USAC Meeting Summary

USAC Meeting Summary

May 18, 2010

1:00 – 3:00 PM

Meeting was called to order by Shawn Morrison at 1:00 p.m.

Members Present: Martha Beitner, John Bowles, Doretha Crowley, Ofelia Dunlap, Kathe Edmonds, Sybil Fellin, Susan Galvin, Scott Hollen, Katybeth Lee, Mark McGill, Shawn Morrison, Linda Pugh, Susan Sheppard, Abiodun Solanke, Wayne Van Staden, Shug Ward, Kim Wiseman

Members Absent: Brenda Crone, Lindsey Love

1:HR Update – Carl Sorenson

Human Resources met with the President’s cabinet regarding the Employee Engagement survey. The next step is for the President to meet with the Vice Presidents. The purpose of those meetings will be to discuss both problem areas and areas that are working well and come up with an action plan. Once action plans are formulated the Vice Presidents will meet with their individual staff. Information about the engagement survey and the upcoming action plans will be put on a webpage dedicated to survey results.

SpringFest 2010 was a great success.

The new Human Resources website is now active. This website should make it easier to find the information you are looking for.

The process for submitting web submissions was discussed. It is the hope that they can become a “new way” of talking to one another and provide a place for open dialogue. The procedure for web submissions will be discussed at greater length at a future meeting.

2:Web Submissions – Susan Galvin

Attached

3:Elections 2010 –

The election results were tallied and the following staff members were elected to serve a two-year

term beginning July ’10:

Mark Brooking - University Facilities/Carpentry
Holly Caruso - Information Services/Network Services
Glenice Coombs - T C Williams School of Law
David Curtis - Financial Aid Office
Shelle Flowers - Office of the Controller
John Jacobus - University Facilities/Carpentry
Lisa Miles - Common Ground
Tracy Miles - University Dining Services
Chrissy Poindexter - University Dining Services
Francine Reynolds - One Card Office
Barbara Terry - University Fac/Cust/Residence Halls
Karen Turner - Department of Religion

4:Guest: Valerie Wallen, Director of Organizational Learning and Development

Carl Sorenson and Valerie Wallen were on hand to answer any questions that USAC had regarding the Performance Feedback and Development process. The question that came up the most frequently was regarding raises and how those were calculated. The council was told that there was an allowance of 2% of the overall salary budget to be utilized for raises this year. The Vice Presidents have flexibility on how the raises will be administered.

Valerie was asked what the purpose of an annual review was. She stated that by setting up goals and having an open dialogue with your supervisor about performance and expectations you can make better decisions down the road. The online Performance Feedback and Development form provides you with a “one stop shop” to record all of your achievements and build your portfolio for advancement.

Another “hot topic” was the employee engagement survey. The current Employee Engagement Survey is a “work in progress”. It was agreed that the survey as it stands now does not meet every need of the University. It was agreed however that it would provide a good benchmark for going forward. Many people felt that filling out the survey would not make any difference in their current or future work situation. This seemed to be based on the lack of results from the previous Staff survey. Carl stressed that the Administration was committed to taking action to bring about improvement in areas where the survey indicated weaknesses, and he hopes that those staff who did not participate in the survey this time would see changes made and then be more likely to participate and feel their responses would matter in future surveys.

Both Valerie and Carl reiterated that both the survey and the performance feedback were works in progress and that change could only be made with our input.

Call to adjourn:Shawn Morrison

Seconded:Katybeth Lee

Web Submissions for May 2010 Meeting

Web Submissions from Prior Months that were Unresolved

1.A while back someone had submitted a suggestion to USAC regarding a campus wide no smoking policy and Carl Sorensen had said that he was going to be working on this in the next year. I was just wondering where we stand on this. Someone (a staff member) keeps going into the bathroom on our floor and smoking. They are pulling a chair up to the toilet (it's a "single" bathroom) and apparently sitting on the chair and dropping the ashes and butts into the toilet. It stinks up the bathroom and people who have offices and/or desks that share a wall with this bathroom have to smell the cigarette smoke every time this person(s) goes in there. I am also a bit concerned about the dropping of the ashes/cigarette butts into the toilet because we are in one of the older buildings and that toilet is kind of "iffy" in the first place. We certainly don't need it backing up and flooding our floor on a weekend or when we aren’t there. Can we please enact a no smoking in buildings policy campus wide soon? I'm dying here!

I thought we (including Carl) had said you couldn't smoke in buildings, but as I've done some digging, not only has this issue come up on web submissions each of the last two years, but I also couldn't find it on HR's web site. I asked someone in HR about the policy. They directed me to the “no smoking in dorms” link on the HR site. There is a feelingon the council though that there should be something more specific geared toward faculty and staff. HR is going to work on getting something together that is more specific to put on their website.

10/09/09 – In checking with Carl, this is something that they are planning on doing, but haven’t had an opportunity to do it yet.

12/07/09 – Human Resources still hasn’t had an opportunity to address this yet.

3/05/10 – In checking with Carl, this will be the next policy that is worked on.

2.July 10, 2007 at the Staff Advisory Board Meeting ( the following issues concerning pets was addressed: "Dogs in the office. Employees should not be allowed to bring their pets to work. There have been several occasions where dogs have been brought in to the office. I do not agree with this as some people are afraid of dogs and some are allergic. I also do not think that it is professional to have dogs in the office. It makes other co-workers uncomfortable. I could see if these were service dogs. They are not they are personal pets that have been brought into the office for no reason. It is very upsetting to me and makes me feel very uncomfortable in my work environment. Subcommittee report 6/22 - Per Susie Reid in University Facilities, she is not aware of a policy on this. The only regulations in place involve on-campus housing (students, no pets; okay for Area Coordinators, College Fellows). She suggested I check for any HR policy, which I did via their Guidelines at and found no mention of it. USAC Meeting Per Carl, a written policy is forthcoming." I would like for the above issue to be re-addressed/follow-up because more workers are bringing pets to work and the same argument still exists in that people are scared, allergic, and it's not professional to bring pets to work. I would like to see a written University policy that clearly states the policy, consequences, and who to contact if the rule is broken. Thank you for re-addressing this issue.

Per Carl Sorensen, a policy is currently being worked on which will then be brought before USAC and UFC for their input before going to the cabinet for approval.

3.Are there staff who are telecommuting? If there are what is the nature of their duties and for how long have they been telecommuting. What are HR policy or guidelines on telecommuting / flex-time. Thank you.

HR is currently working on a formal policy regarding telecommuting and will update USAC when it is available.

New Web Submissions

1.My suggestion is that UR HR consider an additional leave category of "business day". This category would mot infringe on vacation time, but would cover mandated absences such as the one that I had to take "vacation time" for last Thursday. Here's what happened. I went home about 12:50 pm, after 2 medical appointments, for a quick bite to eat and tooth brushing before heading to work. When I walked into my house I discovered it had been burglarized, every room ransacked, entry through a locked kitchen window which they had broken the lock on. Needless to say, I couldn't follow my plan to "head on in to work." A floating holiday is a sensible and adequate cover for a single day needed , as was the case on the day after the burglary, when it was impossible to do everything related to the burglary that was needed and be at work. However, it seems to add acid to the wounds when I have to take "vacation time" to remain at home on the day of the burglary, when police had to be called, and forensic photographer had to take pictures, and we had to stand still, and then later try to contact neighbors. And, all that, before attempting to determine what is missing. I think a "business day" category would make a lot of sense from the perspective of staff employees. I've mentioned this as a possible consideration to Anna Sarofeen (cc: Carl and Laura) Anna is aware of my situation and explained the UR leave categories with empathy and concern.

The Web Submission Subcommittee’s thoughts are that vacation time is to cover any sort of personal leave time that is needed, whether it is vacation, errands that need to be run, the need to be at home when a service repair is needed, or to deal with a burglary. While it is unfortunate that the situation above occurred, and time was needed off of work to deal with it, it’s not the University’s “fault” and therefore not their responsibility to cover it. It was unrelated to the University’s day to day business.

The University is very generous when it comes to days off.Employees get between 12 and 20 days per year depending on their years of service. Additionally, employees get 14 paid holidays, including the entire time off between Christmas and New Year’s. In total, we get between 26 and 34 paid days off, which is very generous. In addition to vacation time, employees also accrue a sick day every month and once a certain amount of sick days are reached, you can turn in 10 sick days for an additional 5 vacation days. We are also allowed to carry vacation days over from one year to the next, as long as you don’t exceed your annual allotment of vacation days plus 5 on your anniversary date.Given all of this information, it is the feeling of the sub-committee that this vacation policy is very generous and should be able to cover situations such as the one described above.

2.The University has taken on the guise of being environmentally friendly and going green. It more seems that while the University wishes to reduce paper usage, it is doing everything in its power to destroy the remaining pristine wooded areas on campus. The new road plans appear that in an effort to save parking in the MCA lot, it will cut through the wooded area between Modlin and R Lot. This wooded area appears that it has not been touched by human hands since the founding of the university, and perhaps even before. I think it would be more beneficial to save this area, and reroute the planned road 50 yards or so. The continued construction on campus will ensure that we no longer have one of the most beautiful campuses in the US, but instead will be wall to wall brick pavers and buildings with only a few trees and plants to remember how naturally "green" the University once was.

This web submission was forwarded to University Facilities for a response. John Hoogakker, Associate VP for Facilities, stated that:

“The route for the new connector between Crenshaw Way and Spider Lane was adopted as the particular route having the least impact on identified wetlands in the immediate area. Wetland protection was our particular concern and the minimum impact approach is validated in reviews and permits from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.“

3.Human Resources' policy for a compressed work week is currently stated as thus: Compressed work week is a form of flexible scheduling that gives the employee the benefit of an extra day off by allowing the employee to finish the usual number of working hours in fewer days per pay period. Most commonly employees who work 38.75 hour work weeks would work 4 9.70-hour days with one day off each week. Typically, employees are allowed Monday-Thursday to take their one day off. In addition, they assume normal office hours of Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. When asked for clarification, Anna Sarofeen confirmed that they discourage allowing Fridays to be taken as the one day off. She stated, "Due to Friday being the most desired day off it is discouraged to ensure employee morale is not affected." We find this logic baffling and concerning. We staff a building that is open earlier and much later than the normal office hours, which already require a variety of schedules. We have different roles and responsibilities in providing services to the university, and it is not fair to assume that our responsibilities and schedules would allow us to take advantage of this flexible scheduling only on the weekdays and hours proscribed by Human Resources. We are also concerned that Human Resources is taking away some of the responsibility of the supervisors by dictating at such detail what they can and cannot do regarding the schedules of their employees. This is a poor way to treat professionals and does not reflect well on the regard Human Resources must have for the competency of the supervisors at this institution. We request that the University Staff Advisory Council address this issue with Human Resources and ask them to find a less restrictive and more respectful policy regarding the compressed work week option.

This web submission was forwarded to Human Resources for their input. Laura Dietrick, Director, Total Compensation & HR Administration responded that they had just sent out the following memo to Deans, Directors and Department Heads:

The University supports flexible schedules during the summer from Monday, May 10 through Friday, August 13. Each department is free to create flexible schedules that fit the needs of their employees and the people they serve. Below are the guidelines to be followed when offering this benefit.

1.The office must be adequately staffed during normal University operating hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

2.All employees must resume their normal work schedules no later than Monday, August 16, 2010.

Below are some ways to accommodate flexible work schedules while maintaining the business needs of the University:

Flexible Work Arrangements:

Compressed work week is a form of flexible scheduling that gives the employee the benefit of an extra day off by allowing the employee to finish the usual number of working hours in fewer days per pay period. Most commonly employees who work 38.75 hour work weeks would work 4 9.70-hour days with one day off each week. Typically, employees are allowed Monday-Thursday to take their one day off.

Flex time refers to allowing the employee to adjust the arrival and departure times of his/her standard work schedule to meet their transportation or other work/life needs, while still maintaining a 7.75 or 8-hour work day. Flexible start/end times typically fall within “core” department operating hours (e.g. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.) and must not conflict with the department’s needs. Flex time should not fall outside of 1.5 hours before an employee’s normal work schedule and 1.5 hours beyond their normal work schedule.

It should be noted that flexible scheduling is not mandatory and sometimes cannot be applicable by all departments and that the needs of the University of Richmond will always take precedent over flexible work arrangements. It is up to the discretion of a department’s supervisor to allow flexible work accommodations.

If you have questions please contact Anna Sarofeen at or dial ext. 6389

Additionally, Laura added that:

“These are guidelines managers may use if they are able to offer flexible work arrangements to their employees. As the memo indicates when managers are able to offer compressed work weeks they typically avoid allowing employees to flex on Friday’s for numerous reasons. This in no way means that a manager cannot allow an employee to flex on a Friday.

It is our hope that if a department can utilize flexible scheduling throughout the year that they will do so. This memo is not meant to restrict flexible schedules to the summer. We also understand that there are some departments whose work is not conducive to a flexible schedule.