if there were a way to distribute these best practices in a significant way. Miller said that Training and Development has voluntary signups for most of its programs, unless the program is a condition of employment. She said that one could not mandate great leadership but rather should be realistic and cautious about this approach's effects. Denzler urged that best practices training show up at various departmental workshops and retreats.
It was noted that these questions sometimes move from policy to implementation of policy. Typically, a department will not review a policy solely for the sake of review. Sometimes, a department will need to clarify its work to eliminate varying interpretations inconsistent with the policy's purpose or goals. Individual supervisors will have the final decision on how policies are implemented. Questions about policies should be separated from questions about implementation.
Crowley said that people who can lead from below on these questions present a fabulous resource for supervisors confident enough to use them. She thought that the Forum and the University could benefit by developing a best practices website.
Patterson thought that the ombudsoffice could be a resource to the Forum in identifying policies that are not working, providing general data to the Forum, Human Resources and campus administrators. Miller thought that a monthly meeting between Human Resources officers and the Forum Staff Policies, Practices and Procedures committee could be fruitful.
Patterson noted that questions about the contract with Grainger have come up. Suttenfield reiterated the ground rules not to discuss individual supervisors and Employees in meetings. Miller offered to discuss an individual's particular situation following the meeting.
Brannigan sought to find more concrete answers to the questions listed on the agenda and raised in the meeting. Crowley disagreed, thinking that there had been concrete points made to solve problems. Suttenfield said that the minutes would provide a basis to evaluate the day's discussion.
At 11:30 a.m., the meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Banks, Recording Secretary