Iowa State University
Professional and Scientific Council
Regular Session
Council Meeting Minutes
Thursday, September 5, 2002
Pioneer Room, Memorial Union
2002-2003
President: Rex Heer
Vice-President: Kevin Kane
Secretary/Treasurer: Cathy Good
Call to Order and Seating of Substitutes
The September 5, 2002 P & S Council Meeting was called to order at 2:10 p.m.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
X
X
X
X
X
Becker, Tom
Brink, Marcia
Brinkmeyer, Linda
Brotherson, Dave
Brueland, Brent
Cooney, Sarah
Doty, Ann
Eggers, Tim
Good, Cathy
Heer, Rex
Hintz, Roger
Jensen, James
Joiner, Stacy
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
X
Kane, Kevin
Kapke, Paul
Marks, Del
Mayer, Marie
McCool, Kelly
McCroskey, Barry
McManus, Barb
Mumm, Lynne
Nelson, Mark
Patton, James
Peters, Beverly
Peterson, Teresa
Riedemann, Trevor
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
X
Roberts, Kurt
Sorensen, Jeffrey
Strah, Pat
Strand, Judy
Van Beek, Brenda
VanGinkel, Margaret
Wood, Douglas
Woodin, Dan
X = Present
A = Absent
S = Substitute
Guests were Marlise McCammon, Associate Director of Human Resource Services and Director of Employee
Relations; Anne Krapfl, news writer from University Relations (Inside Iowa State); Ellen Rasmussen, Assistant
Provost; Carla Espinoza, Assistant Vice President for Human Resource Services and Director of Equal Opportunity
& Diversity; Scott Schlorholtz, scientist, Civil and Construction Engineering, substituting for Doug Wood; Max
Wortman, President, Faculty Senate; Lauri Dusellier, Program Coordinator, Student Health Center; and Alicia
Allen, student reporter from the ISU Daily.
Following general introductions, all substitutes were given full voting rights and privileges.
Establish a Quorum
A quorum was present.
Presentation of Committee Motions
The Peer Advisory Committee presented a motion regarding a proposal for a Mentoring Program for Female P&S
Staff.
Whereas:
The P&S Council recognizes the importance of increasing the retention of female staff
members at Iowa State University and enhancing their career development in general.
Whereas:
There are factors that directly impact the success and development of female staff members,
including the policies and procedures for family leave, salary, promotion, and more.
Whereas:
Women employed in the P&S system are predominately in the lower ranks and their salaries
are frequently lower than those of men at the same rank.
Whereas:
P&S Council believes that developing skills to achieve success, as well as understanding the
system and how to negotiate their way through, is imperative to the success and retention of
women.
Therefore it is proposed:
That the Iowa State University Professional and Scientific Council support the implementation of a
"Mentoring Program for Female Professional and Scientific Staff" proposed by the Margaret Sloss
Women's Center. The program is designed to increase the retention and enhance the career development of
female staff members at Iowa State University. It is further proposed that The P&S Council Peer Advisory
Committee shall represent P&S Council in collaborating with the Women's Center to coordinate the
program.
Approval of the Agenda
Kevin noted that Ellen will not be here until ~3:00, so her report will be moved to later in the agenda. Rex noted that
we would have a report from Sarah on Professional Development Day. The agenda was approved as amended.
Approval of the Previous Meeting’s Minutes
The minutes of the August 2, 2002, Council meeting were approved as presented.
Human Resources Report
Carla declined giving a report in favor of opening the floor to questions. Trevor asked for comment on the use
of placement services by those P&S employees who were laid off. Carla said 15 people had received the vouchers;
evidently 6 have availed themselves of the services as indicated by services billed. We have made a commitment to
use the services for 12 months, but it is too soon for a real report as things are still in progress. We are supposed to
get a report from the placement services every 6 months; the first report should come out in December.
Marcia asked for comment on the issue of P-base positions being switched to K-base when they become vacant.
Carla clarified that K-base is a not P&S, it is contract-based employment with very specific, time constrained, and
goal oriented objectives. The accountability for K-base is based on completing a specific set of tasks during a set
time period. Contract employment is also less secure because it does transition with the leadership (if your boss
leaves, most likely so do you) and the employment can be terminated much more easily, e.g., for simply not
espousing the same philosophy as their supervisor. K-base appointments allow jobs to be structured outside the P&S
classifications system. Usually K-base employees are not covered by the same rules and protection as P&S. 90% of
K-base positions are in athletics. The others are scattered around campus (one example being MaryAnn Evans in the
Provost Office is a K-base; serving as an advisor in a very specialized role.). P&S positions are focused on
assignments around a continuing activity at the university. Marcia asked if department chairs could simply decide
they want to change any of their P&S positions to K-base and if someone wanted to make that change, whom would
they contact. Carla indicated that yes, they can, but that doesn’t mean they should, it might not be in the best
interests of the institution, and they would have to build a pretty strong rationale to support the request. The
institutional impact is one of the reasons the President is involved in decisions regarding K-base positions. It starts out at HR as
a classification issue, goes through the budget process, and ends up as a decision as to whether it is good for the
institution. Ellen added that it would go through Legal services as well. Such a classification change cannot be made
upon request, there has to be justification. While there is some concern among P&S about the possibility of being
switched to K-base, Carla indicated that a position has never been converted while there is someone in the position.
Carla also pointed out that K-base should be distinguished from Professional Service Agreements (PSAs). Ellen also
made a distinction of P&S employees who are “at-will” employees (not covered by the rules and protection
normally accorded to P&S employees, serve at the pleasure of the provost or president, and can be terminated
without cause). Examples are Ellen and Carla. Kevin asked about the procedure to change a position to “at-will”.
Carla said this would be very difficult. Ellen added that these positions underwent a pretty thorough review a few
years back, and those positions have essentially remained unchanged. Carla also differentiated term P&S employees,
who are usually tied to a specific funding source and usually tied to research. K-base employees are not P&S
employees, whereas term P-base are P&S employees. Rex perceived an implication that P&S employees are not as
accountable; also, this seems to be relatively new and a bit of a departure from the way things are usually done.
Carla noted that K-base has been around for a long time. In her opinion, it was not used very effectively or very
carefully. Recently, we have used it more for various reasons (already discussed). It has been used a lot at other
institutions; some are using PSA’s and making them K-base. It does not compromise the department head to satisfy
the letter of the policy and the procedure. The reality is that K-base allows the manager to structure the job outside
of our classification system, e.g., “other duties as assigned”. It allows a lot more flexibility for an administrator in
what they can direct a K-base to do. P&S are more protected by policies in the OPG and duties must be within the
range of their position classification. K-base also allows more discretion in terms of kinds of judgments they can
make about those positions and the applications for those positions.
Dan asked about the grievance procedures. Carla noted that her very first issue was grievance management; she
has been here 6 years and it is still her highest priority. There are 7 entities that need to review proposals. They have
done a process analysis of what we have. Marlise and Carla have met with Paul Tanaka and with the Provost’s
Office. She recommends using Ann Doty and Marlise, who both serve on the committee, as routes for input. It is
still in the infant stage, although a draft is now ready to be shared.
2
Carla knows there are myriad of issues out there and asked for an opportunity to see questions in advance if
there are particular issues; e.g., ERI, which does not now exist for regents employees. This would allow for more
proactive, rather than reactive, actions and responses.
Provost’s Office Report
Ellen will continue doing the same things under her new boss, Ben Allen, as before, and serving as the
administrative liaison to P&S Council.
Her understanding is that the President would like a new provost named by Thanksgiving. They have been very
busy over the summer, are in the process of reviewing files, and hope to have applicants on campus this fall.
Regarding the Arrival of Children policy, the Board of Regents office came back with a lot of quantitative
questions – how much will it cost? who else is doing it? The Office of the Provost is committed to continue moving
this along. The provost’s office is working on answers to the BOR questions, with plans to submit it in January or
February. They are also looking at issues of savings, versus costs (they have looked at when and why people leave,
and of those who leave in the first 4-5 years, women leave sooner than men, perhaps directly related to family
issues).
Regarding P&S teaching classes, the Provost’s office is trying to get some accurate data about the number of
P&S staff who teach, the situations in which they do, their credentials, etc. We will have a better conversation when
we know what we are talking about. Susan Carlson is working with Faculty Senate to identify these types of issues.
Jim Jensen asked if fluency in English a requirement to teach. Ellen indicated that for TAs, yes, there is testing for
fluency. For faculty members, there is nothing as formal, but teaching is one of their job duties, and if they are
unable to perform their duties, it is an issue for the department chair. The same is true for P&S who teach. Mark
Nelson suggested that they contact the people employing P&S because of the wide variety of situations. Ellen
acknowledged that is the only way to get the full picture. Marie asked if the study also encompasses the people who
teach the honors seminars, who are often staff. Ellen will keep that in mind. Carla commented that another thing to
keep in mind, if you think about the kinds of things they are trying to respond to, is that there has been an ongoing
criticism of the number of hours faculty spend in the classroom (that faculty need to teach more). Part of our
responsibility (Provost’s Office and others) is to educate and persuade faculty that there is not a threat from P&S
who teach; if anything it augments and strengthens the quality and variety. Jim Jensen asked if this is just campusbased or does it include extension people out in the state. Ellen indicated that if it is for-credit classes, it includes
them. Jim Patton asked how they calculate how many hours the faculty work. Ellen said they pick a specific week in
the year, usually late fall, then randomly pick a group of people who will get a survey. It is self-reported. The
average is ~56 hours per week.
Need to get more comfortable with a variety of ways for people to work and still accommodate personal needs
of families with children, elderly parents, etc. Ellen promotes more flexibility.
Council President’s Report
Rex reported that the Exec Committee took up the issue of how officers are elected, considering different
models for pres, vice president, president-elect, etc. We are also looking at how to make the council most effective
and whether we have the right number of representatives on council (currently 1 per 75 staff members in each area
of representation), in general and given the way External Affairs has been shifted around. We have separated these
issues into two separate ad hoc committees. Kerry Dixon will chair the officer election process committee. Leigh
Elsberry will chair the representation committee. He has not determined the composition of each of the committees,
but will keep working on that and reporting back to Council.
They are replacing the President's Task Force on Strategic Effectiveness and Budget Priorities with the
President’s Advisory Committee on Budget and Planning. Rex was asked to submit nominees for a candidate for
this committee, which will be much smaller than the 20+ on the previous committee. Rex submitted a few names.
Kerry Dixon was asked to serve on that committee. She attends P&S Exec and is active in other committee
assignments.
Good news! The Tuition Grant reimbursement program was facing a funding shortfall. Rather than having to
cut funding (either by a flat % or perhaps reducing the level of funding for graduate classes), Johnny Pickett lobbied
on our behalf and the powers that be, who are very supportive of this program, have come up with the money to
fully fund all qualified applicants. Approx 300-350 credit hours are funded each semester. Rex received emails from
P&S staff who are grateful for the opportunity that would not have been possible without this program; he will
forward these to Ellen, who can use these personal stories to supplement the justification for continuing to fully fund
a program that is significantly over the allowance in these times of tight budgets.
Council Secretary/Treasurer’s Report
Cathy Good reported the following balances:
3
General Fund: $2,812.77 Campus Organization: $436.23
Professional Development: $845.03
We need a volunteer to serve as substitute secretary and take minutes at the October Council meeting.
Council Officer Reports
Lynne reported on the Campus leaders breakfast. President Geoffroy provided a summary of legislative
outreach meetings. President Geoffroy also said that employees have been “enormously helpful” in response to this
year’s budget challenges and was very supportive of P&S Council’s idea of sponsoring a “free” day at Reiman
Gardens for P&S employees, and Warren Madden addressed the topic of pay scale, indicating that the pay scale
should not necessarily move at same rate as salary increase, but is structured so that the midpoint of the scale should
be the average market wage. The minimum and maximums encompass the range of salaries in the market for
comparable positions. The salary compression problem was acknowledged.
Anyone who has topics for the next breakfast, please send them to Lynne. Kevin commented that this is a
golden opportunity to have the ear of the President and vice presidents for 1½ hours each month. Rex noted that if
you do contact legislators, remember to do so as a concerned citizen of Iowa and do not use university equipment.
Rex also talked to Teresa Mclaughlin, director of Reiman Gardens. She thought the “free day” was a great idea.
While there will be an hourly rental rate, it still would be cheaper than what was spent at tailgates in the past. We
would also have to contract for snacks/food. The butterfly wing is supposed to be open in November, and we could
actually rent that facility. Rex will contact people later for volunteers to work on this.
COMMITTEE REPORTS – Due to time constraints, committee chairs were asked to report only their priority
issues for the upcoming year.
Compensation and Benefits
Trevor – Priority issues include the merit/P&S pay overlap; salary compression; review of the P&S pay scale (last
done late 1980s-early 1990s); insurance health care costs; gaps in insurance coverage for extension; k-base issues;
early retirement.
Policies and Procedures
Dan – Priorities are to implement the new P&S Handbook with web links, and to review, revise, and reorganize the
policies associated with P&S employee dismissal, conduct, and grievance.
Representation and Awards
Bev – Priorities are to develop staff awareness of the university councils and committees that P&S Council appoints
representatives to; to update the awards selection timeline to fit the revised University awards schedule; to
encourage participation in the awards application process by more departments; and to develop ideas for no- or lowcost employee recognition and encourage implementation.
Communications
Marcia – they are continuing to improve communications between council & constituents, university administration,
and faculty. Priorities are to start an e-newletter; re-examine the policy on the e-mail tree; streamline and clean up
the web site, and Reiman Gardens day.
Retention and Recruitment
$30K was allocated this year; 24 proposals were received totaling ~$144,000. Following evaluation, nine proposals
received full funding and 4 received partial funding. Priorities are mid-year reports, open forum presentations, yearend reports, and to review the “process” and make any recommendations for next year.
Peer Advisory
Brenda reported that no priorities were set as that is not our purpose. Have a motion to present to Council regarding
a proposal for a Mentoring Program for Female P&S Staff. She received one contact last month.
Old Business
Email tree is still not updated. Rex is currently sending out messages to all P&S staff.
New Business
Motion on the Mentoring Program for Female Professional and Scientific Staff. Motion to table; no second.
Following discussion, there was a motion to remove “all the whereas’s” Seconded. Motion passed.
Motion to table; seconded. Motion failed. Motion to vote on the motion as amended. Seconded. Motion passed.
4
For the Good of the Order:
Jim Jensen requests that motions be presented to Council members sooner so that they can be voted on in a timely
manner.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Cathy Good
P & S Council Secretary/Treasurer
5