Value Through Partnership and Collaboration
in
Safety, Environmental, and Emergency Management
Leadership Council - June 2013
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities
The Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system is an Equal Opportunity employer and educator.
Value Statement
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities are safe,
secure, and compliant with federal, state and Board
requirements and able to effectively deliver on their mission
of providing higher education for Minnesotans.
2
Background: Definitions
 Occupational Safety — protecting health and well-being of
employees and students
 Environmental Health — preserving and protecting the natural
environment (air, soil and water)
 Security — protecting system physical assets and individuals
 Emergency Management — prevent, minimize, respond to, and
recover from natural or manmade disasters or other crisis situations
3
Background: Compliance Areas
 Occupational Safety:
 Standards and regulators: Federal and Minnesota OSHA,
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Minnesota State
Fire Code, bargaining agreements
 Programs (representative list, not all inclusive):
4
• Safety Committee
• Hazards communication /
Employee Right-To-Know
• Safety data sheets
• Personal protective
equipment (PPE)
• Hearing conservation
• Respiratory protection
• Indoor air quality
• Biosafety hood testing
• Asbestos management
• Lead-base paint
• Fire extinguisher and
sprinkler maintenance and
inspection
• Fire alarm
• Confined Space
• Lock Out/Tag Out
• Electrical safety
• Bloodborne pathogens
• Fall protection
• Fork lift and hoist programs
• Training management and
documentation
Background: Compliance Areas
 Environmental Health:
 Standards and regulators: Federal EPA and Minnesota PCA
 Programs (representative list, not all inclusive):
• Waste/stream analysis and
determination protocol
• Hazardous waste
management and disposal
• Infectious waste
management and disposal
• Universal waste
management and disposal
5
• Storm water permitting
• Storm water pollution
control and countermeasure
(SPCC) program
• Air quality permitting
• Underground storage tanks
• Training management and
documentation
Background: Compliance Areas
 Security and Emergency Management:
 Standards and regulators: Higher Education Act (HEA) as
amended by the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA),
Clery Act, HIPPA, FERPA, state and federal executive orders,
MnSCU policies (e.g., AED Program) and best practices
 Programs (representative list, not all inclusive):
• National incident
management system (NIMS)
training
• Campus emergency
operations planning
• Community, county,
regional emergency
operations planning and
coordination
6
• Continuity of operations
plan (COOP)
• Table top and walk through
exercises
• Emergency response and
evacuation
• Campus alert notifications
• Missing persons
• Crime and fire log and
incident report
Background: Current Staffing and Alignment
 Rough numbers:
 158 all or partially engaged in compliance management
 Wide and varied job titles:
Safety administrator
Safety and health officer 1
Security officer
Security communications system
operator
• University security coordinator
• Physical plant director, supervisor,
manager
• General repair worker
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Building utilities mechanic
Grounds keeper
Facilities Services supervisor
State program administrator, senior
Project consultant senior
Customized training representative
MnSCU Admin 3, 5, 6, 7, 8
MnSCU academic professional 1
MSUAASF range E
 Multiple alignments: VP – Finance and Administration, Student
Affairs/Services, Residential Life, Facilities/Plant Management, IT,
others
7
What’s going to bite us…
8
Increased Attention and Scrutiny
 Violations and Fines
 Hazardous Waste Management:




2009 MPCA Stipulation Agreement - $18K
2012 MPCA Stipulation Agreement - $35.7K
Cost of willful non-compliance - $10K-$25K per day
Campus-by-campus reviews:
 54 of 54 campuses visited
 Follow up underway
 This is just hazardous waste compliance…
9
Rising Costs
Total Insurance Premiums
$12,000
$10,000
Cost ($000)
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
2008
2009
2010
Workers Compensation
10
2011
2012
Property and Casualty
2013
Rising Claims
Number of Claims Submitted
1600
1400
Claims
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2008
2009
2010
Workers Compensation
11
2011
2012
Property and Casualty
2013
Rising Total Cost of Claims
Total Cost of Approved Claims
$9,000
$8,000
Cost ($000)
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
2008
2009
2010*
Workers Compensation
12
*2010 includes loses from Wadena tornado - $3.2M
2011
2012
Property and Casulty
2013
Rising Cost per Claim
Cost per claim
$16,000
$14,000
Cost per Claims ($)
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
2008
2009
2010
Workers Compensation
13
2011
2012
Property and Casualty
2013
Personnel Challenges
 Workload
 Span of duties and responsibilities
 Facilities/plant operations, tort officer, printing and copying, human
rights, bookstore, shipping and receiving, 1B.1 investigator, risk
management and insurance






14
Responsibility versus authority to act
Increased position audit requests
Inconsistency in reclassifications
Inconsistency in organizational alignment and reporting
Turn over, retaining current, attracting new
Failed searches
What we’re learning…
 There is a cost with compliance
 Project will not produce up front personnel cost savings
 Will produce savings through cost avoidance
 Compliance requirements can be wide, varied, deep and
complex
 Current construct not working
 Required specialized training, education, and experience,
not effective as “other duties as assigned”
 Compliance through dual- or triple- hatting not effective
 Defused accountability restricts execution
 Recruiting ‘multi-skilled’ personnel difficult and expensive
 There is a real need to define “campus security” within the
system.
15
Future Organization Criteria
 Responsive to increasing regulatory complexity and
volume
 Focus on key, critical compliance drivers
 Clear authority to act
 Streamline communication of standards and
expectations
 Resource sharing and collaboration
 Cross-institutional and/or regional efficiencies
 Ability to attract and retain skilled personnel
 Consistency in organizational and job design
 Aligned with Minnesota job classification system
16
Future Organization Development Process
Compliance
Requirements
Defined
Health, safety,
security and
emergency
management
17
Future
Organization
Model
Defined
Align
management
capacity with
compliance
requirements
at campuses:
site, region,
system
Future
Position
Descriptions
Benchmarks
Defined
Responsibilities,
authorities, and
career
development
Current to
Future
Map Process
Identified
Process and
framework
Workbook:
Process,
compliance
areas,
templates,
and baseline
PDs
Region Organizational Structure
System
Office
B
C
U
A
18
Region Job Structure
Individual/Professional Contributor
Supervisor
Manager
System-wide
IC 1
Security
IPC 6
System-wide
S1
M1
S2
IPC 5
IPC 1
S3
Emergency
Management
Environmental
Health
Occupational
Safety
Draft 03/05/2013
IPC 4
IPC 2
IPC 2
IPC 6
IPC 5
IPC 6
IPC 3
S2
IPC 5
IPC 6
S4
M2
Region Job Structure Salary Ranges
20
Region Groups
Example
2
1
5
6
5
3
4
Notional Regional Staffing Example
Regional Staffing – Customer Alignment
M1
Requirement Requirement
Workload
Workload
College A
Campus
Campus 1
College B
Campus 2
Campus 3
College C
University A
22
Campus
Campus
0.40
0.50
0.40
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.50
0.50
3.0
0.25
0.50
0.15
0.50
0.10
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.25
1.00
1.50
6.00
1.0
3 IC1
IPC3
6 IC1
IPC3
S1 IPC3 IPC3 IPC2 IPC5 IPC5 IPC5
Implementation Criteria





23
Current employees impacted held harmless in transition
Transition will be done over a period of time
Not expecting to create new job classes
Use as much as possible current processes
Respect current institutional boundaries
Implementation
Criteria:
 Current employees impacted held
harmless in transition
 Transition will be done over a
period of time
 Not expecting to create new job
classes
 Use as much as possible current
processes
 Respect current institutional
boundaries
Framework:
1. Decide on region and
future organizational
design
2. Gather information
on current
organization
Next Steps:
 Stakeholder coordination
 Institution collaboration
 Early adopters: Alexandria,
Central Lakes, Ridgewater,
24 MState, SCTCC, SCSU
3. Map to future
organization
Next Steps
 Stakeholder update and orientation
 Campus CFOs and CHROs
 Campus safety, security, environmental and
emergency managers
 Leadership Council
 Bargaining Units as needed
 Implementation
 Use guiding principles and framework – Workbook
25
Future
organizational
model and PDs
Complete
Implementation
Guidelines
Complete
Implementation
over time
TBD: Months Years