The University of Kansas Libraries

Ask a Librarian
Bookmark and Share

KU Libraries Support Staff

Home  ·   Code  ·   Guidelines  ·   Membership  ·   Minutes  ·   Committees  ·   SSEYA  ·   Links

Classified Conference (CC) General Meeting Agenda/Minutes
Friday, Sept. 16, 10-11:30 am
Watson A/B

I. Mingle and munch, vote on new name

8 – LIBSS (Library Support Staff)
8 – LSSC (Library Support Staff Conference)
11- KULSS (KU Library Support Staff) ** Winner of Hastings Gift Card: Mary Ann Baker


II. Welcome to all and introduction of guests (Dean Bentley, Lindy Eakin, Kathy Jansen, Mike Auchard) – Monica (5 minutes)

III. Introduction of Classified Conference Executive Board (CCEB) and new classified employees. As they are introduced, reps will introduce the new employees from their group – Monica (5 minutes)
Group 1: Denise Swartz
Group 2: Kevin Fussell
Group 3: Jill Becker
Group 4: Robert Szabo

IV. Tour of CC website - Monica (10 minutes)
From the lib home page – About the libraries – more… http://www.lib.ku.edu/about.shtml

Go to Committees and Working Group and we are listed as Classified Conference. (This will change after our vote on new name)

Main page http://www.lib.ku.edu/public/cceb/
Lists current events, latest meeting minutes and date of next meeting. Every other meeting is held in Watson and then outside of Watson. Anyone who is interested may attend CCEB meetings.
Code http://www.lib.ku.edu/kulss/code.shtml
and Guidelines http://www.lib.ku.edu/kulss/guidelines.shtml
These both will be changing as a result of USS.
Membership http://www.lib.ku.edu/kulss/membership.shtml
Lists each group, their representative, and the staff in each group. Send any corrections, additions, deletions, etc to your group rep.
Minutes http://www.lib.ku.edu/kulss/minutes.shtml
By year in drop down menus. There is a two-week lag in minutes as they are approved at the following meeting.
Committees http://www.lib.ku.edu/kulss/committees.shtml

Gives lists and links to other Committees associated with CC, their purpose, membership, etc. Some have additional links to the individual committee webpages.
CEYA http://www.lib.ku.edu/kulss/ceya.shtml
Gives an explanation and guidelines for nominating. (It is not too early to be thinking about this) Also, see photo of current winner and links to photos of past winners.

Links http://www.lib.ku.edu/kulss/links.shtml
Other links for classified staff (library and university-wide)

UPCOMING: Who to go to for what.

Thanks to Monica Claassen-Wilson who does an excellent job as is our webmaster.

V. Library merit pay process demystified – Dean Bentley (20 minutes)

We are using the same process that is used for unclassified/lib faculty. Made sure that the guidelines from Provost were distributed to supervisors. First it was determined if a current evaluation was on file. Then made recommendations based on the 6 guidelines (as stated by Provost and indicated in your recent letters). One guideline that was not really considered at this time due to lack of information and that it will need to be worked out on a University scale, was market value of the position. Supervisors were asked to recommend 1) high merit -- asked to give brief explanation of why, 2) merit 3) low merit, no merit -- for both also asked to give a reason. Those recommendations then went to Department Heads and then to appropriate Asst. Deans and then to Stella. Stella could change, but she did not make any changes. The spread was nicely distributed with about 18% high merit, 81% merit, 1% or less (few) low merit. In order to recognize as high performers and since there was already an across the board percentage increase given, this time we gave a dollar amount (same) to all 18% of high merit, which was about $100 more than regular merit. The flat dollar vs. percentage is not necessarily the way it will be done next time.
Q&A
  • Even though merit raises are not appealable, may staff consult with those who made the decisions about why such decisions were made?
    Yes, talk to your supervisor.
  • It would be helpful for increases to be identified in a consistent way, so notices from Libraries HR and University HR will be comparable.
    Library followed the format of HR. Included the hourly rate. Because we did the flat dollar amount, wanted to include that.
  • Question about how criteria is applied to the decisions (e.g., a possible decision to use merit funds solely to rectify salary compression in lower hiring ranges or that one range of jobs will be funded higher to reflect market value)
Did not look at market value, waiting for University action. Other units on campus did take that into account. Lists of departments – we treated the library as 1 unit, thus weren’t looking at individual units.

VI. University Support Staff (USS) transition progress report – Lindy Eakin, Kathy Jansen, Mike Auchard (45-50 minutes)

Since July 1, in big picture, the Board Regents voted to approve our removal from civil service. Then University implemented 1.75% across the board in addition to States 1.25% and began planning merit (additional average 1.5%) increase.

Big accomplishment of the USS workgroup is replacement for Civil Service Appeals Board in Topeka (used for grievances regarding termination, demotion, suspension). Currently for this new board there are already 2 pending cases. The board is made up of 3 USS employees, 1 unclassified, and 1 faculty. There are alternates for each, for cases of conflict of interest. Each was recommended for panel by heads of governance organizations. Then the Provost got these recommendations and made final appointments. The board and the Provost are working very closely with governance. HREO has referred in the past only a handful of appeals to the appeals board. The fact that there are already 2 pending is of concern, but likely because its new panel and local panel. They do recommend obtaining your own legal counsel because the University will have legal representation. Be aware that it is also an open process at the hearing point and the vote will be public. Provost has the ability to overrule, since the process allows for further legal action. One negative is that we have lost subpoena rights. These were benefits because 1) they compel testimony under legal obligation and 2) protects witnesses against repercussions.

Comment on the guidelines of merit criteria: it is really a shopping list and not in priority order. Goal was to be inclusive with the idea to try to separate the notions of evaluation and merit (performance). Before even the second vote the working group brainstormed to try to make a fair distribution of merit. Library considered a “school” looked at IT and Library both together and separately. College did a series of grouping to do a series of larger units (i.e. area studies programs and languages combined.) Difficulty in how do you make a small group larger and keep similarity and fairness in merit.

Market evaluation: Criteria given was not intended to solve the market compression problems. Work group will continue to identify structural problems and what are the priorities. These problems are too big for each unit to tackle in the merit distribution process. Money will come from administration to allow certain units to consider as it is available.

QUESTION: Were all the monies allocated then distributed?
ANSWER: Yes, it all has to be spent and stays with the assigned merit group. (i.e. the 1.5% for Support Staff couldn’t have any skimmed off for faculty, etc.) Next year it will all be part of the budget process (not separate as was this year. HREO didn’t like the flat dollar amount system the libraries used, they prefer to deal in percentages.

Broad banding/Position Descriptions: 130+ titles hopefully to be dropped to ½ or even 1/3 of that. Broad banding to be in place by next spring Questions are 1)where are the groupings that make sense, 2) since there are no longer reclassifications, how do you recognize changes in responsibility and salary? Considering midyear, salary changes and what’s the process (based on the 6 merit guidelines). Hope for meaningful, significant changes. Currently looking at various salary survey services to determine market values. Many departments will be able to use this. But, it may be more difficult to determine for libraries. But, the hiring side now allows for 10% flexibility.

Quick handbook fixes: Went through and edited easy language (classified to university support, etc) Now will look at other policies that don’t work anymore. Reminder that we can’t change vac,sick,retirement,insurance due to legislative issues.

QUESTION: By setting a minimum/maximum salary administration will the bands will move over time? Is it right that next year new hires come in at the same increased rate that the last year’s did (who would then have 1 more year of experience).
ANSWER: Still working this out. The hiring ranges help with flexibility in this and the merit is to ensure a soft cap, to alleviate the “topping out” issue.

QUESTION: Why did the libraries do the flat dollar?
ANSWER: When we looked at the range, essentially longevity was being taken care of with across the board salaries. Since this is for merit, then we want to give that same amount. Percentages allows fewer dollars to newer high performer and more to longer hired average performer.

QUESTION: Are people that are off probation midyear considered for midyear salary review?
ANSWER: Not yet. But evaluations will compress. All hires after Jan will wait a year. This is where the flexibility of hiring range comes in that is to be determined at the department level.

QUESTION: What does next year’s legislature and the money available look like?
ANSWER: Division of the Budget posted on the legislative website. Positive cash balance for this FY, but it is paying down a debt. Before the session of next year they are already in the hole. But, they will try to say that k-12 isn’t needing addition funding. Goal is not to pit ourselves against k-12. If they don’t cut, we can still probably do a 2% salary increase based on tuition enhancement (unless health insurance goes up).

NOTE: This year 55% came from tuition enhancement and 45% from general block grant funds. If merit was funded only by state (block grant) it would only have been .7%.