Workplace Quality Committee
May 10, 2002
Minutes
Members attending: Lynn Catlett, Bob Edmonds, Rick Gustafson, Becky Johnson,
Bruce Lippke (chair), Dave Manuwal, Cecilia Paul, Geetha Sukumaran, Michelle
Trudeau, Leslie Wall; Absent: Beth Dolan, Linda Hegrenes, Fred Hoyt, Sally Morgan
Agenda topics included:
•
task group status reports
9
recognition event
9
measuring workplace quality
9
meeting effectiveness
9
consensus brown bag
9
CFR Forum
9
•
year-end status report needs
•
head start for Autumn 02 agenda and other new business
Minutes of the 4/24/02 meeting were approved.
Recognition event. The task group reported that planning was well underway, with
response to the fact sheet competition, the recognition awards, and the silent
auction coming in. The committee agreed that frequent advertising should occur,
particularly in connection with silent auction items. It agreed that it would be
preferable not to have a single master of ceremonies but to have several individuals
acting in this role, “passing the baton.”
Measuring workplace quality. B. Lippke reported that Dean Bare had allocated
$1,000 for preliminary survey analysis to be accomplished in Summer 02. A very
preliminary report with simple averages of question responses would be the goal for
the end of the academic year, with work on analysis in the summer and beyond.
The committee discussed how comments about named individuals would be
handled; it was agreed that names would not be reported, but the behavior or
attitude prompting the comment should be included in some meaningful way. It was
agreed that in order to encourage survey response, a series of drawings of survey
cover sheets would occur, with the 1st name drawn (May 13) winning a $50 UW
Bookstore gift certificate; the 2nd (May 15), a $25 certificate; and the 3rd (May 17) a
bottle of wine.
1
Meeting effectiveness. Agenda materials contained additional information on a
School of Public Health Seminar on “Effective Meetings” that may be available in
future to UW faculty/staff. It was also suggested that facilitated role-playing
exercises might be a useful way to model good (or disruptive) meeting behaviors.
The “meeting effectiveness task group” (C. Paul, M. Trudeau) displayed posters it
developed with the rules developed by the committee. Posters will be made
available to committee chairs and be posted in meeting rooms.
Consensus brown bag. It was reported that feedback on this session was very
positive. The consensus task group (C. Paul, L. Wall) was charged with exploring
follow-up activities, including a second brown bag and/or an expanded presentation
to a larger audience.
CFR forum. The committee discussed the postponement of the forum on restoration
– whether to redevelop it for Autumn 2002 or to explore an alternative subject
matter. The committee agreed that for a forum such as the one initially envisioned
by the committee to work, we would need to come up with a contentious but
manageable topic in which participants would agree to engage with conviction and
energy . Some on the committee expressed doubts that this is currently possible at
CFR. It was suggested that the consensus topic had seemed to engage people’s
interests and perhaps we should put committee energies into developing this
expanded presentation to a larger audience rather than to continue pursuing the
forum at this time. Committee members present agreed that a higher priority would
be to work on the consensus topic in a forum format.
Year-end status report. The committee agreed to take up the topic of the 02-03
work plan at its next meeting.
WQC membership. The committee agreed that rotating membership on College
committees was healthy and would increase opportunities for participation. It was
also agreed that some continuity is important, and that some members serve by
function of their administrative positions (e.g., division chairs, associate dean). The
committee decided to poll its own members for desire to serve a second year and to
recommend to the CFR Management Council that a combination of continuing and
new members constitute membership for next year.
The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
Workplace Quality Committee
Minutes, April 24, 2002
Members attending: Lynn Catlett, Bob Edmonds, Rick Gustafson, Bruce Lippke
(chair), Cecilia Paul, Michelle Trudeau; Absent: Beth Dolan, Linda Hegrenes, Fred
Hoyt, Becky Johnson, Dave Manuwal, Sally Morgan, Geetha Sukumaran, Leslie
Wall
Agenda topics included:
2
•
Review of 4/10/02 minutes
•
Task group reports
(1) Measuring workplace quality
(2) Meeting effectiveness
(3) Consensus brown bag
(4) CFR Forum
Minutes of the 3/19/02 meeting were as amended.
Measuring workplace quality. The committee discussed a revised version of the
workplace quality survey. Modifications and clarifications to the definitions of work
unit and working circle were proposed, including stating clearly those definitions on
the face of the survey. The committee agreed that the "working circle" and "type of
work" identification of survey respondents, as they appeared in the draft, was
appropriate. The committee also reviewed the draft cover letter, which would
accompany the survey and be addressed from the Dean, the Division Chairs (after
review by dean and chairs), and the WQC to CFR faculty and staff. The committee
agreed that because of possible glitches in using a web-based survey instrument,
the "tried and true" paper method would be used.
Meeting effectiveness. The task group working on this project reported that posters
were being prepared that would be placed in CFR meeting/conference rooms and
that would be made available, upon request, to any committee chair.
Consensus brown bag. The task group reported that the brown bag was scheduled
for April 30, that it had been announced via the Straight Grain and email, and that an
advertising poster would be placed in several CFR locations.
CFR forum. No members of the forum task group were present at the meeting. The
committee discussed the efficacy of trying to complete this task during the current
academic year, given the incomplete state of planning at this time. Members
present agreed that there was probably not enough time remaining in Spring '02 to
do justice to such an event and recommended that it be postponed to a later date. It
was decided that the committee would ask Sally Morgan to contact other members
of the task group to get their thoughts on postponing the forum to Autumn 2002.
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Workplace Quality Committee
April 10, 2002
Minutes
3
Members attending: Lynn Catlett, Beth Dolan, Rick Gustafson, Linda Hegrenes, Fred
Hoyt, Becky Johnson, Bruce Lippke (co-chair, Sally Morgan, Cecilia Paul, Geetha
Sukumaran, Michelle Trudeau, Leslie Wall; Absent: Bob Edmonds, Dave Manuwal; also
attending: Kern Ewing
Agenda topics included:
•
Review of 3/12/02 minutes
•
CFR Forum
•
Measuring workplace quality
Minutes of the 3/12/02 meeting were approved.
CFR forum: It was reported that the forum on restoration, originally scheduled for April
12, with J. Fridley as moderator, had been postponed due to a conflict in the
moderator's schedule. A new date of April 26 was proposed. Kern Ewing, a forum task
group member was present at the meeting, along with WQC/forum task group member
Sally Morgan, and they led a discussion of the forum, which included the following
questions/comments:
•
The forum as had been announced earlier was organized as a journal club
discussion of several papers on restoration. K. Ewing said that 5 papers were available
on the restoration web page. He said that all the papers presented an essentially
positive view of restoration and discussed several aspects of restoration work. He
wondered whether, as presently envisioned, the restoration forum would provide a
framework for participants to discuss a "contentious" issue.
•
The committee once again discussed the purpose of the forum: to stimulate learning
and discussion across a broad cross-section of the College and engage a diversity of
opinions on some of the contentious issues in natural resources -- with a goal of
providing a forum for the free and honest exchange of ideas in an atmosphere of
respect for intellectual and emotional differences.
•
It was suggested that existing differences of opinion re: the value of ecological,
economic, and social tradeoffs involved in restoration should be able to generate such a
discussion and that there certainly must be differences of opinion among faculty,
students, and other researchers in CFR.
•
It was suggested that perspectives on restoration open to debate also include the
preexisting state to which restoration aspires, the ethical/moral questions it may raise,
and other more philosophical, rather than scientific, inquiries.
•
The task group, as now constituted, includes S. Bolton, K. Ewing, J. Fridley, B.
Johnson, and S. Morgan. It was suggested that additional faculty input be sought and
perhaps additional papers be included in the readings for the forum. Suggestions
included B. Lippke, from the perspective of riparian rules; D. Sprugel, from the
perspective of determining which preexisting condition to restore (and author of paper
on that topic); [Molly Hammond?, UW School of Law]
4
•
It was suggested that in order to generate a more wide ranging discussion, several
different viewpoints/perspectives on the value/tradeoffs of restoration might each be
represented by a journal article or other paper or report.
The WQC asked how it could assist the forum task group in organizing an event that
would attract participants and generate good discussion. S. Morgan and K. Ewing said
they would work on recruiting additional perspectives to be represented in the forum and
would call on the WQC when they needed further assistance.
Measuring workplace quality: The committee discussed the draft survey developed by
the measurements task group (Ivan Eastin, Darryll Johnson, Anne Kearney, Clare
Ryan). Comments and questions on the draft survey included:
•
The committee agreed that the survey task group had come up with a very useful
instrument in a short time, and expressed appreciation for their work.
•
The rationale of having two separate surveys, one for staff and one for faculty, was
questioned. It was suggested that changing the wording slightly to accommodate
replies from staff or faculty on the few questions that varied for these groups would be
possible. Simply allowing respondent's to answer N/A to questions dealing only with
staff or faculty could accomplish this.
•
Committee members' comments suggested that identification of the respondent's
work group seemed problematic and inconsistent, and survey questions' perspective
seemed to jump randomly from unit to unit with no apparent rationale. Some suggested
changes in work unit identification included: principal affiliation with teaching, research,
or outreach; identifying centers as work units; identifying program areas as work units;
how to deal with respondents who identify with multiple work units? L. Catlett agreed to
summarize the committee's questions and concerns and relay them to the measurement
task group.
•
R. Gustafson said that input from the point of view of divisional unit would be very
useful to M&E.
•
It was agreed that support for the survey and some sense of how the survey results
would be used to improve CFR workplace quality would need to be articulated by the
Dean.
•
It was also agreed that maintaining the confidentiality of respondents was extremely
important, and this would need to be considered in devising a method to analyze
responses.
Other items: It was announced that a staff potluck lunch was scheduled for April 18th at
the Washington Park Arboretum. The committee briefly discussed a request re:
diversity training at Pack Forest. It was agreed that this request should be relayed to
Karen Russell.
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Workplace Quality Committee
5
March 12, 2002
Minutes
Members attending: Susan Bolton (co-chair), Lynn Catlett, Beth Dolan, Bob Edmonds,
Linda Hegrenes, Fred Hoyt, Becky Johnson, Bruce Lippke (co-chair), Dave Manuwal,
Sally Morgan, Cecilia Paul, Geetha Sukumaran, Michelle Trudeau, Leslie Wall; Absent:
Rick Gustafson
Agenda topics included:
•
Review of 2/26/02 minutes
•
follow-up on CFR-Training topics
•
task group status reports
9
CFR Forum
9
recognition event
9
measuring workplace quality
9
participation by off-campus sites
9
consensus brown bag
Minutes of the 2/26/02 meeting were approved with corrections.
The committee discussed follow-up on proposed training topics (email etiquette,
meeting effectiveness, and faculty governance and how it works.
Email etiquette: Agenda materials included C&C's web information on "guidelines for
using email." The committee agreed that this information was a sufficient guideline. It
was suggested that a link to this information might be a useful item in the CFR User's
Guide, currently under development.
Meeting effectiveness: Agenda materials included reference and summaries on meeting
effectiveness from various UW and web sources. The committee agreed to review the
material for the next meeting. C. Paul agreed to follow up on a UW source (in the
School of Public Health and Community Medicine) for a seminar or additional materials
on running effective meetings. M. Trudeau and C. Paul agreed to work on making
posters with WQC-recommended meeting guidelines for use in CFR meeting rooms.
Faculty governance: It was reported that Steve West, EFC chair, is working on this issue
as one of CFR's six-month objectives.
Members of WQC task groups then reported on their activities to date:
CFR forum: It was reported that the forum has been scheduled for April 12, with J.
Fridley as moderator.
6
Recognition event: It was reported that the first task group meeting had been held
(notes from the meeting included in agenda materials). The event objective proposed
by the task group was "Recognition for exemplary achievements by individuals and
teams as they respond to CFR performance objectives (short and long term), vision, and
core values," with a secondary objective of "building a more positive work climate with
broader recognition of all the roles important to the success of CFR." Ideas for
attracting attendance proposed by the task group included: free food and drink, door
prizes, silent auction with proceeds to benefit CFR scholarships, quiz show, and
competition for best recruiting pitch for new curriculum options (juried by students). It
was noted that the event was tentatively scheduled for 5/31/02, to take place in the
Lockwood Forest Club Room. It was suggested that scheduling the recognition event
on the same day as the work plan meeting to be scheduled for spring quarter might
increase opportunity for participation by faculty and staff from off-campus sites.
Measuring workplace quality: A draft survey developed by the measurements task group
(Ivan Eastin, Anne Kearney, Clare Ryan) was included in the meeting agenda, and
committee members were asked to review it and send comments/corrections to Ivan
Eastin, who is heading the task group.
Off-campus site participation. S. Morgan reported that the Urban Ecology Initiative
group is purchasing conference phones that will work well in Anderson 22; they are
willing to share with CFR whenever possible. It was suggested that this equipment
might be reserved for either the forum or the consensus brown bag, or that equipment
might be reserved through UW telecommunications.
The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
Workplace Quality Committee
February 26, 2002
Minutes
Members attending: Susan Bolton (co-chair), Lynn Catlett, Beth Dolan, Bob Edmonds,
Rick Gustafson, Linda Hegrenes, Dave Manuwal, Sally Morgan, Cecilia Paul, Michelle
Trudeau, Leslie Wall; Absent: Fred Hoyt, Becky Johnson, Bruce Lippke (co-chair),
Geetha Sukumaran
Agenda topics included:
•
Review of 2/12/02 minutes
•
Follow-up on CFR guiding principles/core values
•
Follow-up on topics for CFR-wide training opportunities
•
Task group and other reports
Minutes of the 2/12/02 meeting were approved.
7
The committee discussed the draft guiding principles/core values proposed by L. Catlett
and distributed to the committee for review via email. One suggested amendment
related to the implementation suggestion of recognizing behavior that does not forward
the core values; it was suggested that the behavior and not the individual should be the
focus, and that preserving confidentiality of the “whistleblower” should be the goal. L.
Catlett agreed to amend the recommendation. It was agreed that the co-chairs would
forward the recommendation to the Dean, in completion of the six-month objective
assigned to the committee at the 12/10/02 strategic planning retreat.
The committee discussed the potential topics for CFR-wide training opportunities. It
was agreed that the three proposed topics – (1) how to run meetings, (2) email
etiquette, and (3) faculty governance and how it works -- were a useful place to start.
Meetings. It was agreed that there was room for improvement in the general level of
efficiency and professionalism, in both process and content, of CFR meetings, and that
such improvement would contribute to workplace quality. The different types of
meetings in CFR were discussed – decision-making, brainstorming, information transfer,
etc. -- which may require different processes and rules. And, although some meetings
may be largely of one type, many contain elements of all these types. It was pointed out
that WQC had already forwarded to the Dean a set of guidelines for committee process;
isome follow-up should be expected from that recommendation. M. Trudeau and C.
Paul agreed to research resources for running meetings, including training opportunities
and helpful reference materials. B. Dolan said that students would also benefit and
should be included in any training opportunities.
Email etiquette. It was agreed that there was also room for improvement in CFR in
email etiquette. It was pointed out that use of email has become more sophisticated
over the years and that etiquette is generally improving. S. Morgan agreed to provide
the committee with the general guidelines for using email prepared by UW Computing
and Networking.
Faculty governance. It was pointed out that one of the six-month objectives developed
at the 12/10/01 strategic planning workshop was that *By April 15, 2002, the EFC (Steve
West-lead) will develop a plan to improve faculty involvement and use of faculty
governance and distribute to the faculty.” It was agreed that the completion of this
objective would be the first step in providing training on faculty governance.
WQC task groups reported on their progress:
CFR forum. S. Bolton and S. Morgan reported that the task group had met and that a
date of 4/12/02 had been set for the first CFR forum, which the committee had earlier
agreed would focus on restoration. A general discussion about the purpose of the forum
(how to help CFR community to “agreeably disagree” about contentious topics) elicited
varying degrees of confidence that the objectives can reasonably be achieved.
However, it was agreed that taking a first step, however small, was important. The
format of the first forum is planned to be a journal club discussion of two or three papers
on the philosophy of restoration. Abstracts of the papers, to be selected by S. Bolton
and K. Ewing, would be made available. It was also possible that the Forest Resources
Library could post copies of the papers in advance of the forum.
8
Recognition event. C. Paul reported that the first meeting of this task group had been
scheduled.
Measuring workplace quality. Although no member of the task group was present, it
was noted that work on this project was progressing and that the CSA union rep for CFR
(L. Catlett) would be assisting in the project.
Remote site participation.S. Morgan agreed to follow up on the conference call demo
phones.
C. Paul agreed to email off-campus sites to solicit input on what technology could best
increase their participation in CFR meetings and other events.
Consensus brown bag. L. Wall reported that the consensus brown bag had been set for
4/9/02, with panel participation by M. Bean, J. Agee, and C. Ryan [This has
subsequently been rescheduled to 4/2/02]. The committee briefly discussed ways to
market the event to ensure a good turnout. The chairs agreed that in upcoming division
meetings, they would encourage faculty to attend and to have faculty announce the
brown bag in classes.
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Workplace Quality Committee
February 12, 2002
Minutes
Members attending: Susan Bolton (co-chair), Lynn Catlett, Beth Dolan, Bob Edmonds,
Fred Hoyt, Dave Manuwal, Cecilia Paul, Geetha Sukumaran, Michelle Trudeau, Leslie
Wall; Absent: Rick Gustafson, Linda Hegrenes, Becky Johnson, Bruce Lippke (co-chair),
Sally Morgan
Agenda topics included:
•
Review of 1/29/02 minutes
•
Recommendation re: CFR guiding principles/core values
•
Task group and other reports
•
Implementation of committee decisions
Minutes of the 1/29/02 meeting were approved.
Guiding principles/core values. The committee continued a discussion of CFR
guiding principles/core values [accessibility, accountability, communication, inclusion
and consensus, integration, preeminence, respect, timeliness] begun at the previous
9
meeting. WQC had been given the following charge at the Strategic Planning Workshop
of 12/110/01:
By February 1, 2002, the Workplace Quality Committee (Lynn Catlett-lead) will review
the draft core values and input from students, staff, faculty, alumni and advisory board
and make a recommendation to the Dean.
Committee members had been asked to review L. Catlett’s summary of survey
responses to questions re: current CFR guiding principles and to suggest revisions, if
appropriate. Committee discussion included the following comments:
•
The current list was deemed by most to be too long with some redundant
“principles”
•
It was agreed that of all the current principles the most common negative survey
response was to the notion of “preeminence.” It was pointed out that this was more
appropriate in a vision statement than as a core value or guiding principle.
•
Additional core values suggested included: coordination, interdisciplinarity,
cooperation, high quality (teaching and research)
•
It was noted from survey responses, and committee members present agreed with
this assessment, that core values/guiding principles have little utility if there are no
formal and informal mechanisms to encourage their embrace by CFR members.
•
It was suggested that single words perhaps do not adequately convey a core value;
it was suggested that the use of a succinct defining sentence might either
accompany or take the place of the single word concept.
•
The agreed that it would recommend a proposal for three core values: open
communication, respect, and accountability. L. Catlett agreed to send committee
members a draft sentence via email defining each proposed core value.
•
The committee agreed that it would also recommend that implementation of the core
values should include their being part of evaluation processes and in shaping formal
and informal awards/incentives mechanisms.
Task group reports:
•
S. Bolton reported that the first meeting of the CFR forum task group was scheduled
for 2/25/02.
•
C. Paul/L. Wall reported that meetings re: the consensus brown bag had been
scheduled and that a date would be set soon.
Recognition event: The committee had a general discussion on the concept of
recognition of staff, students, and faculty in its various levels of formality and scope.
Comments and questions on this topic included:
10
•
Recognition ranges from individual to work unit to CFR-wide to UW-wide. Anything
beyond informal recognition by one individual may involve questions of equity and in
relation to staff must be guided by standard UW policies requiring equity.
•
It was suggested that meaningful recognition was a component of workplace quality
and culture – WQC involvement in this must be pragmatic and take into account that
changing the organizational culture is a work in progress and that recognition is only
one part of the mix. Individual committee members appeared to give variable priority
to this topic, but it was suggested, and generally agreed [?] that it would be good to
start somewhere.
Implementation of WQC decisions. The committee discussed how to implement
decisions and recommendations.
•
Re: recommendation for committee process -- It was pointed out that the WQC does
not always follow its own recommended committee guidelines – how to encourage
other committees to use this as a model? S. Bolton agreed to once again forward
the proposed guidelines to the Dean as a committee recommendation. [The
guidelines are available on the web at
http://www.cfr.washington.edu/Internal/Organization/minutes/min-wqc2001.htm#112001]
•
Re: recommendation for training and professional development. It was pointed out
that the recommendation and report developed by the training task group with input
from the whole committee had not been forwarded to the Dean and Management
Council. \ S. Bolton agreed that the WQC co-chairs would formally forward this
recommendation to the Dean.
•
It was suggested that the committee might compile a list of topics on which it might
be useful to have CFR-wide training (possibly in house), including how to run
efficient meetings and how to implement decisions.. L. Catlett agreed to send a draft
list to committee members via email for further discussion.
The meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
Workplace Quality Committee
January 29, 2002
Minutes
Members attending: Susan Bolton (co-chair), Lynn Catlett, Beth Dolan, Bob Edmonds,
Rick Gustafson, Becky Johnson, Bruce Lippke (co-chair), Dave Manuwal, Cecilia Paul,
Leslie Wall; Absent: Linda Hegrenes, Fred Hoyt, Geetha Sukumaran, Michelle Trudeau
Agenda topics included:
•
Review of 1/15/02 minutes
11
•
Task group and other reports
•
Review/confirm current task group membership
Minutes of the 1/15/02 meeting were approved with one correction.
Training/Professional Development task group. L. Catlett provided copies of and
discussed a report of this task group. The report referenced a 12/00 report by the ORT
task group on training/development/performance reviews in which perceived training
needs were identified. The report proposes a budget request of $18,000 as a baseline
figure, based on two courses (averaging $75/course)/person/year for approximately 100
permanent CFR employees. The report discusses sources of training (T&D, C&C,
department workshops, in-house training and self-service library of manuals, among
others) and methods of delivery (ranging from on-line tutorials, traditional classroom
discussion, to self-service library). The report proposes assessment of training needs as
an integral part of annual performance reviews.
Committee questions/comments on the report included:
•
UW policy is that staff should receive training when requested within a reasonable
period of time
•
Training and assistance in developing and maintaining budgets may be forthcoming
with access to downloading financial data from UW databases
•
Assessment of individual training needs can become integral part of performance
reviews only upon completion of individual job descriptions, as recommended by
ORT
•
A number of staff salaries (how many? -- this information should be available) are
paid by research grants or self-sustaining budgets and some of these could support
training -- however, money available from this source varies widely among work
units
•
Source of information about training/development opportunities -- should it be the
administrator, a committee, CFR user's guide/handbook, the Straight Grain, all of
these? (This comment prompted a question re: the status of the user's guide; B.
Edmonds said that it is still being compiled and that there will be both a printed and
web version.)
A motion was made and seconded that the WQC should recommend to the Dean and
the Management Council that (1) a budget of $18,000/year for staff training be
appropriated, noting that centers and self-sustaining budgets may be able/willing to take
on a share of these costs, and (2) a committee (probably including, even headed, by
Karen Russell) be appointed to implement the suggestions outlined in the task group
report.
Report on WQC task re: CFR core values. L. Catlett provided copies and discussed a
report she had prepared in response to her assignment at the 12/10/01 CFR strategic
planning workshop as the lead in coordinating a WQC review of draft core values. She
said the core values had originally been developed at the Pack Forest retreats, and had
12
been included in the material CFR students, faculty, and staff were asked to evaluate in
the 10/01 survey. The report contained all survey responses re: the values and
summarized suggested additions, deletions, and edits.
Committee questions/comments on the report included:
•
How can these values be meaningful, i.e., what happens if they are not observed?
•
They are a commonly used strategy of organizations/corporations to succinctly
communicate basic operating principles -- they may be a useful place to start in
framing discussion of contentious issues
•
Majority of survey respondents liked the values -- although some edits were
suggested -- but many saw the need for "follow-through"
The committee agreed to review the report and based on this review to propose a
recommendation to the Dean, as requested, of a statement of CFR's core values.
Staff brown bag lunches. B. Johnson reported that a number of staff were interested in
resuming the staff lunches begun under the previous WQC. The committee agreed that
this was a project that could go ahead on its own initiative.
Consensus brown bag. C. Paul reported that the brown bag, which in original
discussions with Clare Ryan was to have included participation by faculty from the
Evans School, would need to go ahead without this participation if planned for Winter '02
because of time constraints on those faculty. The committee agreed that this is a
needed discussion and could be a two-part series, with CFR participants in Winter,
expanded to some external participation in Spring.
Measuring workplace quality. B. Lippke reported that a task group including he, Ivan
Eastin and Anne Kearney would begin working on developing a survey/measurement
tool for assessing workplace quality. UW Human Resources has just begun developing
assessment tools in this regard.
CFR forum. B. Lippke reported that he had contacted Kern Ewing and that Kern had
agreed to work on the initial forum topic, restoration. The Winter Quarter forum task
group was expanded to include S. Bolton; it now includes Bolton, Borsting, Ewing, B.
Johnson, Morgan. The committee agreed that the group needed to pick a date and
coordinate the forum with the Winter '02 restoration course.
Annual recognition event. The committee discussed briefly how criteria would be
developed for recognition, but agreed that a task group should be assigned to further
develop the event concept and organization. R. Gustafson said that he was currently
working on "citizenship" as a criterion in M&E PMT discussions and that he would also
like to see this as part of recognition. Committee members R. Gustafson, B. Johnson,
and B. Lippke and C. Paul volunteered to work on the project. B. Dolan agreed to help
provide student input to criteria for recognizing student contributions. It was suggested
that Ann Corboy be asked to join the task group.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:40 p.m.
13
Workplace Quality Committee
January 15, 2002, Minutes
Members attending: Susan Bolton (co-chair), Lynn Catlett, Beth Dolan, Bob
Edmonds, Rick Gustafson, Linda Hegrenes, Fred Hoyt, Becky Johnson, Bruce
Lippke (co-chair), Dave Manuwal, Sally Morgan, Geetha Sukumaran, Michelle
Trudeau
Absent: Cecilia Paul, Leslie Wall
Agenda topics included:
·
Review of 12/6/01 minutes
·
Task group status reports
Minutes of the 12/06/01 meeting were approved, with one correction.
CFR Forum. The committee discussed who will be in charge of the Winter 2002
Forum. It was suggested that those in charge should include: M. Borsting, K.
Ewing, S. Morgan, and B. Johnson (willing to help the day of the event). B. Lippke
offered to call Kern. It was also suggested that the date of the forum be left up to
those listed above.
L. Catlett reported on the Training/Professional Development topic. She indicated
that she and M. Trudeau had not yet had a chance to meet to discuss this, but would
set up a meeting sometime this week. She said she had done some research and
that the topics that people seemed most interested in learning about were: Access,
reconciling budgets, web tools, etc. She suggested that those who have knowledge
of these areas teach those who are interested in learning. Training and
Development could then be hired to do a two-hour "tips and tricks" course. For each
staff person to take one course per year would cost the CFR approximately
$9,000. M. Trudeau offered to teach an Access class. Lynn said that she hadn't
done research on outside resources, but they would be much more expensive. It
was suggested that research grants should have money to pay for classes.
14
S. Morgan reported on remote site participation. She checked into the purchase of
equipment (phone with good microphone, good speakers, filters, etc.). They run
between $500-$900 to purchase. The other option is to rent this equipment at $30
per use from UW Telecommunications. It was suggested that we contact the
representative and ask to try out the equipment before deciding to rent or purchase.
It was recommended that CFR replace the Dean’ s birthday lunch with a social. M.
Trudeau volunteered as lead on this event. B. Johnson and L. Hegrenes offered to
help out.
Measurement of work place quality. B. Lippke said he would talk to Darryl Johnson,
Clare Ryan, Ann Kearney, and Ivan Eastin in regards to metrics to measure
improvement in workplace quality.
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Submitted by M. Trudeau and L. Hegrenes
cfr.washington.edu
15