Minutes - March 9, 2006

Meeting called to order at 2:00 PM upon verification of a quorum.

Announcements:

• Next meeting is Thursday, March 9, 2006 from 2:00pm to 3:30pm, in Main 212
• Cindy Wilson has stepped down from her role as Chair of the Committee on Committees but will remain a representative on UTSC. The committee needs two new members in order to elect a new chair.
• Mark Gonzalez has accepted the position of Chair on the Communication Committee.

Chair's Report: Erin Waneck

Erin announced that a response was received from James Sarver of UT Systems regarding the HMO option. Erin read the letter that stated that UT Systems is "committed to obtaining and keeping affordable healthcare for all employees and retirees affiliated with the UT System." The letter explained reasoning for the current trends in healthcare options and expressed hope that the upcoming negotiations with HMO Blue "will allow for the continuation of the plan." He ensured UTSC that UT Systems would do "everything in its power to continue offering HMO Blue."

Erin read a note from Vicki Heydron in which she announced her retirement from the University and the UTSC. She said "there is an aura of permanence and professionalism now that was absent when the council was only 2 years old."

Erin further announced that the President's office is aware that the issue regarding emergency closures is a problem and expressed hope that we would hear a report from the committee working on this issue in April.

Guest Speaker: Julien Carter, AVP Human Resource Services

Erin introduced Julien Carter to give an overview of the Dispute Resolution Process. Julien introduced Monica Reed, the dispute resolution officer. He gave a brief overview of the process. Julien then gave statistics on the usage of the process. He said there were 215 individual consultations of which 40% were related to departmental policies and practices, 32% related to university policies and the balance was related to corrective and other actions. From the 215 individual consultations, 51 complaints were actually submitted of which 45% were related to departmental policies and practices with the balance related to corrective and other actions. He went on to say that 40 were addressed by the dispute resolution process, leaving 11 that went on as grievances. Julien said it suggests that conflicts are resolving at the earliest possible point with the most open communication possible. Julien said he was aware of a request to be coming from the grievance committee for some sort of evaluation process. He stated that HRS is working towards an instrument that will evaluate with a little bit greater detail the qualitative aspects of the dispute resolution process. Julien asked for questions regarding the dispute resolution process. Chris Scherer (511) said he understood that an employee who brings up an issue with the DRO has no confidentiality and asked if that was correct. Julien asked Monica Reed to speak about the procedures that she following in the process.

Monica stated that the process is set up so that if an employee files a complaint, the issues need to get addressed. She stated that because we are an open public entity, the complaint is not confidential. Chris further asked if an employee was worried about some kind of retribution because of a complaint, is there a process that does give confidentiality. Monica mentioned that employee relations representative and the employee assistance program are 100% confidential. If those issues go further in the process and become a complaint, the confidentiality is lost. Erin Waneck (692) asked if the information was even confidential within the mediators and the DRO. Monica responded that another confidential service is the conversation inside mediation services.

Sandra Sleeper (550) noted that the process is currently dealing with less than 10% of the staff population and asked if HRS is going so far as to follow up on the issues that were discussed and resolved to see how it reflected on the staff members' performance evaluation or performance management following the staff member presenting the issue. Monica replied no. Julien said that is part of the evaluation process in order to get back to the parties that participated to check if they felt it was beneficial.
Monica said that she does always keep in touch with people after a solution has been reached. She said that some people have needed the service more than once but that going any further would be going into specifics.

Olen Smith (660) asked for clarification that the conversation between the employee and the representative was confidential but a conversation between the employee and the direct office is not confidential. Monica stated that the dispute resolution process is not confidential. She stated that in order to access confidential help an employee could contact an employee relations representative, which is a confidential service.

Debra Kress clarified that the DRO is part of the broader employee relations office. She clarified that to see the employee relations rep, the conversation can be held confidential. She said the purpose of the dispute resolutions office is to resolve conflicts with someone else and that the nature of the resolution involves bringing people together and it is not possible to be confidential. She said the offices are on separate floors and provide different services.

Tom Horn (681) asked what leverage an employee has if they get a blatantly unfair performance evaluation. He asked if there is anything they can do about it. Julien said that there is the dispute resolution process and that if they are not satisfied then they could pursue more of the traditional dispute resolution means. Debra stated that working with UTSC is the reason that there is a provision in the policy that states retaliation is a violation of the rules. Tom stated that a major flaw is that the university reserves unto itself to determine what constitutes retaliation. He said a junior employee would have no leverage to make sure that a superior abided by an agreement made during the process. He said that the general feeling where he works is that if they go over to HRS they'd be asked to give all the information that might be able to use against their boss and turn it over they'd have no where else to go. Julien said that the reason for having the process is to resolve disputes and from that can flow many strategies to how we get there. He said that once an evaluation process is in place to really look at it, we will find opportunities to strengthen it.

Debra Madden (382) asked if there is any kind of training supervisors can take in order to prevent conflicts or do a better job in handling conflicts.

Julien said that since 2004, Monica has done about 18 training sessions on this particular process and about 251 people have gone through the training.

Debra suggested that maybe this training could be made part of the compliance training modules. Monica stated that the part of the position includes a heavy training component and that there are basic classes as well as skill building classes and workshops on situations that bring up conflicts. She said there are also classes for employees and that the feedback is very positive on all the classes. She said she is also more than glad to go out and do a customized training for departments.

Allison Louise-Brown (610) said that she is certified in mediation and mediated a conflict between two employees where she was. She explained the difference between negotiation and mediation and said that she tries to have a 360º evaluative process with her staff and asks for feedback from them regarding thinks that she does in order to make her a better manager. She said she also tries to give feedback often instead of only waiting until evaluation time.

Erin asked what types of issues have been handled in the process, especially if anything is repetitive that the administration might want to look at and said that she hoped the grievance committee would be helpful in distributing surveys.

Tom stated that when a person files a grievance, it goes into their permanent record. He asked if anytime a supervisor or manager has a complaint filed against them, does any documentation at all go into the supervisor's file. Debra said that doesn't happen right now that complaints would go into their files. She said the way the policy reads, if there were systemic issues that were coming up like the same supervisors getting repetitive complaints, the DRO would be empowered to discuss with management regarding that supervisor in order to try and address more generic issues.
Julien stated that he knows HRS needs to develop greater capacity to analyze where we do see some hot spots whether it is a team that is in crisis for whatever reason and could assistance be offered. Tom asked if the instrument to be developed to track the level of satisfaction would be something like an anonymous survey because if most people are pleased with what happens that it is important information and it would be wonderful if it got out there. Julien agreed.

Julien concluded by stating that any further feedback would be welcome and appreciated.

Recorder: Phillip Hebert

Phillip pointed out a correction to the proposed minutes sent out by email regarding the Bylaws & Procedures Committee section.

Danielle Fournier (210) asked if the recordings of the minutes were online. Phillip said no.

Danielle asked if there was a way for a member to get a copy of the recording in order to clarify what was being said. Phillip said he is given one copy of the tapes made from the microphone and that he would be willing to check them out. He pointed out it would be difficult if all 75 people were to want a copy. Danielle asked if the recordings could be put on CD.

Phillip stated that it is possible but that it is not a resource that he would have the time to do and that it would probably need to be a paid service from ITS. Erin stated that she was under the assumption also that the recordings would be available. Phillip stated that upon a couple of members of the executive committee asking for the minutes to be more detailed that the minutes are basically transcriptions and that in Microsoft Word at 12 pt it was 9 pages. He stated it took him 5 hours to do and that he tries to be as detailed as possible. Chris Scherer (511) stated he thought the meetings were not only going to be recorded and available online. Phillip said that at a later time, the meetings would only be audio taped and not videotaped. He said that the only obstruction to them being online is the time, the money, and the resources.

The chair asked for approval of the minutes, it was seconded and passed by consensus.

Committee Reports:

Issues Committee: Amy Jones

2005-26: Covered and Secure Bicycle Parking, submitted by Bretna Hackert (540). Amy read the issue and recommended that the issue be validated and sent it to the parking and transportation committee. It was seconded and passed.

2005-27: Parking on Speedway near PCL at night, submitted by Kim Wallace (130). Amy summarized the issue and recommended that the issue be validated and sent to the parking and transportation committee. It was seconded and passed.

Elizabeth Korves (282) clarified the numbering of the issues as 2005-26 and 2005-27 wondering if we should now be into the 2006-1, 2, and 3 now. Amy clarified that the issues are numbered per the academic year so that when a new issues committee chair is elected, they start at 1.

Nominations and Elections Committee - Sandra Sleeper

Sandra reminded the council that nominations come out on March 20th and are due to the district contact on Friday 24th by 5 o'clock in the afternoon. She said there are 37 positions up for election this year. There are currently 6 vacancies, two of which are in the 37 up for election.

Sandra summarized the District Contact meeting and stated that questions were mostly geared toward eligibility. Sandra reminded us that in order to be eligible to nominate and vote you must have worked here for 6 months. In order to be eligible to run as a representative, you must have worked for 1 year. If you just finished serving as an interim rep or you just finished your first term, you are eligible to rerun this year if your district number is even. She also said that if you've just finished your second full term and been part of this team for at least 4 years and you just transferred to a new department, you are on a one year "time-out" before you are able to rerun.

Bylaws and Procedures Committee - Tom Horn

The Bylaws and Procedures Committee distributed a handout containing 5 suggested revisions to the UTSC Bylaws. Tom read the 1st proposed revision. Erin opened the floor for discussion; there was none. Tom stated that if there is any questions or suggestions, he can be reached by email. Tom read the 2nd proposed revision. He pointed out that this is different from the last proposed change of this section due to some feedback from UTSC members. Erin opened the floor for discussion; there was none. Tom read the 3rd proposed revision. Tom pointed out that since it is in a section that applies only to standing committees, it seemed out of place to say what was said before that all committee chairs should be elected within their committees. He also stated that another person suggested that chairs would be elected from within and by their respective committees and suggested that depending on feedback, that verbiage could be used. Erin opened the floor for discussion; there was none. Tom read the 4th proposed revision. Tom noted that the proposed revision is longer than the extant text to break down further the idea of "nomination information" as it is listed in the title.

Erin opened the floor for discussion. Sarah Shafer (HRS) queried whether the March 1 eligibility date should be added. She also said she was confused by the mention of a personal identification number. She noted that it was used in the past, but that the voting system is now tied in to an employee's UTEID. Amy Jones (160) mentioned that she supports that being taken out and added that mention of technology should not be made in bylaws because of the nature of technology to constantly change.

Phillip Hebert (190) said he doesn't want our bylaws delegating change to HRS. He asked if HRS is ok with the change from two weeks to four weeks and whether they were consulted about the change. Tom answered that they had not worked with HRS but that he hoped they would notify us if there were a problem. Sarah stated that 4 weeks has never been done and that the current schedule is for two weeks. Erin commented that these changes would not affect the current election cycle. Sandra Sleeper (550) commented that maybe the notification should be a three-tier system where the first tier would be directly from the district reps, the second tier would be from the minutes or the district contacts, and the third tier would be the official email from HRS with a link. Philip Guerrero (302) asked whether there was a minimum time in a break of service after which an employee must return on six-month probation.

He suggested that someone who was terminated or left the University but came back and were on probation, it seems excessive to make them wait to have input into the UTSC elections. Tom stated that he understood the suggestion and asked that the suggestions be emailed to the committee. Tom read the 5th proposed revision. He stated that the current section is not comprehensive in how a vacancy can occur and that this revision gets rid of a lot of confusion in the bylaws over whether a person is elected or appointed. He stated that the current section gives the district contacts a lot of power and that they do not work for the council and gave an example where a district contact person did not allow the runner-up to become a representative because he/she felt that there were too many from the district serving on council with the same title. Erin opened the floor for discussion. Bretna Hackert (540) stated that she believes the choice to either have a special election or leave it open should be determined by when the person left in relation to the next election. Philip Guerrero asked that the committee consider who makes the decision to either hold a special election or to leave it open. Sandra understood the concern of the district contact having too much control over the process but that the way the revision is written it would actually give the district contact all of the control over the process because they could choose not to fill a vacancy.

Sandra said she thought that the revision should force the issue of an election. Sarah Shafer said that number two needs to be struck because HRS does not have the resources to constantly hold special elections. She stated that the district contacts know their staff and that is why they were chosen to handle this sort of process. She said that the word "appoint" is not proper because it is more of a volunteer position. Phil Gavenda (652) suggested that mandating a special election every time a vacancy occurs, it would be 7 or 8 per year. Erin stated that we could do paper ballots if the technology would be too much trouble. She also said that a couple of district contacts called her to say that they didn't know anyone in their district or whom they should appoint. She stated that district contacts aren't part of UTSC but they are making appointments to the organization.

Sarah went on to say that paper ballots aren't any different in the programming necessary in order to verify eligibility and such. Sarah also mentioned that she would like to meet more often with the district contacts in order to talk about these types of things.

Grievance Committee - Nadine Schulte

Nadine stated that the grievance committee met with Debra Kress and Monica Reed with four goals. They wanted to learn as much as possible about how the policy is being implemented, identify any areas of concerns by those people using the policy, discuss and identify practical feedback methods and to identify any next steps. She gave Monica Reed kudos for her teaching and classes. She said that Monica is a good mediator with 7 cases of which 5 were resolved in mediation. She reiterated that among the other good things mediation does is to refer employees to other department such as the Employee Assistance Program. She stated that feedback has been received both verbally and by email in appreciation of having someone to listen to them and for receiving more information. She stated that she hopes the committee will be part of second year goal to find out the benefits and find out what is happening by evaluations. She said a lot of people are not aware about the mediation process and its availability before a grievance is filed.

Ad-Hoc Mentoring Committee - Gary Martt

Gary stated the express purpose of the committee is to create a system of mentoring by which experienced staff council representatives can assist newer representatives in all their areas of responsibility. He said that the handbook and the webpage provide resources that mentors could use in assisting newer representatives. He stated that the survey is intended to help the committee determine how best to improve the resources that currently exist or other things that can be done to support newer representatives as well as older ones. He asked that surveys be returned to the committee.

New Business:

Danielle Fournier (210) stated she had a member of Faculty Council ask her whether a replacement had been made for the spot vacated by Jerri Baker upon her resignation from UTSC. Erin stated that those interested should email the executive committee.

Adjournment:

The meeting was adjourned at 3:30pm.

Phillip Hebert
Secretary/Recorder
District 190 Representative
UTSC
Email: recorder@utsc.utexas.edu
Office: 232-9599