The Advisory Council of Classified Employees August 10, 2009

1. The Advisory Council of Classified Employees August 10, 2009 Select Committee on Higher Education Personnel; Joint Committee on Government and Finance

2. The Mandated Charge Senate Bill No. 603 (2005) charged the Commission to study numerous higher education human resources issues in collaboration with various groups before preparing and submitting a final report to LOCEA by December 1, 2008.

3. SB603 Mandated Study 18B-1B-13. Study of issues affecting employees in public higher education. (a) In consultation with the Council, the governing boards, the State Advisory Council of Faculty established pursuant to section two, article six of this chapter and the State Advisory Council of Classified Employees established pursuant to section five, article six of this chapter, the Commission shall conduct a study relating to issues affecting employees in public higher education, (b) The study includes, but is not limited to, the following:(1) Reviewing statutes, rules, guidelines, interpretations and other statements of policy; (2) Surveying the capacity, professional training and practices of human resources staff by institution, including the number of staff employed in each institutional human resources office, their job titles and responsibilities;(3) Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the statewide classification and compensation system and examining alternatives;(4) Reviewing job titles and responsibilities to determine if certain families of jobs should be classified or nonclassified;(5) Evaluating and recommending best practices and methods to establish salary rates for faculty, classified employees, non-classified employees and administrators, including :(A) Developing measurable indicators of "merit" and "performance" if these terms are to be used in a system for determining benefits; (B) Developing reliable instruments of performance evaluation for all classes of employees; and the feasibility of authorizing employee bonuses under a merit or performance-based system; (6) Determining the most effective and efficient method to train administrators who perform employee evaluations and assuring that they use these instruments appropriately;(7) Exploring justifications for maintaining or removing the internal preference for hiring, promoting and transferring classified employees pursuant to article seven of this chapter;(8) Developing recommendations for a fair and rational policy covering reductions in force;(9) Identifying unnecessary state-level paperwork requirements related to personnel and recommending methods to eliminate them while maintaining strict fiscal accountability;(10) Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of statewide tenure and promotion policies for faculty and examining alternatives;(11) Evaluating the feasibility of implementing differential salary rates based on cost of living or other relevant factors;(12) Determining whether employees whose salaries are derived from funds other than state appropriations should be subject to the provisions of article seven of this chapter and how such employees should be treated in any policy on reductions in force; and(13) Determining the true costs or benefits as well as the advantages and disadvantages that may accrue as a result of decisions to outsource certain institutional functions. In order to perform a cost/benefit analysis, the Commission must first develop an accurate database of institutional practices including the number of positions being outsourced or filled by temporary employees and the true amount of cost savings, if any. (c) The Commission shall report to the Legislative Oversight Commission on Education Accountability by the first day of October, two thousand five, and every six months thereafter on the progress of the study. (d) The Commission shall complete its work and report its findings, conclusions and recommendations, together with drafts of any legislation necessary to effectuate the recommendations, to the Legislative Oversight Commission on Education Accountability by the first day of December, two thousand eight.(1) In making its recommendations, the Commission shall take into account the impact of proposed changes on employees and the communities in which state institutions of higher education are located; and(2) The Commission shall include documentation to support any conclusion or recommendation included as a part of their findings and shall attach estimates of cost or savings to each recommendation, if that recommendation has a fiscal impact on any public agency or institution.

4. Concerns with Current System Total avoidanceto maintenance of the system and as a result… • Job Family Reviews didn’t take place – only 5 out of 45 reviewed since implemented in 1991 • Position Information Questionnaires (PIQs) not kept up-to-date, difficult to complete and time consuming for both the employee and the supervisor, and no real deadlines for action on review requests • No “best practices” are observed or encouraged • No training in current best practices and no real expectations for qualifications for Human Resources Administrators • Some institutions created new categories of employees and ignored their own posting and hiring policies • No regular market studies were completed to insure the integrity of the system or to update salary information allowing salaries to get farther behind • Institutions allowed to “do their own thing” when it came to funding salaries and without legislative mandate, and as a result, some still have not funded a 2001 salary schedule • At times there was as much as a $5,000 difference in salaries for the same job titles at different institutions • No sense of fairness or due process is perceived by the employees • Personnel rules are vague and subject to institutional interpretation forcing employees to grieve to settle even minor disputes and fairness issues • No institutional accountability to a higher authority

5. Committees Were Formed Personnel Study Oversight Committee -Classification and Compensation Oversight Committee -Classification Subcommittee -Compensation Steps Subcommittee -Market Study Subcommittee -Performance Management Committee -Professional Development Committee -Statutes and Rules Committee -Best Practices Committee -Technology Subcommittee -Outsourcing Committee -Reduction-in-Force Committee -Faculty Committee

6. Areas of Study Left Unfinished or Unaddressed • Cost/Benefit Analysis of Outsourcing • Formulate Policy on Reduction in Force/Furloughs/Grant Employees • Formulate Policy on Disciplinary Action • Non-Classified Employees • Rules and Statutes Still to be Written • Institute Best Practices for Human Resources/Personnel • Justify/Maintain Internal Preference for Hiring/Promoting/Transferring Employees • Recommending Ways to Eliminate State-Level Paperwork Requirements While Maintaining Strict Fiscal Accountability • Develop a Compensation Structure Committee was not formed or did not complete their work or made no final recommendations.

7. Market Study Was Completed Mercer, Inc. was hired to complete salary surveys, recommend a fair and equitable compensation system, determine how employee salaries compare to appropriate markets across all employee types, investigate whether geographical differences in labor costs occur across the state, and provide a starting point for developing a new compensation system. RFP explicitly states that we “do not want a cookie cutter product but rather, information and options fashioned for the unique culture, limitations, and strengths that make up the HEPC/CCTCS systems.”

8. Ultimate Goal To create an integrated human resources system which will withstand the demands of change and allows for the ability to recruit, motivate, and retain the best employees while maintaining internal equity and pursuing external competitiveness and upholding accountability and fiscal responsibility.

9. Things Classified Employees Want You to Keep In Mind: Personnel rules should be given scrutiny beyond mere “bare-bones” compliance - they should AT A MINIMUM: •meet technical legal requirement •be consistent with the intent of the law •make provision for best practices •identify how a proposed personnel policy will align with the state-wide human resources plan •require proper input from affected constituencies

10. What Expectations Do Classified Employees Have? Promotes fairness and due process • Clarifications where needed in the personnel rule, statute, and also in each process or procedure outlined • Area of responsibility and timelines identified • No more secrets! For the employees to “buy in” there has to be a fair sense of openness and accountability for both the employees and the institutions Commits to accountability and financial responsibility • Minimum salaries set by the Commission and Council based on market information with annual adjustments (Requires a code change due to the zero step supreme court ruling) • Institutional governing boards identify what percentage above established minimum they can commit to pay • Institutions must have highly qualified human resource professionals and must complete funding of 2001 salary schedule BEFORE moving to new system

11. What Expectations Do Classified Employees Have? • Upholds federal and state laws and adheres to policies and rules • •Conforms with the Fair Labor Standards Act, Equal Pay Act, FMLA and others • •Conforms with the NEW Legislative Rule for Personnel • •Conforms with the Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action • •Conforms with the Personnel Action Procedures • Implements best practices throughout every component of the • human resources system • PIQ reviews are completed on a regular basis • Equitable treatment for all employees, faculty, non-classified and classified • Creates a transparent system that employees can easily understand and are more likely to support • Continuation of equal representation and required consensus for approving system changes • Job Family Reviews are completed on a regular basis • Market Surveys are conducted on a regular recurring basis and schedules adjusted • Institutions apply rules and statutes uniformly • Uniform hiring practices adopted system-wide • Improvements in data collection/tracking • HEPC analyst perform annual audits to ensure institutions are establishing • and following identified “best practices”

12. ACCE Goals with Regard to the Study Outcomes • Classified, Non-Classified and Faculty are treated equitably • Experience and skills of long-term employees are valued and respected • Accountability, Accountability, Accountability • Annual Human Resources Report Card on how institutions handle/track/improve employee relations and maintain the personnel system • A system where employees are paid a fair and livable wage • Clarify in statute the responsibility of the Legislature, the Commission/Council and the institutional administrations and Governing Boards • Enact meaningful consequences for a lack of accountability • Put an end to arbitrary and capricious decisions affecting employees • Development of a fair compensation system which can grow with our system and not become stagnant and can be authenticated with market data • A clear definition for non-classified employees and agree on reasonable number/percentage • Do away with unfair hiring/posting practices and loopholes • Support language in state statute which requires institutions to pay at least a minimum salary • Require campus human resources staff to attend HR training or continuing education and to acquire certification

13. ACCE Goals with Regard to the Study Outcomes • Revise institutional compact requirements to include reporting on human resources best practices, human resources data management, and maintenance of the classification and compensation systems and personnel administration • Put in place personnel rules for all classes of employees • Provide training for supervisors on how to properly evaluate their subordinates and provide them with the proper evaluation instruments to be used • Provide training and transparency with regard to job evaluation • Put in place a personnel system that is fair and equitable to all classes of employees--one that can further evolve over the years

14. How Do We Get It Done? • By hiring a consultant with World@Work background to pull together all the work the existing committees completed under the guidance of then Vice Chancellor Dennis Taylor • By authorizing through code or rule a finalized plan for classification and compensation and determining the staffing needs and staff responsibilities at the HEPC/CCTCE level • By authorizing continued work in those areas that either remain unfinished or have never been addressed with a specific timeline and charge By the mile – it’s a trial; but by the inch – it’s a cinch!

15. Philosophies Classified employees believe we are equal partners with faculty and non-classified employees in the success of students and in fulfilling the mission of the institutions. While we certainly have different roles, one group is as essential as the other and cannot function without the other. The approval and implementation of a new system should only be the BEGINNING of our commitment to improving our personnel administration and human resources practices. We truly believe that if we complete this study as it should be completed, and under the same philosophies it was begun, that we can have a system that can be a model for other state agencies to follow. We believe that without accountability with meaningful consequences any system will eventually fail. Without proper human resources training, action and participation any system will eventually fail.

16. Questions? Thank You! The Advisory Council of Classified Employees appreciates the opportunity to address the Select Committee.