UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORD
STAFF ASSOCIATION MEETING MINUTES
December 12th, 2012, Gengras Student Union – Room 345 – 1:00 pm
PRESENT:
Nancy Fields, Connie Yoczik, Erik Pavesic, Holly Stevenson, Evelyne Haldimann, Barbara
Dessureau, Cheryl MacMath, Nancy Clubb, Bonny Taylor, Marilyn Hogan, Kathleen Hayden,
Jillian Holt, Betty Viereck, Carla Fuller, Lisa Belanger, and Chris Dupuis.
MINUTES: The October, 2012 meeting minutes were approved.
GRIEVANCE OFFICER AND COMMUNITY REP DISCUSSION
Discussions began relating to the Grievance Officer Position description and the addition
of the one-sentence description into the Bylaws (Article 7: Grievances – Section 1) as the
second sentence. The first and second sentences of the amended Bylaws would read:
“The Staff Association may, on an annual basis each April, appoint or reappoint a Grievance
Officer. The primary responsibility of the grievance officer is to support and guide an
employee through the University of Hartford grievance process.”
A handout was provided to attendees that included; a copy of the current Bylaws,
recommendations for the additional wording for the Grievance Officer Position, a
confidentiality agreement for the Grievance Officer, a confidentiality agreement for
Grievant, recommended changes for the Community Representatives’ job description, and
the most recent list of Community Representatives.
Proposed changes for both the Grievance Officer and Community Representatives were
read and compared to current Bylaws verbiage.
Discussion was opened to attendees. Concerns were raised that a Staff Association
Grievance Officer Position perhaps did not promote adequate advocacy for staff as the
position does not have the authority to mediate, negotiate, and resolve staff grievances.
It was suggested that the Ombudsman position, which was eliminated several years ago, be
reinstated. It was discussed that reinstating this position was not within the Staff
Association’s authority and differences between an Ombudsman and Grievance Officer
positions were discussed. It was agreed that the Executive Board would bring the request
for reinstatement of the Ombudsman position to the attention of University
Administration at the next possible quarterly meeting.
The two confidentiality agreements were carefully discussed and recommendations for
changes (changing the word “advisor” to “officer” and providing additional clarification for
a grievant regarding the nature of “confidentiality”) were requested. Those changes will
be made. Updated documents will be provided prior to the January meeting and a vote will
be taken regarding adoption of the new position descriptions for both the Grievance
Officer and Community Representatives at the January, 2013 meeting.
UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE REPORTS
BAT
No report.
WELLNESS
No report.
BTF
Chris Dupuis reported. As a result of discussions during the October, 2012 meeting, Chris
took several topics of continued member concern back to the Benefits Task Force
for further consideration and more complete explanation. He asked Lisa Belanger,
Executive Director, Human Resources and Development to attend our meeting to provide
more complete clarification.
1.
Bank of Time Option – This idea is intended to combine employee personal
days and vacation days into one-bank-of-time. This would allow employees to
make decisions relative to how they use the amount of paid-time-off (other
than University holidays) that is available to them each year as each employee
may need. It would avoid distinguishing between a personal day and a vacation
day and would allow employees to use personal days without having to disclose
the nature of the need for personal time with their supervisor – thus at times
being forced to disclose personal information. The reason the University has
not adopted a Paid Time Off Bank policy is that it cannot be administered as a
“budget neutral” policy. That is, when employees leave the University they
must be compensated for any/all unused vacation days which were accrued but
not taken by the employee within the specific fiscal year. Unused personal
days are not compensated to employees when they leave. Combining the two
paid-time-off benefits could cause the University to be liable for higher
compensation for terminating employees as all remaining combined days would
have to be considered.
2. Vacation Day Carry Over – In the recent past, employees were allowed to
carry a specified number of vacation days over to the next fiscal year. This
policy was changed a couple of years ago and the University has moved to a
“use it or lose it” policy. Chris explained that it was his understanding that the
need to move away from a carry-over policy is financial. In order to provide
carry-over days, the University must assume that every employee eligible for
vacation will carry over the maximum days allowed to be moved to the next
year. This means that the University must “hold on the books” enough money
to pay for carried over vacation days as they are taken in the next fiscal year.
It could mean that around $1M would have to be held on the books from one
fiscal year to the next to allow everyone to carry over the maximum 5
vacations days. This item was not specifically discussed in the December
meeting, as the explanation above was provided in September. It is carried
over into these meeting minutes only to provide consistency.
3. PureWellness – credit for healthy biometrics – It was suggested in the
October meeting that the 2012 participation requirements for reduced
premiums be waived for all individuals proving to have healthy biometrics
rather than being required for all participants regardless of their starting
biometrics. The thought was expressed that individuals who have healthy
biometrics demonstrate that they are already living a healthy life-style, thus,
they should be able to pay a reduced premium based on that fact alone without
being forced to participate in the PureWellness required healthy life-style
activities. It was explained that PureWellness was not designed specifically to
be “results” driven, but was rather intended from the beginning to be
“participation” driven. Meaning, that the program is intended to raise
awareness of healthy life-style changes and provide encouragement/incentive
to all participants to engage in as many life-style changes as possible. In
response to participant comments/suggestions, the “point system” has been
changed and many more choices have been added for 2013. Continued
feedback and suggestions from participants to continue to help develop a more
user friendly system are encouraged.
4. Tier Structure Review - Concern has been raised many times that the current
tier structure for the graduated employee-paid portions of health care
premiums is not spread out enough and extremely negatively affects employees
at or near the bottom of the pay scale. Although employees who are broaching
this concern understand that many other educational institutions offer only
flat rate premium shares to employees, they remain concerned that the well
intentioned tier structure (as currently defined) needs to be reviewed. It is
hoped that BTF will provide a study to present several possible alternative tier
structures and explain to employees what the pros and cons of each possible
restructure might be. Lisa provided extensive discussion regarding the tier
structure, its history, and its current review process. Surveys of similar
institutions to the University of Hartford relative to their employee
contribution policies are available in HRD. Lisa explained that the tier
structure is looked at every year and in 2009, the additional top tier was
added. BTF has looked at a “Bell Curve” for pricing relative to income. In 2011
the contribution percentage was “inched up” for the top tier. This is such an
important topic to Staff Association members that the Staff Association has
asked Lisa if she would please provide a brief written recap/summary of this
segment of her presentation to be distributed under separate cover to all
Staff Association members. If she is able to provide a summary we will
distribute it via the same email distribution list used to distribute our meeting
reminders and meeting minutes. It is our desire to represent this discussion
as completely and accurately as possible. We are currently awaiting a response
to this request.
BAT
No report.
WELLNESS
No report.
SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE
committee.
– Holly Stevenson is the new Staff Association representative to this
STAFF ASSOCIATION REPORTS
WEB ADVISORY COMMITTEE – No report.
FACULTY SENATE – No report.
COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE – Kathleen Hayden will be retiring from the University as of
December 19th. She thanked everyone for the “going away” card she received from the
Staff Association.
MEMBERSHIP DIRECTOR’S REPORT
– No Report.
TREASURER’S REPORT – A hard copy report was provided at the end of the meeting. The current
balance is $2,596.06. The Thanksgiving luncheon cost to the Staff Association was
$492.50.
OLD BUSINESS –
1. The new Community Representative Position description and proposal to add it to the
current Staff Association Bylaws – see comments on first page.
2. The new Grievance Officer Position description and proposal to add it to the current
Staff Association Bylaws – see comments on first page.
3. Membership annual verification – still needs resolution.
Respectfully submitted by
Nancy Fields, Secretary