April 1998
STAFF ADVISORY COUNCIL MINUTES
April 9, 1998 Meeting
LaFortune Student Center - Notre Dame Room
1:15 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Present: Amy Belke, Debra Bennett, Jan Blazi, Rachel Boyd, Dan Brazo, Phyllis Campbell, Emily Cassidy, Tammy Chapman, Gina DeLaruelle, Janet Dillon, Debbie Fox, Rita Grontkowski, Pam Jobin, Chuck Klein, Mike Manijak, and Scott Uekert.
Absent: Rhonda Barkley, Victoria Cotton, Toby Green, Linda Hansen, Mary Anne Hoebeke, Jeff Korros, Norma Mezykowski, Don Newsom, Sue Penrod, Michael Purnell, Diane Schlatterbeck, Fred Sonneborn, Doris Smuda and
Deanna Zukowski.
HR Liaisons: Paul Henry, Roger Mullins, Rich Nugent, Rita Winsor, and Pam Zarazee.
Dan Brazo, Chair called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Dan explained to the Council that this regular scheduled meeting will be considered a special meeting to finish the discussion of the Classification Review
Project. Another Council meeting has been scheduled for Friday, April 24, 1998 at 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. in the Notre Dame Room of the LaFortune Student Center with the following agenda:
I. Approval of Minutes from the April 9, 1998 meeting
II. Approval of the Annual Report
III. Grievance Proposal HRPG Sub-Group which includes: Dave Prentkowski, Director - Food Services; Gary Shumaker, Director - Facilities Operations; and Chris Carlin, Director of Administrative Services, Business Operations.
IV. Set the Agenda for the Thursday, May 14, 1998 meeting
I. Approval of Minutes from the February 19, 1998 meeting
Pam Jobin made a motion to accept the February 19, 1998 meeting minutes. Chuck Klein seconded the motion. A vote was taken and all Council members present were in favor of the motion.
II. Approval of Minutes from the March 19, 1998 meeting
Gina DeLaruelle made a motion to accept the March 19, 1998 meeting minutes. Chuck Klein seconded the motion. A vote was taken and all Council members present were in favor of the motion.
Rita Grontkowski shared with the Council that a representative from the Michiana Employee Assistance Program (M.E.A.P.) came to a meeting of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Women's Issues to discuss the idea of presenting a training program on Assertiveness at the University. Rita explained that this training program would be conducted by the M.E.A.P. and co-sponsored by the Ad-Hoc Committee on Women's Issues and Human Resources. The training session is tentatively going to be held on one day in June and
offered approximately four different times throughout that day. The date, time and locations will be forth coming in the StaffNews, on the web, and on flyers across campus. Rita shared that a member of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Women's Issues will be introducing the presenter from the M.E.A.P. on
the date in June.
III. Compensation Review Project Update Continuation
Roger Mullins first clarified a rumor that one Council member shared with him and Roger explained to the Council that Notre Dame does not have any litigation against Towers Perrin. Roger explained that Notre Dame has been satisfied with the work that Towers Perrin has done for the University.
Roger then stated that he felt it was necessary to review the priorities that the Council had given input to during the Compensation Review Project. Roger shared an overhead with the Council that stated the two priorities of the Compensation Review Project:
1. Accelerate individuals furthest from market to market
2. Move towards a performance base pay
Roger explained that in order to accomplish priority #1, each year the University has to look at the market, (complete a salary survey in the local market and purchase surveys for positions not compared in the local
market) and then see where Notre Dame stands in comparison to the market. This is a time consuming process and takes months to complete. Salary surveys are sent to local companies and asked to be completed and sent back to Notre Dame. One hundred and six companies were asked to participate
and thirty-eight companies actually participated. Roger stated that the participation did drop in the salary survey this year, however he felt there was more than adequate representation from the Michiana area.
Roger defined the market as being where Notre Dame loses employees to (where do employees go for other employment) and where Notre Dame hires staff from (where do we recruit people from). Some positions at Notre Dame have a local market, some positions may have a regional market and
others have a national market.
Human Resources has spent a lot of time training managers on how to effectively do a performance evaluation. This is necessary to be prepared to implement Priority #2. In addition, the training has included sessions to inform staff on what is expected in the new performance review process.
Roger explained that Notre Dame is achieving positive results based on the priorities. The results however take time. Roger said that the University is taking the dollars available to staff salaries and distributing those dollars to accelerate the pay of individuals furthest from the market, based on years of service. Roger emphasized that due to the matrix, each individual will grow at different rates based on those
years of service.
Two sets of matrices are in place due to the fact that our salary system is a market based system. Based on the priorities stated above, the Technical and Office/Clerical groupings are the priorities. The reason why the matrix percentages will change each year is due to the fact that the market changes. The market could go up, down or stay the same.
If the University had unlimited resources, every employee would be at the market. However, the University has a limited amount of resources. Realistically, it is going to take multiple years to meet the goal. Last
year the University designated an extra million dollars in addition to the 4 percent budgeted for salaries. Roger stated that the percentages in the matrix will change every year. The million dollars was focused
specifically on non-exempt positions within the University.
Roger stated that supervisors will be giving each staff member eligible for a July 1, 1998 increase an explanation of the salary increase and a Compensation Statement. Those employees eligible for a January 1, 1999 increase will receive an explanation and a Compensation Statement near the end of 1998. Human Resources is encouraging one-on-one meetings with staff and their supervisors. However, some departments may hold large group meetings to explain the salary increases.
This year some flexibility has been given to the budget administrators to allow increases for employees who are in the matrix and are overall outstanding or commendable on the performance review if budgets have the
resources. Last year, no flexibility was given to departments for staff in the matrix. To the degree that the University controls salaries centrally means that the University is taking judgement away from
departments and telling them what decisions to make (using the matrix). Each year the University will move from central control to more autonomy in departments. Currently, length of service does play a part of salary increases. However, if the University wants to go to a performance based pay system (this decision to go to a performance based pay system has not been definitely made), length of service will not be considered, only performance of the staff member.
Due to the use of the matrix, training on how to do performance reviews is a main focus. Long- term, extensive training will be done for supervisors and Human Resources will be reviewing all performance reviews for quality and quantity. Follow-up will be done if questions do arise after Human
Resources has reviewed the performance reviews. Supervisors will be evaluated on their own performance reviews on how well they do performance reviews on staff. Roger stated that it is very important at this point to set a precedent that reviews must be done. Also, building accountability
on the part of supervisors, directors, chairs, etc... is critical to the success of going to a performance based pay system. Human Resources will continuously be training, assessing , evaluating and revising the
performance review system to make the process as successful as possible.
Roger explained the reason why the values in the matrix were less. The market did change slightly and there were less monetary resources available. Specifically, there was approximately half the amount of
extra dollars to work with this year.
Roger summarized that for fiscal year 1998/1999:
* A non-exempt staff member currently at less than 110 percent of the range will be in the matrix.
* A non-exempt staff member currently at more than 110 percent of the range will be given an increase based on performance.
* An exempt staff member will be given an increase based on only performance.
Roger thanked the Council for their time.
Dan shared the agenda for the April 24, 1998 meeting with the Council.
I. Approve the April 9, 1998 minutes
II. Approval of the Annual Report
III. Grievance Proposal HRPG Sub-Group
IV. Set the Agenda for the Thursday, May 14, 1998 meeting
Scott Uekert handed out a proposal from the Tuition Benefits Ad-Hoc Committee. Scott asked the Council to review the proposal and asked to put it on a future agenda of the Council. Scott also asked the Council for permission to have Lori Butchko, a non-exempt staff member who serves on the Tuition Benefits Ad-Hoc Committee to be present during the meeting that this ad- hoc committee presents the proposal to the Council. Phyllis Campbell made a motion to allow Lori Butchko to be present at the meeting that the Tuition Benefit Ad-Hoc Committee proposal is done. Rita Grontkowski seconded this motion. A vote was taken and 11 Council members were in favor and 5 Council member abstained.
Another Council member asked Dan to consider putting the Promotion/Transfer process on the agenda to discuss with the Council.
Dan stated that the tentative agenda for the regularly scheduled May 14, 1998 meeting is as follows:
I. Approval of Minutes from the April 24, 1998 meeting
II. Presentation of How Investments for the Staff Pension Plan are Handled
(Scott Malpass, Associate Vice President for Finance and Investment.
III. Ad-Hoc Women's Committee Update
IV. Ad-Hoc Tuition Benefits Proposal
V. Set the agenda for the June 11, 1998 meeting
Rita Grontkowski made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 2:40 p.m. Scott Uekert seconded this motion. A vote was taken and all Council members present were in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
Communications Committee