1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Concurrence with “Response to the Vice President for Business and
Finance, with respect to his memo dated April 29, 2003, to P&S Council
President Rex Heer.”
Iowa State University Professional and Scientific Council
Respectfully submitted by the Compensation & Benefits Committee
Whereas:
The Professional and Scientific Council concurs with the content presented in “Response
to the Vice President for Business and Finance, with respect to his memo dated April 29,
2003, to P&S Council President Rex Heer,” prepared by the Compensation and Benefits
committee.
It is moved: The P&S Council will forward the aforementioned document to the following offices:
President, Provost, Vice President for Business and Finance, and Assistant Vice President
for Human Resource Services.
Revision 1, 6/3/03
Professional & Scientific Employee Council
Compensation and Benefits Committee
Response to the Vice President for Business and Finance, with
respect to his memo dated April 29, 2002, to P&S Council
President Rex Heer.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Background:
The P&S Council passed several motions at the March 3, 2003 and April 2, 2003, general meetings
concerning various compensation issues:
Motion #
Title
2002-03.07
Accessibility of P&S Classification Information
2002-03.08
Concurrence with C&B Committee Subcommittee Report† & Implementation Schedule
2002-03.09
Concurrence with C&B Committee Subcommittee Report's† Policy Recommendations
2002-03.11
Recommendations for the FY04 P&S Pay Matrix
In response to the actions proposed in the cited motions, Vice President for Business and Finance,
Warren Madden sent P&S Council President Rex Heer a memo detailing the University’s response. The
memo contained a recommendation that there be no increase to the P&S Pay Matrix for FY2004 and 9
items planned for “review and consideration”:
1. Give departments the ability to analyze salaries of new staff members within the first 1218 months of employment and the authority to make changes within set limits.
2. Recommend a minimum reclassification salary increase higher than the current 5%
minimum. This would apply to reclassifications of current P&S employees and would
not apply to reclassifications from Merit to P&S.
3. Consider a policy for salary movement to midpoint or market. Determine if it is
reasonable to set a goal for the amount of time is should take to get to this salary level,
while retaining an emphasis on performance and not length of service.
4. Accelerate development of a formal career progression system and enhance
communications with employees about these types of opportunities.
5. Develop a timeline for putting generic descriptions for classifications with multiple
incumbents on the web.
6. Work to merge single incumbent titles into more generic titles when possible.
7. Review recommended changes to P&S Salary Report and make changes where possible.
Some changes may be possible for the May 2003 report.
8. Consider if a review of the P&S system needs to be done and what kind of review would
be appropriate.
9. Develop training or other informational items to assist supervisors, department heads or
others who are responsible for determining salary increases.
P&S Council Response to the VP for Business and Finance
Revision 4, 6/3/03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Council Response:
With respect to the items under consideration, the Council is encouraged by some and disappointed by
others.
Items 1, 2, and 3 are encouraging. Item 1 is very vague, but may have potential. With respect to item 3,
the bar is set too low. In effect, it says the University will consider if it is reasonable to set a timedependent goal for employees to reach average market pay status. When the Mercer-developed P&S
system was implemented, the expectation was that a P&S employee would move from the minimum to
the maximum of the grade in 10 to 12 years. Data taken from the HRS’s Annual Report on Professional
and Scientific Salaries (henceforth called Annual Report) show that the aggregate salary for P&S
employees with 11+ years, in-grade service, is at the 59th percentile. If grades 18 and higher are
excluded, for employees with 11+ years the aggregate percentile is 48, for employees with 5-6 years of
service it is 37%. It should not take employees in good standing a decade to achieve average market
compensation.
Item 3 also states that emphasis should be placed on performance, not on length of service. First, there
is no objective method to tie performance to pay at ISU. Second, the Annual Report focuses on length
of service, the report presents no data on employee performance. If the emphasis is truly on
performance then metrics need to be presented on how pay is linked to performance. The goal should
also be to reward employees for their excellent service and provide abundant resources for career
training and development to ensure excellence from all employees in the future.
Items 4, 5 and 6 describe activities that are currently being conducted. Therefore there is no need for
consideration or review, but rather forward progress.
The Council reserves comment on item 7 until such time that the University details which changes
proposed in Motion 2002-03.08 will be implemented, which proposed changes will not be implemented,
and why.
With respect to item 8, we are discouraged by the statement: “consider if a review of the P&S system
needs to be done…” We believe the time for “if” has passed, and it is time to work on the "when,"
"who," and "how" a review will be conducted.
We agree that item 9 should be a continuous function of the University, i.e. assuring that supervisors and
lead administrators consistently apply/follow policies and procedures, and conduct effective and
objective employee performance reviews. We encourage the university to develop and provide this type
of training in a mandatory continuous fashion for all employees who serve in supervisory roles.
The Council is also disappointed with the proposal for no increase in the P&S Pay Matrix.
FY04 P&S Pay Matrix
Vice President for Business and Finance Warren Madden proposes no matrix shift for the FY04 P&S
Pay Matrix. The rationale for this proposed action was stated as, “Information on FY03 hiring salaries
provided by Classification and Compensation indicates that ISU has been able to hire most new P&S
P&S Council Response to the VP for Business and Finance
Revision 4, 6/3/03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
staff members within the first third hiring range. This information led to the conclusion that ISU could
remain competitive in the market without making a change to the pay matrix this year.” The intended
results of the proposed action were stated as, “This will help accomplish two things: First, it will give
time for a more thorough review of the Council’s recommendations for the pay matrix shift with a
possible recommendation for changing the matrix in FY05; Second, it will allow whatever salary
increase dollars are available to be used to provide current staff members some within pay range
movement.” Our disappointment with this proposal arises from the following issues:
41
42
43
44
† 2002-2003 P&S Council, C&B Subcommittee Report, “Review of the Iowa State University ‘Annual Report on
Professional and Scientific Salaries’: History of changes and evaluation of its effectiveness as an aggregate and individual
analysis tool.”
45
46
47
†† 2002-2003 P&S Council, C&B Subcommittee Report, “Review of the Overlap in Salary and Benefits between the P&S
and Merit Employee Groups at Iowa State University”
∑
∑
∑
∑
The 2002 Annual Report states “as part of the pay grade analysis, Human Resource
Services (HRS) looks at mid-point to market comparisons when reviewing [salary]
survey data to ensure that the mid-point of our pay ranges stays as close to the market
value as possible.” No findings from the market analysis are presented in support of the
FY04 proposal.
A 0% matrix increase will only compound Merit and P&S compression issues.††
A 0% matrix increase will compound inflationary losses for P&S employees hired at
grade minimums and the first third level. Based on the last three issues of the HRS
Annual Report, 13% of new hires started at grade minimum levels, with the
preponderance of them being at lower grade levels.
A 0% matrix increase only provides an illusion of within-grade pay growth if the pay
range is not keeping pace with the market (or the cost of living, inflation, or other
objective measure). Red-circled employees will also lose compensation to cover cost of
living and inflation.
In closing, P&S Council gratefully acknowledges the University Administration’s responsiveness to
P&S employee concerns brought forth by Council this year. We feel that this was made possible by
President Geoffroy’s leadership and openness to addressing employee issues. The P&S Council looks
forward to participating in future discussions and development of the aforementioned items.
P&S Council Response to the VP for Business and Finance
Revision 4, 6/3/03
I 5152948089
ISU Instructional
Tech
~OOl/002
I have received the information you sent regarding resolutions approved by the P&S
Council at their March and April meetings and have met with appropriate staff to begin
review of the recommendations presented.
Due to the fact that the deadline for the FY04 P&S Pay Matrix recommendation to the
Board of Regents was immediate, there was not time to fully analyze and consider all of
the recommendations for pay matrix changes in time to have an impact on the FYO4 pay
matrix decision. We did however want to take a positive step forward by trying to address
at least one of the Council's concerns. The Classification and Compensation section within
Human Resource Services was able to put together data to support the Council's concern
about the lack of pay range penetration for current staff. Due to limited financial resources
available for salary increases in FY04, it was determined it would not be feasible to make a
matrix shift, have funds to cover that shift and provide within range penetration growth for
current staff. Informationon FYO3hiringsalariesprovidedby Classificationand
Compensation indicates that ISU has been able to hire most new P&S staff members
within the first third hiring range. This Info~ation led to the conclusion that ISU could
remain competitive in the market without making a change to the pay matrix this year. This
will help to accomplish two things: First, it will give time for a more thorough review of the
Council's recommendations for pay matrix shift with a possible recommendation for
changing the matrix In FYO5; Second, it will allow whatever salary increase dollars are
available to be used to provide current staff members with some within pay range
movement.
~OO2/002
Rex Heer
April 29..2003
Page 2
Severalpotential changes have been generated based on the report information and
concerns expressed by the P&S Council, Below is a list of the ideas that are planned for
review and consideration during FYO4. If it is determined that someof theseitems are
appropriate for implementation. the approval of ISU administration and in some cases the
Board of Regents will be needed.
.
Give departments the ability to analyze salaries of new staff members within the first
12-18 months of employment and the authority to make changes within set limits.
.
Recommend a minimumredassificationsalaryincreasehigherthan the current5%
minimum. This would apply to reclassificationsof current P&S employees and
would not apply to reclassfficationsfrom Merit to P&S.
.
.
.
Consider a policy for salary movement to midpoint or market. Determine if it is
reasonable to set a goal for the amount of time it should take to get to this salary
level. while retaining an emphasis on performance and not length of service.
Accelerate development of a formal career progression system and enhance
communications with employees about these types of opportunities.
Develop a timeline for putting generic descriptions for classifications with multiple
incumbents on the web.
.
Work to merge single incumbent titles into more generic titles when possible.
.
Review recommendedchangesto P&S Salary Report and make changes where
possible. Some changes may be possible for the May 2003 report.
.
.
Consider if a review of the P&S system needs to be done and what kind of a review
would be appropriate.
Develop training or other informational items to assist supervisors. department
heads or others who are responsible for determining salary increases.
Thank you for the energy and time commitmentthat the Council'ssuggestionsreflect. We
are committed to continuing the dialogue with the P&S Council during this next year. Car1a
Espinoza and Ellen Rasmussen will work to include the Council in the administrative
process that will be necessary to implement any changes.
cc: Ben Allen
carla Espinoza
Gregory Geoffroy
Carrie Haefner
Johnny Pickett
Ellen Rasmussen