University of Nevada, Reno
Faculty Senate
Administrative Faculty Policies, Procedure and Personnel Committee (AFPPP)
2011-12 Year-End Report
Submitted by: Dean Dietrich (Chair)
May 2, 2012
Committee Membership
Amanda Evans, Library and Information Technology
Frank Flavin, Cooperative Extension
Zanny Marsh, Reynolds School of Journalism
George McKinlay, Nevada Center for Excellence in Disabilities
Robert Morrison, Department of Art
Vanessa Nicholas, Advising Center
Richelle O’Driscoll, Division of Health Sciences
Tom Quint, Mathematics and Statistics
Stephen Spain, Chemistry
Robbyn Tolles, Office of Medical Education
Stephanie Woolf, Environmental Health and Safety
Kim Zaski, Extended Studies
Dean Dietrich, Development and Alumni Relations
Michelle Hritz**, Faculty Senate Manager
David Ryfe**, Reynolds School of Journalism, Faculty Senate Chair
**Indicates an ex officio member of the committee.
Committee Annual and Standing Charges
Standing Charges
Charge 1: Review AFPPP Committee charges over the prior three years, and any
recommendations adopted by the Faculty Senate. Report on the implementation status of
these recommendations.
Actions Taken: The committee reviewed the reports from the prior three years, and followed up
on the status of any recommendations still outstanding.
Research and Findings:
The report produced in 2008-2009 was not accepted by the senate, and likewise, there
are no recommendations from that report outstanding. It should be noted, though, that
the 2009-2010 report referenced some of the recommendations brought forth in the
previous year’s report, and some of them informed or served as the basis for
recommendations in that year’s report. Last year’s report commented on the status of
those recommendations, and there have been no significant changes since then.
The actions taken in response to the 2010-2011 committee report have been
summarized below.
Recommendation 1: In conjunction with the Faculty Senate and/or the AFPPP,
Human Resources should offer a workshop/information session sometime in the
spring of 2012 for supervisors and administrative faculty about the possible
avenues that exist for promotion; if successful, this workshop could be added into
the standing rotation of training workshops currently offered by Human
Resources. To ensure maximum participation and maximum effectiveness, the
training session could be conducted simultaneously in an online classroom (such
1
as WIMBA), and the session could be recorded and posted to the web for future
playback and reference.
Status Update: The AFPPP coordinated a Brown-Bag Lunch for administrative faculty on
March 23, 2012 in the Faculty and Graduate Student Reading Room in the MathewsonIGT Knowledge Center. The topic of the Brown-Bag Lunch was “Who Moved My PDQ,”
which was the title of a presentation given by Kim Beers and Tim McFarling of Human
Resources in line with the recommendation above. The Brown-Bag Lunch discussion
was carried live on WIMBA, and is available at this link. Please see discussion of
Charge 6 below.
Recommendation 2: The H.R. web page for supervisors should be revised so
that under the "faculty" sub-header, there is a link to a page that explains the
promotion process for administrative faculty, in addition to the existing link to the
promotion and tenure process for academic faculty. The linked page could also
contain a link to the training session referenced above once that session has
occurred.
Status Update: Independent of the work of the AFPPP committee, Human Resources
made changes to the design of the website already, which effectively rendered this
recommendation moot. The redesigned website contains a link to a page explaining the
stages of the PDQ/promotion process for administrative faculty and the work of the
Administrative Faculty Placement Committee. The new page contains a link to a
question and answer page about creating and revising PDQs, as well as a link to
additional information about the Placement Committee. This information was also
discussed in the Brown-Bag lunch presentation referenced above, and a link to the
presentation has also been posted on the committee’s website.
Recommendations 3 As the calendar year draws to a close (and evaluation
seasons draws near), Human Resources and the Faculty Senate should cosponsor a panel discussion about the different possibilities for the evaluation of
administrative faculty. The idea for the panel discussion would be to encourage
departments and divisions which employ administrative faculty to consider
different options for the annual evaluation of administrative faculty in a manner
which might make the process more positive and productive for all involved.
Although the current form and process evolved partly as a way of recognizing
and allocating merit, in an era when merit raises are no longer a reality, it is
possible for both administrative faculty and their supervisors to discount the
potential value inherent in the annual review process.
Status Update: The committee was a little slow to get organized and made no progress
on this particular recommendation before the end of December 2011. Independent of
the work of the committee, though, at the same time, Human Resources hosted a
presentation/discussion about evaluations which met the goals of the presentation
envisioned by the recommendation. Some members of the AFPPP committee had
attended the Human Resources presentation in December 2011, and noted that it
continued to be available online. Because it seemed superfluous to try to hold yet
another workshop with the same aims, the committee chose to note the location of the
Human Resources presentation in this year’s report. The H.R. presentation about the
varieties of administrative faculty evaluations can be found online at this link (at the
bottom of the page).
Recommendation 4 Continue to monitor reports about administrative faculty
evaluations that have not been completed.
2
Status Update: The committee discussed this issue on a few occasions during its
meetings throughout the year. The committee received no new reports about this
problem and remained satisfied with the details reported by Human Resources in our
meeting with them last year, which has been quoted again below:
Both Kim Beers and Tim McFarling questioned how frequently this actually
occurred. They said that H.R. sometimes hears of cases where nothing is done,
but they always follow up with the unit. In fact, they said that H.R. is so good at
prodding units for evaluations that there were very few that they didn’t get last
year. They said that one reason that they prod so much is that they need to get
the information from the evaluation before issuing renewal forms. Furthermore,
the evaluation forms have been modified this year so that the top part of the
evaluation form summarizes the key points which H.R. uses to fill out the
worksheet that accompanies the renewal documents. Even if someone hasn’t
seen their evaluation, therefore, he or she should be able to look at the
worksheet that goes with the annual renewal documents to find his or her merit
score.
Charge 2.
Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and
charges of the AFPPP Committee. Consider whether the committee is necessary and
effective, and how it could be improved.
Research and Findings:
The AFPPP committee continues to serve as an important resource and sounding board for
exploring issues related to Administrative faculty. One of the largest challenges faced by the
committee in the current economic environment, however, seems to be separating
administrative faculty concerns from those of faculty at large and university faculty and staff in
general.
Recommendations:
(1) The AFPPP should continue to exist as a standing committee of the senate, and it
should continue to be a mix of both administrative and academic faculty.
Charge 3.
Proposals affecting AFPPP Committee charges should be sent to the
AFPPP by the Executive Board before they go to the full senate for a vote. The AFPPP
committee should serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board for issues related
to AFPPP committee charges and objectives.
Actions Taken:
As reported above, no such proposals were forwarded to the AFPPP
committee this year.
Charge 4.
In consultation with the Executive Board, appoint a liaison from the AFPPP
Committee to the University Administrative Manual Committee and to allow for the
appointment of a liaison to the Administrative Faculty Salary Placement Committee.
Identify any other campus committees with similar missions or concerns, and appoint
liaisons as appropriate to facilitate communication between these committees and the
Faculty Senate.
Actions Taken:
Stephanie Woolf joined the AFPPP Committee this year, and she already
serves on the University Administrative Manual Committee. She agreed to serve as a liaison for
the AFPPP Committee, as well.
3
Charge 5.
The Executive Board will request input for AFPPP committee charges from
the senators representing administrative units. The AFPPP chair and Faculty Senate
Chair will discuss and agree upon the charges and committee membership.
Actions Taken: As reported above, the executive board did consult with the AFPPP committee
chair about this year’s charges.
Charge 6.
Conduct brown-bag lunch meetings of the administrative faculty, at least
one per semester, to provide them an opportunity to discuss the issues of the day or to
provide them with information about benefits, policies and procedures, etc. Coordinate
with the senate office to announce these events. One might focus on how, in light of all
the cuts, we might learn to do business differently at the university, not just within
departments or units, but across divisions, one should be loosely focused on a subject
of possible interest to administrative faculty and possibly hold in concert with or as a
way of promoting the workshops/discussions referenced in the additional charges
below.
Actions Taken: No brown bag lunch was held during the fall semester; one was held in March.
Research and Findings:
As noted above, the committee was a little slow to get started on this charge, and discussions
about the Brown Bag Lunch didn’t begin in earnest until late December and early January.
Several committee members who had expressed an interest in working on the Brown Bag
Lunch proposed dates and times in January and then in February. When the committee met to
discuss and plan for the Brown Bag Lunch, we decided it would work best in conjunction with
the sort of workshop/discussion about PDQ’s recommended in last year’s report. Eventually,
the committee opted to extend the date until March and after some coordination with Human
Resources, the Brown Bag Lunch was scheduled and the event took place, as noted above.
Approximately 21 people attended, including three members of the committee and the two
presenters. And an additional 15 people logged on at the time of the event to follow it on
WIMBA classroom. Those who attended, either in person or online, commented that they
found the discussion to be helpful and informative.
The committee opted not to have an open-ended, free-form Brown Bag lunch discussion
because some committee members said they didn’t think such a discussion would be
worthwhile enough to attract much of a crowd. Other committee members pointed out that such
a discussion was likely to come back again and again to the same range of issues and concerns
that the committee has heard and discussed in the past: concerns about evaluations,
promotions, workload, and merit (or the lack thereof).
Recommendations:
(2) Instead of a standing charge, the charge to conduct Brown-Bag lunches should be
an optional standing charge. In reality, the process of conducting even an openended Brown-Bag Lunch meeting for administrative faculty consumed a large
amount of committee time and therefore, it detracts from our ability to focus on other
charges. In years when the committee feels it would be worthwhile to conduct
Brown-Bag lunches, it should be encouraged to do so, but it should not be an
expectation. Given the challenges and delays that we encountered in planning even
one Brown-Bag lunch, the expectation that there be more than one brown-bag lunch
also needs to be amended.
Charge 7.
Report on the status of pending or completed administrative requests for
action (RFA’s).
4
Status Update: The committee believes that the only pending requests for action resulting from
past recommendations concern code changes having to do with the distinction between
administrators and administrative faculty. This issue continues to be on hold for the time being.
Additional Charges:
Additional Charge 1.
Investigate the effects on administrative support resulting
from budget cuts. Canvas where dramatic cuts have been made (ex: career services)
and detail what has been lost. Make recommendations regarding what may be done now
to minimize the impacts of the loss or improve remaining services.
Actions Taken: The committee was able to obtain a copy of a spreadsheet detailing the depth
of all faculty and staff cuts and changes across the board from Fiscal Year 2009 through Fiscal
Year 2011. The spreadsheet contained details about positions that were reduced, moved to
other funding sources, remained vacant, or were subject to retirements or NNRs. The
spreadsheet was of limited value, though, in that it didn’t provide details about which positions
were administrative faculty positions and which were academic or clinical faculty positions;
furthermore, and more of a problem for this inquiry, is that it only provided the titles and not the
division or department where most of the positions were based.
After some discussion, the committee decided that the best course of action for answering this
charge would be to contact directly divisions and departments which contain large numbers of
administrative faculty to survey them about what the cuts have meant for those divisions.
Committee members were assigned specific divisions or departments and were to report back
on their findings. Although most of the interviews were conducted, what follows is more of a
series of snapshots than a comprehensive and thorough report of what has happened in all the
administrative divisions.
The committee chose to focus on five questions for each area we surveyed.
o
What did the administrative faculty reductions do to your unit?
o
What services did you lose?
o
What impacts has it had on your mission?
o
Have you noticed changes in the motivation or productivity of your staff?
o
Have sick leave totals gone up or remained the same since the reductions
were implemented?
Research and Findings:
Although the committee did not receive reports from all of the administrative units in time for
their inclusion in this report, we did receive reports from discussions with leaders of several
different units with significant numbers of administrative faculty. We received reports from
Academic Advising, Development and Alumni Relations, two units in DHS (CASAT and CRW),
Extended Studies, Information Technology, the Provost’s Office, Student Services, Teaching
and Learning Technologies, and the University Libraries. The text of those reports is included
below, in slightly edited format.
Please note: with the exception of e-mails quoted in part or in full, it should be understood that
the comments below are retyped from notes and not verbatim transcriptions of the discussions.
5
Although the specific details of each report differ significantly, the themes that appear in all of
the reports will be familiar to anyone who has been on campus since the first wave of cuts and
furloughs started to be implemented. Faced with dramatic cuts in staff and funding, all units
have had to focus on doing only what was most essential to their missions, often at the cost of
long-term growth. Morale has suffered as units have struggled to do more with less, and
without the possibility of merit raises or financial rewards, it has become more challenging to
retain good people. At the same time, the overload of work in many offices has meant that work
has slowed, so it takes longer to get things done than before. Even non-state funded offices
and divisions are not immune from the effects of the cuts elsewhere on campus.
Academic Advising Center
Discussion with Dr. Nancy Markee, Director of Advising
In June 2008, the announcement was made that the university would be closing the
Career Development Office. In June 2009, the office was closed and the assumption
was that each academic unit (e.g. the colleges) would each be responsible for the career
placement/development services of their students. In most cases, new positions were
not created, but additional career services responsibilities were given to existing
administrative faculty members in the colleges.
In 2009, The Advising Center inherited two administrative faculty from Career
Development, a career counselor and a pre-professional advisor. Once they were
moved to the Advising Center, their roles/titles changed and their services were
available only to the undecided (majors) population. Their titles were changed
accordingly, however their salaries and ranges remained the same.
In 2010, the Advising Center lost the pre-professional advisor position as a result of
budget cuts. The position was not replaced.
In 2011, the Advising Center lost .5 FTE of their full time Administrative Assistant
position resulting in the exodus of their Administrative Assistant of 9 years.
The Advising Center converted the position to a .5 FTE academic advisor position to
help with the increasing advising load and is currently without an administrative assistant
position.
Currently, the Advising Center is still without a career development component, a preprofessional advising position, and an administrative assistant. Our mission has not
changed although we have had to be creative with resources to meet the needs of our
ever growing student population. Motivation and morale are somewhat of a concern as
our office feels a bit vulnerable based on our history of losing valuable positions and
personnel.
We also received a memo from Brandis Bernard, Academic Advisor Coord., Academic &
Career Exploration, which has been included in full in the appendix of the report. She
previously worked in the Career Development (CD) office, and she wrote to describe the impact
that the closure of that office has had on students and the university as a whole. An excerpt of
her memo which speaks to the committee’s questions is quoted below:
I can speak for myself and the entire CD staff when I state that the news of the
department’s elimination was a surprise. We were certainly aware of the pending
budget cuts and the need for the University to reduce costs. We were likely blinded by
6
the possibility that Career Development would be cut for several reasons. For one, our
department, as a whole and the individual staff members, were highly respected and
appreciated by faculty, staff, employers and students (prospective, currently enrolled
undergraduates, graduates, and alumni). Evaluative feedback and data consistently
showed that our constituents benefited from our programs, services, and expertise and
the department had high utilization data. Secondly, 99.9% of comparable institutions of
higher learning have a CD office. A variety of models exist, some are centralized as
UNR’s was and others are decentralized (individual colleges). Third, given the state of
the economy, students more than any other time were in need of CD’s services.
Beyond individual staff members’ concerns about their financial security and the
prospects of gaining employment in a worsening economy, we found ourselves
disturbed and worried about the impact the elimination of the department would have on
our constituents, particularly the students. Although administrators suggested that
individual colleges fill the void created with the loss of Career Development, we foresaw
that most colleges would be unable to do this given their own shrinking resources.
Business Center North/Human Resources was also asked to offer job search workshops
(resume writing, interviewing skills, etc.) and attempted to fulfill this request. They too
could not accomplish the task due to the fact their staff were already overwhelmed with
their existing responsibilities. As it turned out, a huge void was created for students,
alumni, employers, and faculty with the loss of career counseling, volunteer/internship
coordination, job search guidance and events, and professional /graduate school
advising.
Elsewhere in the memo she writes about the personal challenges the closure of the office posed
for her and her colleagues, as well as the difficulties involved in relocating her position from
Career Development to the Advising Center.
Development and Alumni Relations
Discussion with John Carothers, VP of Development and Alumni Relations and Bruce
Mack, Associate VP of Development and Alumni Relations
What did the administrative faculty reductions do to your unit?
They reduced the scope of our operations, they reduced the number of fundraisers, they
reduced depth—now when someone leaves or is out sick there is no backup like there
once was. The reductions forced us to leave vacant junior positions that would fill more
senior positions in time (or if the senior people left or retired). It reduced the ongoing
expansion of research. They moved us into more of a station-keeping mode and out of
a growth mode; we’re less able to respond to change than we were before. The areas
that were left vacant or not filled would have brought in more revenues to the university
and would have gone a long way towards paying for themselves.
Staff limitations mean things are delayed from being completed. Furlough days also
impact the work we can get done with the staff we have left. We needed to retain
enough staff to maintain funds and to operate and function. We invested more in
automating gift-processing and gift-reporting to save personnel, but at the same time,
we’re not able to move forward with other projects such as a paperless records
management system.
The depth and breadth of the cuts can be understood by contemplating the number of
people in the division from 2005-2006 and today. At the peak, the division had lines for
70 positions (both administrative faculty and classified staff positions), and at least 67 of
7
them were filled. Today we’re down to 51 people. This division is funded by multiple
streams, and we’ve been hit hard on several fronts. Not only have there been cuts on
the state side, but interest rates and revenue from management fees have declined, as
well, so that means that the division could not replace all cuts with Foundation funding.
What services did you lose?
We lost or didn’t fill development positions in many areas including: Division of Health
Sciences, Cooperative Extension, Core Scholarships, Planned Giving, Alumni Staff,
Annual Giving, Prospect Research, the Executive Director of Development, and clerical
and bookkeeping support across the board.
What impacts has it had on your mission?
The cuts have decreased our ability to solicit gifts in a broader range of areas; in terms
of staff, we had to “eat our seed corn” as Dr. Glick might have said, since we don’t have
a group of younger people to train or move up into higher-level positions; several hired
years ago have moved up, but the junior positions aren’t being replaced.
Projects that could pay off more in time are not being done. For example, high net-worth
people who are new to Reno aren’t being connected with, and we’re losing opportunities
to get them involved.
We’ve also lost opportunities to get deeper involvement in areas where we weren’t
focused heavily already; for instance, there was a vacant position for a development
director in Las Vegas for many years, and because we didn’t have someone there fulltime, we have been limited in what we could do there.
Have you noticed changes in the motivation or productivity of your staff?
Yes, between the furlough days, the salary cuts, and years without either merit or
COLAs, people are getting discouraged. If things don’t pick up, we’re worried about
losing good people, or at least their enthusiasm. And when we can fill vacancies, our
ability to recruit new people is also constrained by the current situation. A lot of people
feel fatigued by a situation that keeps asking them to do more with less.
Have sick leave totals gone up or remained the same since the reductions were
implemented?
No, the sick leave totals seem to be about the same. There doesn’t seem to be any
change in trends there. It really depends on the situations of individual staff members.
Division of Health Sciences
Robyn Tolles of the School of Medicine noted that the School of Medicine has been in a growth
mode over the last few years, so it has not seen the same sorts of cuts as other areas; she also
noted that some other areas in the Division of Health Sciences—such as the Orvis School of
Nursing—have seen growth, as well. Contacts in Human Resources and the Division Vice
President’s office suggested that two areas within the Division of Health Sciences which had
seen more consequences as the result of cuts included Campus Recreation and Wellness
(CRW) and the Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies (CASAT). The
response of those areas are included below.
8
Discussion with Jim Fitzsimmons, Director, Campus Recreation and Wellness
What did the administrative faculty reductions do to your unit?
Campus Recreation and Wellness was formerly state-funded, but since the cuts, we
have absorbed $300,000 in costs. We are now fully self-supporting, and we have
downsized our structure. We have not filled 3 ½ positions which became vacant: a parttime aquatics positions, a full-time fitness position, a full-time intramural position, and a
full-time assistant director. We run 18 hours a day, seven days a week, and we’re only
closed five days a year. We have a full-time staff of three. We receive 700,000 student
visits a year, and we are heavily dependent on student employees. Some of those
student positions really ought to be professional positions, instead. Right now you could
say we’ve moved into more of a treading-water model of operations. But we’re also
fortunate that we’re able to generate our own revenue through the optional membership
fees paid by students, faculty and staff.
As stated above, we have a full-time staff of three, a director and two classified
positions, though one of those might eventually be converted to a professional position
in time. Right now the director retains the duties of the director and the assistant
director, though recently we’ve been fortunate enough to be able to open a search for a
program coordinator.
What services did you lose?
We have narrowed our scope and eliminated the outdoor recreation program. We
greatly reduced intramural sports. We went from 23 sports to 6 sports and from 7 days a
week with 6 start times to 4 days a week and 3 start times. We narrowed it down to only
those sports that generate revenue. If it didn’t generate sufficient revenue, we
eliminated it. But as a result we have much less diversity in the sorts of intramural
sports offered than we did before.
What impacts has it had on your mission?
Our ability to provide recreational opportunities to students, faculty and staff has been
greatly reduced. At the same time, though, because we have maintained our core
services, most members haven’t perceived the extent of the reduction in our operations.
Have you noticed changes in the motivation or productivity of your staff?
All of our positions are funded by the revenues our unit generates, but in the current
environment, we are prevented from giving merit raises, even when there is money
available in the funds we generate. That grinds on the employees in the unit and it is a
morale killer, so there is an ongoing battle to retain good employees. Fortunately with
the current employees, their sole motivation is not money, but the issue does come up.
Have sick leave totals gone up or remained the same since the reductions were
implemented?
I have not noticed anything unusual in this area.
While CRW has moved to a fully self-supporting model, CASAT has always been a completely
grant-funded entity, but these responses are particularly noteworthy for the insight they provide
into how the cuts in other areas of the university have affected the operation of even grantfunded work at the university.
9
Discussion with Gretchen Casey, Director of Training, Operations, Logistics and
Technology, CASAT
What did the administrative faculty reductions do to your unit?
CASAT is different from most units on campus in that we’re a fully grant-funded entity.
Currently we have 52 employees and 24 administrative faculty. We didn’t have any
personnel reductions directly as a consequence of the administrative faculty reductions,
because we are grant-funded, any personnel reductions were a consequence of
changes in grants during that time.
Nevertheless, the changes have affected the way that we operate now in several ways.
During the first two years of the furloughs and the pay cuts, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011,
we had to take the full furlough and the pay-cut, which posed numerous problems for us.
2011-2012 is the first year with six furlough days and, because we’re grant-funded, this
year we don’t have to take the pay cut on top of the six furlough days. This complicates
things, though, with respect to the way the positions are paid for.
Although we’re fully grant-funded, one of the changes has been that before the cuts,
there was no penalty to putting someone on bridge funding between grants. Now, 90%
of our funding must come from grants, and no more than 10% may come from bridge
funding. The bridge funding comes from indirect recovery costs; it is not state funding,
but the university classifies it as being different from grant funding. What happens now
is that if someone were to receive more than 10% of their salary as bridge funding,
they’d be classified as soft-dollar administrative faculty and not as “grant-funded”
administrative faculty and therefore they’d be required to take both the full pay cut and
the furlough days. Even when the funding came through, the cuts couldn’t be made up.
This poses challenges for us in terms of grants administration, because it is much more
complex than it used to be, and it takes much more time to manage the funds or the
sources of funding than in the past.
To complicate matters further, we have to use bridge funding more these days as a
result of the cuts. Work has slowed in the areas of the university that process grants
and sponsored research; CASAT has grants in, but because of delays in processing
time, no account number to pay them from.
The length of time it takes to get work done is very different. With all the furlough days,
work piles up. In the first year, people worked really hard to keep on top of things, but at
some point they couldn’t keep up with the increased workload. This poses a problem
because as a grant-funded office, we have a statement of work and it has to be done in
the assigned time. The furloughs added more time off, but as a result, many people had
to lose annual leave days to get the projects done in the assigned time. Not using the
leave, has meant that when people have left, they have more accumulated leave, and it
has come at a big expense to the unit as we have to pay off the accrued leave, and 48
days is a lot for the unit to have to pay from grant funds. So next year we have
proposed a change where we will only pay up to 24 days of accumulated leave, and not
the full 48.
What services did you lose?
As a grant-funded entity, the main services we have lost have been the support services
throughout the university. Many services used to be done centrally in the division or the
college level, but more and more of them have trickled down to the department level,
which makes more work for us. For example, the division used to have a leave keeper
10
to track leave throughout the division, but now we are responsible for tracking the leave
of all of the employees in our unit, and that takes a lot of time away from other work we
need to get done.
But more generally, we notice it in our interaction with other offices on campus, where
the increased workload combined with the cuts in staff have slowed operations
significantly. Things take longer than they used to when we have to deal with offices
such as P-Card and Accounts Payable; Purchasing is about the same, perhaps because
units are not spending what they did before with outside vendors. The OSPA office,
though, is certainly slower to process grants than in the past, and this is all because it
has fewer staff members than before, but to make matters even more difficult, more
people are applying for grants and other outside funding than before, as well. So there
are more applications being processed through OSPA and fewer rewards coming in.
They’re as overwhelmed as the rest of us are.
What impacts has it had on your mission?
It has mainly impacted our interaction with the university; because it is slower to get
things done than before. That, in turn, impacts our relationship with our funding
agencies. It has an adverse effect on our relationships with those agencies because
they don’t understand why it is taking longer to process the grants.
Have you noticed changes in the motivation or productivity of your staff?
It’s hard, there’s a cumulative effect. People are working harder with no increases and
effective decreases, while at the same time, more people are competing for fewer
grants. There’s no reward and no way to reward people.
Have sick leave totals gone up or remained the same since the reductions were
implemented?
There has not been a significant enough difference to notice.
Extended Studies
Interview with Vice Provost for Extended Studies, Fred Holman
What did administrative faculty reductions do to your unit?
The administrative faculty reductions in Extended Studies changed the way we conduct
our business and caused us to find alternative ways to operate. These have included
using more student employees, reassignment of duties among staff members and
reducing our involvement in some areas where we had a greater presence outside of our
unit.
What services did you lose?
We were forced to change some of our programs and adjust our hours of service at our
learning centers including the Redfield Campus and the Fleischmann Planetarium and
Science Center. With the cutbacks and furloughs, we varied our hours in order to keep
facilities open and provide services to our students and to the public.
What impacts has it had on your mission?
11
There has been no impact on our mission at Extended Studies, but the budget cuts do
cause you to prioritize and to refocus on ensuring the mission is met.
Have you noticed changes in the motivation or productivity of your staff?
Our productivity has been greater. When you are a predominantly self-funded operation,
the pressure to perform is there at all times. We’ve become even more focused and
productive during this time.
Have sick leave totals gone up or remained the same since the reductions were
implemented?
No change in sick leave totals has been noted in Extended Studies.
Information Technology, Teaching and Learning Technologies, University Libraries
Discussion with Dean of Libraries Kathy Ray and Janita Jobe, Assistant to the Dean for
Administrative Services
What did the administrative faculty reductions do to your unit?
This last round we did not lose positions. We instead chose to move faculty to temporary
soft money so that no one else would lose their jobs this time. There will be effects later.
People were transferred to soft funds from state funds. That triggered a reduction to
allocated support to technology support for departments and colleges on campus. I
don’t think the impacts from those have been felt yet.
In 2008, with the cuts that went into effect in FY09, there were significant reductions with
large impacts. We lost 14 positions due to elimination, 3 more to early retirements that
were then eliminated, and other vacant positions, totaling 24.
Teaching and Learning Technologies was decimated. Half of the department was
eliminated: photographer, classroom technicians, distance education engineers, video
conferencing, WebCT applications support, IDT presentation and class content
designers, server admins, archivists, the list goes on.
Since then, we took money out of operating to backfill for necessary things. This in turn
reduces the money that we would use for operating like internal development and
training. It is a continual depletion of human resources.
What services did you lose?
We didn’t really lose services. The positions got eliminated but the responsibilities
weren’t, they just get off-loaded. Things are done less well and slower. We have
received more complaints because the campus still has needs for classroom and
instructional design support, but there is no one there to do those specialized services
as there was before.
There has been an increase in sophisticated, new, classroom technology with fewer staff
to support it. People buy things but then there is no one to train, or to support; it has a
negative effect, and it is not done in a sustainable way.
When one of the server administrators was eliminated, those servers didn’t get shut
down, they were also off-loaded onto other people. People keep trying to provide the
12
services that should have been eliminated but are vital. That puts the burden on to the
people that were not eliminated.
Some of those services have included IDT Workshops and IT training workshops.
What impacts has it had on your mission?
We still keep trying to fulfill our mission, and it wears people out. We can’t do the quality
that we did before. We can’t respond to student demands for more open building hours
in the Knowledge Center. We are getting behind because we can’t take on the new
positions to support it.
Have you noticed changes in the motivation or productivity of your staff?
At times you hear people complain more. But people are productive and committed, but
overwhelmed. You can’t keep that up forever.
There is a tone or flavor where you question why do you want to be here? The cuts are
discouraging, it is one thing to not get a raise; it is another to get a pay cut and a bunch
of work added on to that.
Have sick leave totals gone up or remained the same since the reductions were
implemented?
We did see a spike in admin faculty sick leave use in 2008 and then again in 2010. We
cannot say if it is directly related due to funding reductions. (See chart below.)
Sick Days Used
844.5
830.75
2006
2007
1001
2008
852
934.5
2009
2010
IT & Libraries Administrative Faculty Sick
Leave
832
2011
Provost’s Office
The Provost’s Office responded to the committee’s request with details of several positions that
had been left vacant or eliminated.
7/1/2009
Excellence in Teaching Program Director. Closure of the Excellence in
Teaching Program, which reported to the Provost Office, resulted in the loss of a 1.0
administrative faculty position, a .75 academic faculty position, 1.0 classified position,
and graduate assistant positions. Activities of this office were reassigned to individuals
and offices across campus. For instance, professional development for academic
faculty is now undertaken by the Office of the Provost and College deans’ offices. The
Donald F. Tibbitts teaching award and Instructional Enhancement Grants processes are
handled by staff in the provost’s office.
13
7/1/2009
Coordinator, Office of University Assessment. This administrative
faculty position provided professional support to the office directors in larger assessment
projects, such as assessment of core writing and assessment of the summer scholars
reading program. Duties of this position were absorbed by individuals in the office.
7/1/2009
Half-time Coordinator, Professional and Graduate School Planning.
Loss of the half-time coordinator, professional and graduate school planning occurred
when the Professional Career Advising office closed. The activities and services
performed by this individual now fall to professional and faculty advisers in the colleges.
7/1/2011
Full-time Core Director. The full-time Core Director, an administrative
faculty position, was eliminated in 2011. The Core Director position is now held by an
Academic Faculty member on a B contract with a stipend for those duties. The current
Core Director focuses her efforts solely on the Core Curriculum. The former director
also performed duties related to the University’s Course Concierge service, student
complaints and issues, and assembling student and faculty data related to the
University’s strategic planning and accreditation. These duties have been reassigned to
other professionals and staff within the Provost’s office.
7/1/2012
Director and Assistant Director, Office of University Assessment; .50
Programmer/Analyst. Closure of the Office of University Assessment, will result in the
loss of two administrative faculty positions (a director and assistant director), loss of 50%
of an administrative faculty position in Information Technology devoted to assessment,
and loss of the half-time support staff position. Academic program assessment activities
will now be monitored and supported by the college deans’ offices. The assessment
database and website for maintaining and filing assessment plans and reports will
continue to exist, with assessment coordinators in the colleges being responsible for
seeing that plans and reports are posted. Information Technology will provide technical
support for the website. The Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education will provide
oversight for university-wide assessment activities.
Student Services
Telephone Interview with Melisa Choroszy, Associate Vice President Enrollment
Services
What did the administrative faculty reductions do to your unit?
In our areas, there was about a 20% reduction in administrative faculty. In terms of daily
operations, that means it has become difficult to take a break. Individual responsibilities
have doubled and in some cases tripled. There are also psychological effects, such as
increased fatigue and grouchiness. Operating in survival mode has made it a challenge
to move forward and think creatively. Individual productivity is higher but morale is
questionable. The stress of increased individual demands sometimes leads to high
drama. Most staff are just happy to be employed. Most of the people who have stayed
are dedicated employees.
What services did you lose?
Most services are essential and with difficulty have been retained. Some services, such
as flexibility in accommodating students and faculty schedules when serving students
with disabilities, have been reduced.
What impacts has it had on your mission?
14
The mission remains the same, but efficiency has been reduced. Things take longer.
Accuracy has been somewhat sacrificed.
The implementation of the new Peoplesoft student information system has been very
difficult. The staff that remains is dynamite. It will be hard to sustain such a high level of
stress over time.
Have you noticed changes in the motivation or productivity of your staff?
While individual productivity has increased, the overall production has been slowed due
to reduction in overall numbers. Some of the more motivated staff members are
beginning to look for other employment opportunities.
Have sick leave totals gone up or remained the same since the reductions were
implemented?
Sick leave has been reduced. Furloughs seem to have reduced the incidence of sick
leave.
The above survey of divisions and departments does not encompass all areas of the university
which saw significant administrative cuts, it is extensive enough to provide specific details of
cuts in particular areas, and also to give insight into the ways the cuts have affected the
operation of the university in other areas.
Recommendations:
Although the committee was tasked with making recommendations “regarding what may be
done now to minimize the impacts of the loss or improve remaining services,” this task seems
beyond the scope of the committee. It is easy to say that the university needs to generate more
revenues, but even this incomplete collection of interviews makes it clear that that is easier said
than done because generating more revenues—either through grants and contracts or through
private fundraising—requires greater expenditures for staff in those areas. Likewise, seeking to
generate more revenues through increasing student enrollment or through increasing the
enrollment of out-of-state students comes with additional costs, as well. The more students we
enroll, the greater demand there is for advising and other student services; the more students
we seek to enroll, the more we need student recruiters. At the same time, cuts to support
services such as career advising impact student experiences and campus life in general.
Any strategy we recommend, therefore, comes with costs which will not be recouped
immediately, but which are essential to the ultimate success of that strategy. The university
cannot rely heavily on grants and contracts to supplement lost funding if it is not prepared to
invest more in servicing those grants and contracts; it cannot rely solely on private fundraising
without being willing to invest the money and time required to build the relationships which result
in significant gifts; it cannot rely on attracting more and more students without being prepared to
provide the increased services that those students will either require or expect.
As unsatisfactory as the current situation is to most people who have been here since the first
major cuts started to be absorbed, what seems to be happening is that the university has been
gradually transitioning to a more entrepreneurial business model. Part of what that means is
that as some services are lost, eventually more positions are likely to be added back, first to
those areas which are most successful in their strategies for increasing the university’s
revenues. Many strategies will be attempted; some will fail, others will succeed. This will not
be a neatly-coordinated process, and, in fact, were we to suggest that the university appoint an
administrator or committee to direct the process, we would risk interfering with—and possibly
thwarting—the university’s path to develop a sustainable funding model which will be
increasingly independent of state funds. At the same time, it is incumbent upon the university’s
15
leaders to recognize which areas are positioned to help the continued growth and development
of the university the most going forward and to provide increased support to those areas.
Additional Charge 2.
Work with administration to develop criteria for Professional
Development Leave. Recommend what, if any, limitations may be placed on criteria,
funding thresholds or maximum time off.
Actions Taken: The committee struggled with this charge. While we could recognize the value
of professional development leave, we also felt like this was largely a theoretical issue at this
time when such leaves are not a reality. Further complicating the issue is the way in which
individual divisions and departments handle professional development currently. In most areas
of the university, attendance at conferences and workshops has been severely curtailed in the
wake of budget cuts, but this varies widely among different divisions. We discussed the charge
on numerous occasions and tried to figure out what components might be stumbling blocks for
the Professional Development Leave Committee in awarding leaves to administrative faculty.
We also contacted the Provost with a list of questions pertaining to possible recommendations
and sought her knowledge or understanding of current practices in this regard.
Research and Findings:
The University Administrative Manual policy on Faculty Development Leave states that "This
program enables academic and administrative faculty to be reassigned to projects that lead to
professional advancement in instructional, service, or research areas." The eligibility
requirements specify that any full-time faculty member with at least six years of service "who
has not been awarded a sabbatical leave or development leave for six years or more, is eligible"
and it specifies that both state-funded and non-state funded faculty may be eligible, as well as
part-time faculty on contracts with at least 50% FTE at the discretion of the university. The
Administrative Manual policy specifies that the Professional Development Leave Committee is
appointed by the Faculty Senate and that the committee makes recommendations to the
executive vice president and provost.
A University Bylaws revision (UNR Bylaw Revision 3.5.7) was recently put forward and
approved by senate and faculty vote to clarify the applicability of the policy to both academic
and administrative faculty. The proposed revision has yet to be implemented, pending the
approval of the University’s central administration:
3.5.7 SABBATICAL AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT LEAVES
The major purpose of sabbatical and professional development leaves is to provide
the faculty opportunity for continued professional growth and new or renewed intellectual
achievement through study, research, writing, creative work, and travel, so that teaching
effectiveness [may be enhanced], scholarly usefulness [increased], or administrative
skills may be enhanced, and the institution's academic, research, and service
programs strengthened. Any faculty member with academic equivalent rank including
the rank of lecturer, who shall, at the beginning of the [proposed] requested leave, have
served full-time on either an A or B [a ten- or twelve-month] contract for six or more
salaried years without a sabbatical or professional development leave is eligible to
apply for sabbatical or professional development leave. Any administrative faculty
member who shall, at the beginning of the requested leave, have served full-time
on an A contract for six or more salaried years without a professional
development leave is eligible to apply for professional development leave.
Rationale: Corrects an oversight. Professional development leaves are not mentioned in
current bylaws. The university created professional development leaves to augment
sabbatical leaves, and though they are not currently funded, they may be funded again
16
in the future. Since academic faculty may apply for either sabbatical or professional
development leaves, while administrative faculty may only apply for professional
development leaves, the distinction is made clear. If adopted, the title of the section must
be changed in the table of contents.
Administrative Request for Action: Approve UNR Bylaw Revision 3.5.7 as approved
by the Senate and Faculty Vote: 375 Approved, 20 Oppose and 15 Abstain.
With those points in mind, we wrote to the Provost with a series of questions that had come up
repeatedly in our discussions of precisely how this benefit might be applied to administrative
faculty. Our purpose in doing so was to clarify whether or not the Professional Development
Leave Committee already has any existing policies in place with respect to professional
development leave for administrative faculty.
The following questions all seemed to be important ones in our discussions of the issues: 1).
Should a portion of the funds designated for professional development leave be allocated
specifically for administrative faculty development? 2). Is there a minimum or maximum dollar
commitment for an administrative faculty member or in total? 3). Given that academic leave is
generally granted for a period of at least a semester, but that such a length of time is not a
practical option for administrative departments, is there a minimum or maximum length of time
that should be considered for administrative professional development leave? Finally, 4). Is
there currently an expectation for, or should there be, administrative faculty representation on
the committee?
As of this writing, we are still waiting to hear back from the Provost’s office about the current
status of our questions regarding professional development leave for administrative faculty. Our
request was submitted at a particularly busy time, and Provost Hardy responded that she would
research the issue further and get back to us. Although we have two recommendations below,
further recommendations depend on what we learn about current policies and procedures from
the Provost’s office.
Recommendations:
(3) As this charge has not been fully resolved by the work of this year’s committee, it
should continue as a charge next year.
(4) Working with the provost’s office, the committee should work to craft specific
recommendations for the committee based on the above four questions.
17
Appendix I
Full memo from Brandis Bernard—Academic Advisor Coord., Academic & Career Exploration
(previously Career Counselor, Career Development Office)
April 12, 2012
TO: Vannessa Nicholas and Members of AFPPP
FR: Brandis Bernard, Academic Advisor, Advising Center
RE: Elimination of a Department and Position (Notice of Non-renewal)
I am writing in response to a member of the Administrative Faculty Personnel Policies and
Procedures committee requesting some insight about my experience following the elimination of
the Career Development (CD) office. I worked in CD as a Career Counselor/Administrative
Faculty from 1998 to its closure in July, 2009. Vannessa Nicholas, the committee member
referenced, has asked that I think about my reaction to the elimination of CD and my experience
transferring to the Advising Center.
I can speak for myself and the entire CD staff when I state that the news of the
department’s elimination was a surprise. We were certainly aware of the pending budget cuts
and the need for the University to reduce costs. We were likely blinded by the possibility that
Career Development would be cut for several reasons. For one, our department, as a whole
and the individual staff members, were highly respected and appreciated by faculty, staff,
employers and students (prospective, currently enrolled undergraduates, graduates, and
alumni). Evaluative feedback and data consistently showed that our constituents benefited from
our programs, services, and expertise and the department had high utilization data. Secondly,
99.9% of comparable institutions of higher learning have a CD office. A variety of models exist,
some are centralized as UNR’s was and others are decentralized (individual colleges). Third,
given the state of the economy, students more than any other time were in need of CD’s
services.
Beyond individual staff members’ concerns about their financial security and the prospects of
gaining employment in a worsening economy, we found ourselves disturbed and worried about
the impact the elimination of the department would have on our constituents, particularly the
students. Although administrators suggested that individual colleges fill the void created with
the loss of Career Development, we foresaw that most colleges would be unable to do this
given their own shrinking resources. Business Center North/Human Resources was also asked
to offer job search workshops (resume writing, interviewing skills, etc.) and attempted to fulfill
this request. They too could not accomplish the task due to the fact their staff were already
overwhelmed with their existing responsibilities. As it turned out, a huge void was created for
students, alumni, employers, and faculty with the loss of career counseling, volunteer/internship
coordination, job search guidance and events, and professional /graduate school advising.
Practical concerns aside, there was an emotional impact on the staff. As mentioned, concerns
about financial security (one staff members’ home was foreclosed and she moved from the
area) and future job opportunities were haunting. Most staff felt devalued and unwanted. The
situation was truly a conundrum given the excellent job performance ratings the entire staff
received over the years. For some staff, ageism and salary discrimination was suspect, but it
was also understood that neither could be proven.
I have also been asked to describe my experience being transferred to the Advising
Center. I was extremely appreciative to be offered the position and quite fortunate to be
18
transferred with the same range and salary of my position in Career Development. The actual
transition to the center, however, was difficult on the other advisors, director, and me. Although
a welcoming group, in general, there was some animosity, understandably. As an outcome of
the two hires/transfers from Career Development, myself being one of the two, the Center’s
LOA position was eliminated resulting in the (temporary) loss of a valued employee. Another
staff person’s promised promotion to a higher range was also impossible due to the “absorption”
of the 2 new staff members. For a variety of reasons, including different personality styles and
office cultures, it took about 2 years for most of the staff to adjust to the changes brought by the
transfer.
In closing, I would like to say that I benefitted greatly from the guidance I received from
Tim McFarling, Assistant Vice President of Human Resources. I would have struggled far more
than I did if it had not been for his counsel. I am also indebted to Michelle Kelley for assisting
me in understanding my rights as an employee. In addition, the VP of Student Services,
Shannon Ellis, the Vice Provost, William Cathey, and the Director of the Advising Center, Nancy
Markee, were all instrumental in approving the transfer and allowing me to continue my
employment at the university.
I hope this information is helpful in your review of personnel policies and procedures.
Please contact me if I can answer questions you may have. I can be contacted by emailing
bernard@unr.edu or calling 775-784-8295.
19