STAFF COUNCIL MEETING
Thursday, April 17, 2003
2:00 p.m., Atkinson 202
Present: Barbara Monnett (presiding), Rose Murner, Neil Jones, Carol Brown, Ann Portwood, Susan Demmon, Kathy Hill, Jennifer Brooker, Kim Ireland, and Teri Hollar. Absent: Kenneth Manson and Valerie Smykal. Excused: Cindy Potts. Dr. Rosemary DePaolo, Harry Keim, Jim Wolfgang, and several guests were also in attendance.
Call to Order. Barbara Monnett called the meeting to order at 2:00.
Pay plan study. Barbara introduced Dr. Rosemary DePaolo to update the group on the pay plan study. First, Dr. DePaolo thanked staff for their hard work and told us she had enjoyed working with us over the years. She is resigning to take a post at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.
Dr. DePaolo was at the meeting to address the pay play study and answer questions. There is no money available for salary increases this year, and the pay plan study came at a bad economic time. Other schools in other states have had no raises in the past few years. The results of our salary study were bad: we would need $5 million to raise staff salaries to where they need to be, and that would be to get them up to the minimum level. The data continues to be aged each year since the study was performed, so that if and when money is available to implement the plan, the salary data will be current. The formula used to age the data takes into consideration cost of living adjustments. When the pay study first started, we were encouraged and thought that it would give us much useful information. The information is very useful, but now our disappointment is great because there’s no money to implement it.
The study categorized groups in terms of those who were the lowest paid up to those who were paid more than others in comparable positions. There were eight categories. This year, Dr. DePaolo took the lowest paid group on campus and addressed that category with the assurance that, as money became available over the years, she would move up the list and address the rest of the categories. The president’s staff had some reservations, but this was the only solution available at this time given the state of the economy. The lowest paid group on campus was below poverty level, and the salary adjustments raised them above the poverty level. When the question was asked about the percentage of employees below the poverty level, Mr. Harry Keim said he didn’t have an exact figure, but the percentage wasn’t a large one and the amount of money it took to raise the employee’s level was not a large amount. The university doesn’t want to obligate future funds until we know where we are with state funding. The worst thing we could do at this point is to promise we’re going to implement the study for the rest of the categories without having money in hand to do so. Hopefully, the economy will turn around, but the outlook is not good at this time. It will probably not start improving until 2004.
Some staff are interested in knowing into which category they fall, but there are no plans to share that information. One staff member asked if we could separate the money aspect from the job classifications and find out what they were, but there’s no plan to share that information either. The university system has just gone through a proposal to change our categories. Approval was just received from the Board of Regents to make that change, and our 1,700 job titles have been pared down to 180 job titles. This results in a huge change in job titles, so the information we had previously will change.
One staff member asked if we could see the report because she understood that the purpose of the pay plan study was to address items other than money such as salary equity, job promotions, and job descriptions. In an e-mail of November 8, 2001, from Dr. DePaolo regarding the pay study, she states that the “study will provide me an opportunity to begin addressing the concerns of GCSU employees relating to salary equity, job promotion procedures, and job descriptions.” A procedure for promotion was not a part of the results the consultant gave the president. The study only included existing personnel. However, the study result is the foundation from which other procedures would be built. Dr. DePaolo and others felt it would be unfair to publish the results of the study, because then everyone would count on its implementation. The university doesn’t like to make promises it can’t keep. The study was fair and equitably done, and we are right on course with most positions, except for two or three people who are up at the high range. It would be unfair to let people know who these people are. The staff member asked if the report is all in order so that, when money is available, we’ll be ready to implement. There is no report as such because the study was done person-by-person and job-by-job.
There was also a question about the methodology of the original results. Dr. DePaolo said the methodology was sound in 99% of the cases. We are not sure if some of our job titles match the consultant’s titles. At the recommendation of the executive staff, some of the consultant’s titles were changed.
A staff member asked if the study would help improve the evaluation process. The feeling is that we need a more user-friendly form and that staff evaluations are voluntary not mandatory. There is no specific calendar for the evaluations to be completed. Dr. DePaolo said she would look into this issue.
One staff member mentioned that this is the second salary study we have been through. Nothing happened with the first one, and now some staff are discouraged when we’re trying to get smaller classes and hiring new faculty and others of us are barely eking out a living. Dr. DePaolo reminded us that the special funding money we received when we changed our mission was specifically earmarked for implementing our new mission and that included hiring new faculty. Mr. Keim said he would make sure that our new president is aware of where we are with our economic situation. Dr. Jim Wolfgang mentioned that, even though we are feeling the pinch of these hard economic times, we are protected on our campus in lots of ways because of our mission. We don’t always see the creative ways we are able to use some of our funds because we are not at the system level. We do receive funds from grants, lottery money, and special initiatives that free up other money we can use in other areas. The results are not always evident, but they are there. In some ways, we are better off than other schools in the system. Our ten percent enrollment increase helped us out this year, but because of the way the state funds us, we won’t see the state money from the enrollment increase for two years.
There was a question about whether or not employees would be responsible for insurance increases since there is no raise money available. Health costs are rising, so, in effect, we will get a salary decrease. We don’t know what the health costs increases are yet, but we should have known by now. We don’t know when we’ll get any information from the state about our financial situation. There will be no salary increases for anyone in the system. A staff member also asked a question about Peach Care for Kids. If we are not considered state employees, why can’t we qualify for this coverage? Staff Council has looked into this previously, and even though we’re not state merit employees, we are still considered state employees and cannot get this coverage. This may be a federal law.
There were no further questions, and Barbara thanked Dr. DePaolo and all of our guests for attending the meeting.
Knight Foundation. Linda Watson-Kaufman was present to talk about the feasibility study on a partnership program between the university, the Knight Foundation, and the community. Linda gave us some background information on the Knight Foundation and the partnership. She also distributed a handout with more information. The Knight Foundation did a study of our community and learned that teen pregnancy is a problem here. By age 12, fifty percent of girls are involved in sex either by choice or by force. The Knight Foundation wants to do something about this problem and target resources and activities to help these children. They believed that in so doing there would be a positive impact on the lives of these young people and on the community. The Foundation identified a clinically tested model that curbs teen pregnancy, builds self-confidence, and promotes positive outcomes for middle-school youth. The Foundation is in the process of determining whether there is interest in this kind of program in our community. If the program is offered, 30 young people will be selected for this program that will run for six years. All eleven- and twelve-year old residents of Baldwin County will be eligible to apply. For further information, you can call Linda Watson-Kaufman at 3647 or e-mail her at lkaufman. Barbara thanked Linda for coming to the meeting.
Due to time constraints, a motion was made, seconded, and approved unanimously to table the rest of our items for discussion until the next meeting.
Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be Thursday, May 15, 2003. (Remaining meeting date is June 5, 2003.)