For Audioconferencing: Bridge #1-800-910-9620 Anchorage 561-9620 FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Kathy Mosca Governance Office 312 Signersı Hall 474-7056 fystaff@uaf.eduAGENDA UAF STAFF COUNCIL MEETING #94 Wednesday, November 5, 1997 8:30 - 10:25 a.m. Wood Center Ballroom ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Time Item Length of Time ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 8:30 I Call to Order - P. Long 10 Min. A. Roll Call B. Approval of Minutes to Meeting #93 C. Adopt Agenda 8:40 II Vice Chancellor for Administrative Services Remarks - M. Rice 10 Min. 8:50 III Chancellorıs Remarks - J. Wadlow 15 Min. (Attachment 94/1) 9:05 IV Governance Reports A. Faculty Senate - M. Schatz 5 Min. B. ASUAF - S. Nuss 5 Min. C. Staff Alliance - M. Scholle 5 Min. 9:20 V Presidentıs Report - P. Long 5 Min. 9:25 VI BREAK 5 Min. 9:30 VII Committee Reports A. Elections, Membership & Rules - L. Bender 5 Min. B. Rural Affairs - B. Oleson 5 Min. C. Staff Affairs - N. Murawsky & L. Harris 15 Min. 1. Motion to approve Leave Share Program (Attachment 94/2) 2. Discussion on UA Police Advisory Board (Attachment 94/3) D. Staff Training - D. Powell & K. Dufseth 5 Min. (Attachment 94/4) E. Picnic Committee - I. Downes 5 Min. 1. Motion to Change Meeting #100 from June 5 to May 29 (Attachment 94/5) 10:05 VIII OTHER BUSINESS A. Motion to approve 1998-99 Staff Council 5 Min. meeting calendar (Attachment 94/6) B. Ad Hoc Committee on Banner 5 Min. (Attachment 94/7) 10:15 IX Comments and Questions 5 Min. 10:20 X Announcements 5 Min. A. November Meeting Schedule (Attachment 94/8) 10:25 XI Adjournment ********** ATTACHMENT 94/1 UAF STAFF COUNCIL #94 NOVEMBER 5, 1997 COMMITTEE ON REDESIGN OF THE SYSTEM OFFICE and CAMPUS-BASED ADMINISTRATIVE COST SAVINGS PRELIMINARY FINDINGS, OCTOBER 22, 1997 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To achieve both cost savings and better service, the University of Alaska should redesign the system structure to strengthen the Presidency by creating an Executive Council composed of the President and the three campus Chancellors. The new structure presents enhanced opportunities for the President to provide visionary leadership in coordination with the campus Chancellors. These enhanced opportunities will result in a more consistent and strategic focus for the University, a coordinated response to regional, state, and national issues, and will better meet Board of Regents purposes, principles, and priorities. This new structure would result in a leaner system office and the transfer of certain roles and functions to a stronger President-led Executive Council and two oversight councils comprised of the campuses' chief academic and finance officers that are closer to the University's students and the public. This change will consolidate and clarify many functional responsibilities and reduce costs. In making these changes it is expected that the University will strengthen its capacity to meet expectations for quality service, reasonable cost, and accountability now and in the future. This new direction requires the University to redirect most essential administrative functions to campus-managed Service Centers and systematically examine every administrative process from the ground up. The Service Centers will be user friendly, service oriented and will be managed jointly by the three main campuses using coordinative and consultative styles. These Centers will meet national performance standards, and they will adopt incentives to encourage the use of cost-saving methods such as out sourcing and partnerships with non-university entities. The Service Centers and the campuses would reexamine each administrative transaction, sometimes called re-engineering, with the intent of saving more money by simplifying work, streamlining processes, continuously improving services, and moving decision making to the most appropriate level. The results of these efforts would reduce or avoid costs over the long term beyond what has been identified in this report. These findings coincide with national directions where industry and universities are replacing traditional hierarchical organizational structures with a model which emphasizes the client, the team environment, and basically doing business differently. The changes are also consistent with the recommendations of the 1992 Kaludis Management Study at the University of Alaska which called for a separation of executive functions from service functions. Based on work to date, the committee believes that the proposed redesign will not only work but is consistent with the Alaskan setting. The committee expects both short and long term results. They include administrative streamlining; functions being performed closer to the users, especially students; greater economies of scale; greater depth of expertise to handle increasingly complex processes; a focus on teamwork both within and between campuses; better use of modern technology; and a larger participatory role for all employees. Savings of nearly five million dollars are expected from administrative reductions in the system office and at the campuses. Additional savings and avoided costs are expected to accrue beyond the current horizon as a result of the new environment created by these changes. OUTLINE OF REPORT This report, which follows the Executive Summary, is organized as follows: Tasks, Assumptions and Principles Strengthening the Presidency Through a Redesign of the System Office Functions Which Will Remain in the Statewide Office Service Centers Fitting the Human Resource Function into the Service Center Model The University of Alaska Research Foundation Summary of Cost Savings at Statewide and the Campuses Possibilities for Additional Savings Methodology TASKS, ASSUMPTIONS AND PRINCIPLES On July 22, 1997, the President announced the establishment of the committee now known as the Committee on the Redesign of the System Office and Campus-Based Administrative Savings. The committee was charged in an August 26, 1997, letter addressed to the University of Alaska community to: 1. "Recommend potential savings through changes in the role and mission of the System Office and campus administrative processes" and 2. To conduct "a more thorough examination in the potential savings through greater centralization or decentralization of administrative procedures." Though the committee took comfort in the comment made by George Kaludis to the BOR Planning and Development Committee that "we are not a wasteful" university, the committee tried to find $6 million dollars in administrative cost savings over a three year period. The committee assumed that it should try to come as close as possible to this figure in view of BOR discussions in August and because more savings in administrative costs would mean fewer cuts in academic programs. Another assumption was that recommendations should achieve both cost savings and better services; these became twin principles which guided the deliberations of the committee. As another guideline, the committee used the recommendation from the 1992 Kaludis Report which called for a "lean, core executive function of the Statewide Administration which separated the executive and service functions financially." The committee also assumed that the changes should take into account and benefit from the current experiences of other universities and businesses. We found from an analysis of the structure of other systems that there was not a single trend for organizing systems. The committee did not find any one system which compared well with the UA system and not one of the systems studied placed as much emphasis on saving money as we were instructed. In fact, none of the systems studied reported immediate cost savings due to their restructure. Accordingly, the committee pressed hard to find other innovative ways to do business. In reviewing practices elsewhere, the committee also found that many management and cost containment ideas have been implemented while others are currently being considered by different UA campuses. The overriding conclusion of the committee is that the current structure and management philosophy have been and continue to be deterrents to change. The committee believes these recommendations will change this state of affairs. These recommendations are based on the assumption that the University needs a management and operating philosophy which stresses service and simplifies transactions while sharpening accountability. STRENGTHENING THE PRESIDENCY THROUGH A REDESIGN OF THE SYSTEM OFFICE The committee recommends a refocusing of the role of the Presidency which places more emphasis on developing and presenting the strategic visions of the University and relations with the Board of Regents as well as even stronger representation of the University in the state and nationally. A shifting of most administrative functions to the campuses will allow more Presidential time for strategic priorities. The core Executive Council would consist of the President and the three campus Chancellors who would now have University-wide responsibilities along with their responsibilities as campus CEOs. Such a change is consistent with Dr. Peter Magrath's recommendations at the BOR retreat in 1994. Dr. Magrath, President of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, recommended support for "a strong President and strong Chancellors" along with a "coordinated, but not single University" (BOR official minutes, January 1994). The President would lead the Executive Council which consists of the three campus Chancellors and the President. The four members of the Executive Council would consult on a weekly basis. Two groups would report to the Executive Council: The current Statewide Academic Council (SAC) which is comprised of the three chief academic officers and the Statewide Financial Council (SFC) which will include the three chief financial officers and the University Comptroller. Operating as an executive team, the Executive Council would concentrate on implementing BOR priorities and UA strategic objectives. Since these objectives would be developed jointly by the President and the three Chancellors, there would be improved communication and coordination between the Statewide office and the campuses, a subject of concern to the committee and others. By formalizing the role of the Chancellors as members of the President's team, it also clarifies the cross- university responsibilities of the Vice Chancellors/Provosts and frees more of their time to spend on achieving effective coordination among the MAUs, including better communication with their campus constituencies. FUNCTIONS WHICH WILL REMAIN IN THE STATEWIDE OFFICE The committee recommends that the following functions remain in the redesigned Statewide office: Legal services, auditing, labor relations, Regents' affairs, budgeting, public/governmental affairs, land management, planning and academic support, institutional research and system governance. While these functions would be centralized at the Statewide office, none need to be headed by a person at the Vice Presidential level. All other service functions will remain at or shift to the campuses or will be transferred to jointly managed Service Centers. SERVICE CENTERS Service Centers are jointly managed entities dedicated to providing commonly required functions in timely, effective, and efficient modes. These user friendly Centers are responsible to the customers they serve, especially university students. They provide avenues for input about the quality of service received while maintaining institutional accountability. A change to a Service Center model is a fundamental shift from a control to a service orientation. A director or similar position would be responsible for the operation and functioning of each Service Center. The directors would be accountable to a Joint Management Council (JMC) comprised of the three Statewide Academic Officers working with the three Statewide Financial Officers and the University Comptroller. The Joint Management Council would be responsible for implementing policies and pursuing goals established by the Board of Regents and the Executive Council. Funding for the Service Centers would be derived from existing Statewide resources for each of their identified functions and would flow from each individual MAU and Statewide on an agreed upon formula for the services received. This would require an apportionment to the MAUs of Statewide resources net of initial savings from restructuring. The Service Centers are envisioned to be highly responsive, accountable, and service oriented in approach. It is also expected that the Service Centers will utilize whatever delivery methodologies are appropriate to provide the highest level of service at the least cost. Services provided will be compared to national performance standards. UA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICE CENTER (ITSC) I. Mission The mission of the University of Alaska Information Technology Service Center (ITSC) would be to efficiently and effectively deliver information technology services to the University of Alaska in support of academic, teaching, research, student affairs, and administrative programs and systems. II. Functions Service functions provided by the ITSC would include: A. Support and development of all BANNER products including finance, human resources (HR), and student information (SI) including centralized hardware and help desk functions B. Audio conferencing C. Video conferencing D. Production support for human resource functions including payroll checks, forms, etc. E. Data warehousing and management (particularly in support of institutional research) F. Technical support of distance delivery and educational technology applications G. Wide area network H. Support of library systems III. Savings and Service Savings are derived from levels of accountability to the users, streamlined processes, completed migration away from the IBM platform, full implementation of the BANNER system, reevaluation of audio and video conferencing, and selected outsourcing and partnering. Service would be enhanced by significantly increasing the level of accountability to those receiving the service and by funding the service center through the MAUs and Statewide. IV. Timetable for Implementation December 1997 Formulate the Joint Management Council February 1998 The Joint Management Council: * Appoints an interim director * Reviews and refines functions of center * Defines the permanent director's position * Identifies specific FY1999 savings April 1998 The Joint Management Council begins formal recruiting for a new director July 1998 The Service Center begins operation by June 30, 1998 July 1998 The Joint Management Council employs a new director September 1998 The Service Center identifies FY2000 and FY2001 preliminary savings targets UA FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICE CENTER (FHRSC) I. Mission The mission of the University of Alaska Financial and Human Resource Service Center (FHRSC) would be to efficiently and effectively deliver financial and human resource services to the University of Alaska in support of academic, teaching research, student affairs, and administrative activities. II. Functions Service functions provided by the FHRSC would include: A. Payroll and benefits accounting B. Fund accounting C. Cash management and treasury/foundation and tax accounting D. Cost accounting E. Advance College Tuition F. Benefits administration G. Debt management H. Risk management III. Savings and Service Savings are derived from higher levels of accountability to the users, streamlined processes, selected out sourcing and partnering. Service would be enhanced by significantly increasing the level of accountability to those receiving the service and by funding the Service Center through the MAUs and Statewide. IV. Timetable for Implementation February 1999 The Joint Management Council: * Appoints an interim director * Reviews and refines functions of the center * Defines the permanent director's position * Identifies specific FY2000 savings April 1999 The Joint Management Council begins formal recruiting for a new director July 1999 The Service Center begins operation by June 30, 1999 September 1999 The Joint Management Council employs a new director December 1999 The Service Center identifies FY2001 preliminary savings targets FITTING THE HUMAN RESOURCE FUNCTION INTO THE SERVICE CENTER MODEL The Statewide Office of Human Resources (SWOHR) has functioned as an umbrella for the overall administration of Personnel and Labor Relations for the University of Alaska. This section has been responsible for the primary development of personnel and labor relations policy development for the system. In addition, the section handles benefits administration, payroll/benefits accounting, and Human Resources Information System administration (BANNER HRIS). The Statewide office also functions as a personnel office for the recruitment and hiring of Statewide personnel. The committee reviewed the present function of the SWOHR in light of the goals of the RSO to refocus the Statewide office to core functions and to redirect the most essential administrative functions to jointly managed campus-based Service Centers. The committee adopted an additional goal, related specifically to human resource functions, which was "to provide quality service to employees as close to their work location as possible." With these goals in mind we make the following recommendations: Personnel The overall administration of the University of Alaska Human Resources system should be directed by the Joint Management Council (comprised of SAC and SFC). The Executive Council and the Board of Regents are responsible for the development of Statewide policies related to personnel and labor relations. The Joint Management Council with their attendant staffs is responsible for implementing these policies. Once the Financial Service Center (now the Financial and Human Resource Service Center) is established these functions will be moved into that Service Center eliminating the position of an Executive Director. The personnel functions related to the recruitment and hiring of Statewide positions should be transferred to the campus Human Resources Office where Statewide resides (currently UAF). This recommendation is consistent with the 1992 Kaludis Report and the Statewide Program Assessment Committee Report. Labor Relations Given the present status of labor relations at the University of Alaska, for the near term, the labor relations function will remain in Statewide at the present staffing levels. The labor relations functions should be reviewed in two to three years as the University's labor contracts mature. Benefits Under the present payroll system, the present staffing levels are necessary. Those functions related to applications should be transferred to the Information Technology Service Center while those functions related to payroll/benefits accounting should transfer to the Financial Service Center. The Statewide Financial Council will initiate a review of the payroll processing function with the goal of implementing paperless timesheet processing as soon as possible. The director of the SWHRO and the campus financial officers agree that there are some savings to be gained from a re-engineered payroll process. Affirmative Action/Americans with Disabilities Act The coordinator position for this function is currently vacant. This function will reside at the MAU/campus level since most requests for accommodation are at this level. The coordinator's position will be eliminated. Timeline for Implementation These changes should be implemented in concert with the timelines for the two Service Centers. THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA RESEARCH FOUNDATION The University of Alaska Research Foundation is envisioned to provide flexibility for an adaptive and responsive environment in response to a new research climate. The Research Foundation would be incorporated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation as a vehicle to promote development and implementation of sponsored research, and to create an administrative structure than ensures maximum benefit to the University and the research enterprise as a whole. I. Mission The mission of the Research Foundation would be to serve the University, its public constituents and its faculty, staff, and students by aiding the development, administration, and promotion of sponsored research and other scholarly activities essential to the University in the attainment of its research, teaching, and service goals including technology transfer initiatives. Facilitation of sponsored research would include all research administrative functions from pre-proposal through post grant/contract accountability including all business office functions of research institutes, indirect cost recovery cost accounting, management of grants and contracts, and other administrative support functions required to support the research enterprise and other sponsored programs. II. Functions The Research Foundation would include the following research functions. These functions could be outsourced to a Service Center or to the private sector. A. Human resources involved in funded research B. Research project accounting and project management C. Project accounts payable D. Project accounts receivable E. Project invoicing F. Property accountability G. Intellectual property management H. Recharge center administration I. Project cost accounting J. Indirect cost recovery management K. Project payroll services L. Report and proposal preparation including budgetary and supporting documents M. Publication production N. Graphics production III. Savings Savings from a Research Foundation would include campus savings (most at UAF) from restructuring services, savings from streamlining processes and possible revenue enhancements from increased flexibility. The first step in the development of the Research Foundation would be the consolidation of the UAF research business offices including contract administration and pre-proposal functions. Timetable for Implementation July 1, 1997 Planning for UAF Business Office Service Center begins. January 1, 1998 UAF Research Business Office Service Center for research organizational plan completed. Implementation planning begins. July 1, 1998 UAF Research Business Office Service Center operational. Provides all business services for UAF organized research activity. September 1, 1998 Planning for UA Research Foundation begins with small blue-ribbon committee, includes all members of the Joint Management Council. July 1, 1999 Interim plan with timelines completed. January 1, 2000 Planning completed - requires BOR approval to charter corporation. July 1, 2000 All sponsored research activities integrated into Research Foundation - pre-proposal through grant management, including cost accounting functions and technology transfer. SUMMARY OF COST SAVINGS IN STATEWIDE ADMINISTRATION AND THE CAMPUSES The committee expects to save $4 million in administrative costs if its recommendations are implemented. Most of these savings consist of direct cuts in Statewide administrative costs together with an assessment on the three main campuses which additionally must absorb and perform more essential functions. Most savings will be realized after three years. Savings Estimates and Explanation 1. Statewide Office savings ------------- $3 million Substantial components of these savings come from reductions in finance, information technology and related functions, offset by up front costs of a pay differential for Comptroller. Other reductions include cuts in human resources in addition to reductions in information systems and networks offset by up front costs of hiring a chief information officer. Finally, the elimination of the vocational education council whose function will be undertaken by campus-based councils to get local input coordinated by the SAC. 2. Campus Administrative savings -------- $1 million An additional cut using the FY1998 budget of the MAUs: UAF ------ $537,000 UAA ------$378,000 UAS ------ $85,000 Outsourcing possibilities will account for some savings by comparison, the system and service centers. The committee learned that 54% of colleges and universities in a recent survey indicated that the use of contract services was expected to increase nationwide. Following are a list of areas that will be reviewed for outsourcing: 1. Food contracts UA-wide 2. Custodial services 3. Garbage collection 4. Sewer 5. Book store operations 6. Printing and duplicating management 7. Snow removal 8. Police and security services 9. Campus power generation 10. HVAC maintenance 11. Payroll preparation 12. Transportation/bus services 13. Window washing 14. Mail services (note impact on student jobs) 15. Enrollment services (selected) 16. Land management 17. Claims administration 18. Wide area network 19. Telecommunications 20. Grounds maintenance (note impact on student jobs) 3. Administrative Cost Savings---------------up to $1 million A. A portion of this additional $1 million will be realized at the end of FY2000 when UA no longer pays employer contributions to the 1996-97 RIP retirements. Only the RIP positions in administrative service positions are calculated for this savings. B. A second source of savings will come from the establishment of a University Research Foundation. C. The committee recommends exploring the following current administrative cost expenditures for potential savings: (1) cost reductions by partnering with other entities, such as the state, in performing specific UA-wide functions; (2) reducing the administrative costs in the system office of statewide governance considering the recent changes in labor relations that reduce the scope of subjects that faculty and staff address through shared governance; (3) savings through UA-wide Enrollment Services (early discussions with Kaludis and Associates indicated the possibility of savings through some consolidation, but reference materials needed for committee consideration did not arrive in time); and (4) possible administrative cost reductions in the administrative costs in the campus Student Services, an area not explored by the committee. Note: the committee did not explore administrative costs in academic units. POSSIBILITIES FOR ADDITIONAL SAVINGS The committee originally was asked to explore mergers of the Presidency with a campus. The committee conducted this task along with exploring other radical changes. A summary of the committee findings about these options follows, and the committee's Working Paper on mergers in located in Appendix F. 1. Mergers of Presidency with campus Chancellorship A. Statewide with UAS: Felt to be least disruptive of the three options because the campus operations are less complex. This option would place the Statewide Administration closer to the seat of government and would avoid energizing the Anchorage/Fairbanks competition. B. Statewide with UAA: Would be more disruptive than option A but would place the Statewide Administration in the population center of Alaska. The Anchorage area would give more opportunities when it came to outsourcing and recruitment. C. Statewide with UAF: Would be the most disruptive of the three options due to the complexity of the campus. On the other hand, the physical transition would be easiest here because it is the traditional home of the Statewide Administration. Keeping the President in Fairbanks would maintain the strong support for the University which currently exists in the area. 2. Other Structural Changes A. No Statewide Administration - decentralize all functions to the campuses. This option would require a constitutional and a statutory change to become operational. Additionally, it would increase costs for Regents' staff due to increased coordination between MAUs. This option would institutionalize competition between the MAUs. B. Eliminate Chancellors - centralize the top administrative function. The President would lose local expertise provided by Chancellors and the communities would lose the influence of a local chancellor. Location where the President resides could be open to favoritism arguments. Additional back door costs are likely as the President will need to have assistants on the campuses since the workload would be so high. C. Eliminate Campus Financial Officers. Strong expertise is needed during tough financial times. These officers also have line functions for which someone must have responsibility. External funding opportunities like the Cold Water Project and benefits associated with the aggressive pursuit of financial management options would be lost. D. Have a rotating Presidency. Lack of stability would hamper the strategic leadership for UA. It is doubtful that many top administrators would desire such a position. Too tactical of a position that would also lower service from the Chancellor whose turn it was to be President. METHODOLOGY In developing these preliminary recommendations the committee reviewed past management studies at the University of Alaska, including the 1992 Kaludis & Associates Management Study and the 1994 Program Assessment Reports as well as the BOR principles, objectives, and priorities. Using both written materials and interviews, system offices in some 12 states were examined as were many current administrative practices elsewhere. For example, to get a better understanding of innovative methods that have worked at other places we reviewed Kaludis & Associates materials which provided examples from universities and industry of outsourcing, centralization, decentralization, consolidation, partnering with non-university entities, research corporations, and others. We requested information about administrative functions such as personnel/labor relations, financial operations, facilities planning/management, purchasing, research management, enrollment services, institutional research, external and legislative affairs, legal services, and information technology (computing/networking). Ideas received from the University community were considered when writing the preliminary report. Comments were requested from the entire University community through the establishment of a bulletin board, a request for letters to the committee as well as a statewide audioconference called to hear suggestions from the non-committee members. In all, over 80 different suggestions were received. The individual comments are included in Appendix D. For basic information about administrative costs at the University of Alaska, the committee prepared a common set of institutional data listing specific administrative functions at the Statewide Office and the three main campuses and the costs associated with each of these functions. Both personnel and non-personnel costs were identified. The committee concentrated its efforts on functions rather than on individuals. The committee is not addressing administrative costs at rural sites and it has not included Enrollment Services in its data set. The committee did take into consideration unique Alaskan elements which guided discussions as to whether certain recommendations could work in Alaska. The elements are included in Appendix E. The committee has met face-to-face in Anchorage and Fairbanks six full days and has supplemented these sessions with a number of audioconferences. Three subcommittees held additional meetings as well. The subcommittees are: Finance - Mike Rice, Bill Rose, Carol Griffin, Stan Vaughn; Information Technology (including networking) - Frank Williams, David Creamer, Bill Rose, Carol Griffin; and Human Resources - John Pugh, Don Behrend, Carol Griffin. Submitted by the RSO Committee: Joan Wadlow, UAF and Chairperson David Creamer, UA, Statewide Michael Rice, UAF Carol Griffin, UAS William Rose, UAA Frank Williams, UAF John Pugh, UAS Donald Behrend, UAA Executive Staff: John Leipzig, UAF Stan Vaughn, UAA ------------------------------------------------------------- FEEDBACK The Board of Regents' Office would like your comments on this summary. Please e-mail your response to sybor@orca.alaska.edu. ********** ATTACHMENT 94/2 UAF STAFF COUNCIL #94 NOVEMBER 5, 1997 SUBMITTED BY STAFF AFFAIRS MOTION ======= The UAF Staff Council moves to approve the following criteria for a Sick Leave Bank: ELIGIBILITY Employees are eligible to become a member and contribute leave to the Sick Leave Bank when they have been employed by the University of Alaska Fairbanks in a regular or term-funded position for ninety (90) days. Employees are eligible to request withdrawals from the Bank when they have been a member of the Bank for ninety (90) days. If there has been a break in service, there will be another ninety (90) day waiting period. This will mean that new employees will have a total waiting period of 180 days (equal to the 6 month probationary period). MEMBERSHIP Membership in the Bank will commence by submitting a completed membership form to Personnel Services during the initial membership drive. Membership forms will be distributed to new employees by Personnel Services at initial orientation. Upon set-up of the program, membership in the Bank will be offered in tandem with the short-term disability insurance during open enrollment in November. Membership for those employees joining the program during open enrollment in November will commence January 1 of the following year. Employees electing not to join the Sick Leave Bank during the initial membership drive will not be eligible for membership until the next open enrollment. The Bank shall be administered through the same administrative channels and regulations as for sick leave except as noted in this Article. LEAVE CONTRIBUTIONS Contributions of leave to the Bank constitutes one (1) day of annual leave and one (1) day of sick leave at the time of membership and an additional one (1) day of sick leave each January thereafter as long as you remain a member. The Sick Leave Bank Committee will consist of one (1) member from Personnel Services, one (1) member appointed by the Staff Council, and one (1) member at large from the Bank membership, to be appointed by the Staff Council President and one (1) alternate from each designated group. The Committee will inform all members of the Bank if the Bank balance falls below a minimum level (to be determined by the Staff Council Staff Affairs Committee after the initial membership drive). The Committee shall be authorized to require additional sick leave donations to bring the balance up to the designated level. At the time of termination, an employee may contribute up to 80 hours of accrued sick leave to the Sick Leave Bank. Leave contributions to the Bank cannot be reinstated to the employee's personal accrued leave balance. WITHDRAWALS All accrued leave hours must be exhausted prior to utilization of Sick Leave Bank hours. Employees will continue to accrue leave while using leave donated from the Bank, but the employee's personal accrued leave during the pay period will be applied before Bank hours are used. Requests for withdrawals from the Bank shall be reviewed and approved or denied by the Sick Leave Bank Committee within 5 working days from the receipt of the application for withdrawal. Withdrawals will not be approved if the Sick Leave Bank balance falls below the minimum number of hours. The leave in the Bank will be held until additional sick leave is donated. Applications will be accepted and reviewed at any time but will not take effect until all personal accrued leave has been used. A Physicians Medical Certification Form must accompany all requests, which will include the following information from the employee: name, patient's name, diagnosis, date condition commenced, probable duration of condition, and treatment to be prescribed. The following additional information will be required for a member of the immediate family: necessity of employee's attendance, and the period of time needed. All information submitted will be kept confidential and retained with the employee's medical records. While on leave, employee's may be required to report periodically to the Committee regarding the status of the leave and their intent to return to work. A minimum of 520 hours, or until long-term disability takes effect, will be permitted for withdrawal. In no case shall the maximum withdrawal that can be drawn on any given illness or injury exceed 520 hours. APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR WITHDRAWAL 1.) Request withdrawal form with accompanying envelope from your PPA. 2.) Fill out the from and attach necessary documentation. 3.) Seal the request in the envelope and forward it to the Governance Office. GENERAL GUIDELINES Special circumstances can be brought before the Committee. Yearly review of the Sick Leave Bank shall be conducted by members of the Staff Council Staff Affairs Committee and a statistical report will be published and made available upon request. Approval or denial of Sick Leave Bank requests by the Committee shall be final and not subject to the grievance procedure. The Sick Leave Bank Committee shall keep records of all actions taken by the Committee. GUIDELINES FOR COMMITTEE USE IN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA You will be determined to be eligible to apply for Sick Leave Bank withdrawals given the catastrophic medical event of yourself or an immediate family member that requires your absence from work for a period of time that extends 10 working days in excess of all accrued leave balances. DEFINITIONS Immediate family shall be defined by University Policies and Regulations. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: Statewide has expressed concerns with the use and abuse of the existing Leave Share Bank along with the growing cost of operating such a program. This new policy will be forwarded to the Staff Alliance for inclusion in a systemwide Leave Share Bank. ********** ATTACHMENT 94/3 UAF STAFF COUNCIL #94 NOVEMBER 5, 1997 SUBMITTED BY STAFF AFFAIRS October 15, 1997 TO: UAF Faculty, Staff, and Students FROM: Joan K. Wadlow, Chancellor In an effort toward greater expediency and consistency, a new proposal has been drafted for the UAF Police Department Advisory Board and Parking Violations Appeals process. I welcome your feedback, suggestions and comments on the draft. I would like to hear from you by the end of October so we have sufficient time to review all comments and suggestions in time to implement a new procedure for Spring semester 1998. Please e-mail your suggestions to: fychanc@uaf.edu or send via campus mail to the Chancellor's Office, 320 Signers' Hall, Box 7500. ********** Proposal for UAF Police Department Advisory Board and Handling Parking Violation Appeals To establish a Policy Department Advisory Board as required at UAF and to be sure that parking violation appeals are handled more consistently, the following proposals have been developed. They reflect current practices at universities around the country. UAF POLICE DEPARTMENT ADVISORY BOARD Composition: 1. One student selected by the Dean of Students after consultation with ASUAF 2. One faculty selected by the Provost after consultation with the Faculty Senate 3. One staff member selected by Vice Chancellor for Administrative Services after consultation with Staff Council 4. One alumni selected by the Chancellor after consultation with the Alumni Association 5. One representative from a non-university law enforcement agency selected by the Chancellor after consultation with the Board of Visitors 6. Ex-officio: one representative each from UAF Police, Fire, and Risk Management departments and 7. Ex-officio: one legal counsel representative selected by the Chancellor Members serve specific terms. RESPONSIBILITIES The board's responsibilities are to provide advice about UAF Police Department policies and operations in order to assist it in providing effective service to the university community and to provide advice on security and transportation policies at UAF. The chair is expected to be a member of the UAF Governance Coordinating Committee. The board reports to the Chancellor through the Vice Chancellor for Administrative Services who convenes meetings twice yearly and others as needed. PARKING VIOLATION APPEALS I. Appeals to the Administrative Officer Appeals of citations for parking violations must be submitted to the administrative appeals officer in writing prior to the date when the fine is due. The citation being appealed must clearly state the reasons for the appeal. Appeals are handled by the administrative appeals officer as quickly as possible after arrival. If the appeal is approved, there is no further action. II. Appeals to the Appeals Board If the appeal to the Administrative Officer is denied, the complainant may appeal to the three-member Appeals Board which is appointed by the Chancellor. Appeals to the Appeals Board must be submitted in writing within 30 days of the date of the administrative appeals officer's denial. The fact that an appeal to the Appeals Board is pending does not relieve the appellant of the requirement to pay the fine when it is due. Appeals will be considered only on the basis of new evidence, arbitrary or capricious treatment or excessive sanctions. The board will meet four times yearly to review appeals and will either approve or deny the appeal. This decision is final for the university. The complainant may appeal through the state's superior court system. NOTE: University Regulation 02.09.01 requires UAF and UAA to have police units and that each chancellor establish an advisory board for the local unit. The regulation was enacted after passage of 1992 legislation (AS 14.40.043) authorizing the Board of Regents to establish a University of Alaska Office of Public Safety. Accordingly, Chancellor Wadlow assigned this responsibility effective August 19, 1992 to the Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Publish Safety, Transportation and Parking. The committee no longer exists. ********** ATTACHMENT 94/4 UAF STAFF COUNCIL #94 NOVEMBER 5, 1997 SUBMITTED BY STAFF TRAINING SUPERVISORY TRAINING SCHEDULE FOR NOVEMBER 315 - 5:15 p.m. 201 Natural Science Facility November 3 Grievance Process for Collective Bargaining Instructor: Kathy Streight, Statewide Labor Relations Coordinator Discussion of grievance and discipline processes for collective bargaining unit employees. This presentation will address grievance identification and investigation, as well as discipline issues including the Weingarten rule, just cause test, investigation and discipline decision process. November 5 Sexual Harassment Instructor: Patty Kastelic, Executive Director, Statewide Human Resources The newly adopted Policy 04.06.09 A, B governing discrimination and sexual harassment will be reviewed. New procedures will be explained along with a general discussion of sexually harassing conduct and how to prevent it and stop it when it does occur. November 12 Job Evaluation Form (JEF) Instructor: Patty Kastelic, Executive Director, Statewide Human Resources A general discussion of how to complete a job evaluation form and how the Hay tool is used to determine grade placement. Your questions are encouraged. November 17 Humor in the Work Place Instructor: Merritt Helfferich Humor is used in the work place to improve productivity, relieve or regulate tension, motivate employees, manage conflicts, attract attention to a particular task or focus. But . . . "analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it." This talk will show effective use of humor without killing you. November 19 Ethics in the Workplace Instructor: Norm Swazo, Associate Professor, Philosophy & Humanities Dept. We will discuss representative "problems" which arise in the workplace, situating these problems in the context of relevant theoretical perspectives. The point of the workshop is to consider alternative analytical approaches to problem resolution. ********** ATTACHMENT 94/5 UAF STAFF COUNCIL #94 NOVEMBER 5, 1997 SUBMITTED BY PICNIC COMMITTEE MOTION ======= The UAF Staff Council moves to approve the change of Meeting #100 from June 5 to May 29, 1998. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: The Ad Hoc Picnic Committee has selected May 29 for the staff picnic. Changing the meeting date would ensure that rural representatives traveling to Fairbanks for the face-to-face meeting would also be able to attend the picnic. The change in meeting dates would also enable 9 month staff to attend the picnic prior to being off contract. ********** ATTACHMENT 94/6 UAF STAFF COUNCIL #94 NOVEMBER 5, 1997 SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE MOTION ======= The UAF Staff Council moves to adopt the following meeting calendar for the 1999-99 academic year: MTG.# DATE DAY TYPE 101 September 16, 1998 Wednesday audioconference 102 *October 9,1998 Friday face-to-face 103 November 4,1998 Wednesday audioconference 104 *December 4, 1998 Friday face-to-face 105 February 3, 1999 Wednesday audioconference 106 March 3, 1999 Wednesday audioconference 107 *April 2, 1999 Friday face-to-face 108 May 5, 1999 Wednesday audioconference 109 *June 4, 1999 Friday face-to-face NOTE: All meetings begin at 8:30 a.m. EFFECTIVE: Immediately ********** ATTACHMENT 94/7 UAF STAFF COUNCIL #94 NOVEMBER 5, 1997 SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON BANNER The UAF Staff Council has formed an ad hoc committee to address problems with the Banner system and make recommendations to the programmers. The makeup of the committee will be as broad as possible to include input from every area of Banner usage. If you are interested in serving on the committee, contact your Staff Council representative or the Governance Office at fystaff@uaf.edu. The committee will be formed shortly after the November meeting and will begin work immediately. ********** ATTACHMENT 94/8 UAF STAFF COUNCIL #94 NOVEMBER 5, 1997 SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE NOVEMBER 3 8:30 a.m. Picnic Committee - 122 NSF 11:00 a.m. Rural Affairs Committee - WCA NOVEMBER 5 8:30 a.m. Staff Council - Wood Center Ballroom 1:30 p.m. Faculty and Staff Convocation - Salisbury Theatre NOVEMBER 13 9:00 a.m. Staff Affairs - Chancellor's Conference Room NOVEMBER 20 & 21 Board of Regents Meeting - Anchorage NOVEMBER 26 9:00 a.m. Administrative Committee - WCA NOVEMBER 27 & 28 Thanksgiving Holiday