THE
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA
STAFF
SENATE
(NORMAN
CAMPUS)
Wednesday,
September 21, 2005
Chair Joan Koos called the meeting
to order at 1:34 p.m. in the Sooner Room of the Oklahoma Memorial Union.
Union.
Officers present — Joan Monroe-Koos,
Chair; Betty Love, Chair-Elect; Karla Woodfork, Recording Secretary; Debbie
Copp, Immediate Past Chair
Staff present — Barbara Perry,
Administrative Coordinator;
Shanika Bivines, Administrative Assistant
Representatives present —
Hourly Employees Council: Pam Shoopman, Carolyn Irons, Debbie Blevins, Karen
Stark, David Houck, Larry Craig, Ed Fontaine, Diana Fitzpatrick, Robert Murphy;
Informational Staff Association: Susan Lauterbach, Steffan Ice, Elaine
Bradshaw, Chris Cook; Organizational Staff Council: Tina Ledgerwood, Linda
McCarty, Michele Coroiu, Susan Hughes, Matt Berry; Administrative Staff
Council: Sue-Anna Miller, Deborah
Marsh
Representatives absent —
Hourly Employees Council:Brian Candelaria, Patsy Montoya; Informational Staff
Association: Sophia Morren, Annette Schwiebert; Organizational Staff Council:
Jannie Porter; Administrative Staff Council: Deb Wollenberg
Guests present — Renda Passek,
Human Resources; Nick Kelly, Human Resources; Diana Biggerstaff, Employment and
Compensation; Stacey Barry, Administrative Affairs; Rod Henry, Physical Plant;
Susan Grossman, CCE Outreach/Marketing; Tracy Reinke, Awards Committee
Chair; Joann Nilsson, Staff
Professional Development Committee Chair; Cheryl Carney, Information Technology
Council representative; James Tyree, The Norman Transcript
Chair Joan Koos said that if no one
objected, the agenda would be rearranged to allow the speakers to speak before
introductions. Hearing none, she
introduced Nick Kelly from Human Resources.
Nick gave an overview of the health
and dental insurance plans for next year.
He said the University was in the second year of a two-year contract
with Aetna. The cost for the
University – employee only rate on the PPO plan – went up about
6%. Dependent rate plans went up
an average of 13%. He said HMO
rates went up more than the PPO rates, but the HMO rates were a bit lower in
the beginning than they probably should have been. Nick said we were significantly better off on dependent
rates than if we had been on the State plan and that our employees were saving
almost $2 million by being with Aetna rather than the State. This year Aetna has agreed to add smoking
cessation drugs to the PPO plan.
Part of this is in response to the HSC having a no-smoking and
tobacco-free policy on their campus.
Nick said he has been asked if we will stay with Aetna. He said a year-and-a-half ago when the
Request for Proposal was sent out, four vendors were able to consider insuring
a group the size of OU, and Aetna was considered to be the only viable
option. So as long as Aetna
remains competitive with the State plan or a little better, we will probably
stay with Aetna; whereas, if they become significantly more expensive than the
State plan, we may switch back to the State. Nick said Aetna has the advantage of knowing that the State
has to come out with their rates first in August, so Aetna knows what they need
to benchmark against. Nick said if
we could stay with Aetna for some period of time, it would give OU some
stability.
The University will still pay the
full cost for the employee only rate of $322.30 this year. That is up from $303.88. The HMO employee only is $304.69, about
an $18.00 credit difference that people will get this year between the PPO and
HMO if you choose that low option.
HMO plan designs are all the same as they were. Enrollment is from October 24 through
November 11 this year. The dental
renewal was up 9% across-the-board for everything, for the University as well
as for dependents. Nick said there
were some changes in life insurance.
You can now buy 4.5 times your salary instead of 3 times your salary
without medically qualifying. On
flexible spending accounts and health care reimbursement accounts, the IRS has
allowed an extension in the deadline for services that can be reimbursed. The new rule extends the deadline for
services performed up through March 15 – an additional 2 months. That applies only to health care. That will take effect this plan year,
so if you have money left in December, youÕll have an additional two
months.
Nick said they were getting a lot of
questions about the TeachersÕ Retirement choice. Legislation in June of 2004 allowed new employees to choose
whether they wanted to be in the Teachers Retirement System or the UniversityÕs
Optional Retirement Plan. The IRS
will make a decision regarding whether existing members can make that choice. Nick said IRS had informed the
University that they had placed OU on their expedited track, so IRS is looking
at a June or July timeframe. Nick clarified that the IRS would make their
decision in June/July. The
legislation allows for people to have up to a year after that to make their
choice. The law says after you
make your decision if you decide to get out of OTRS, then your contributions
stop that next month. There are
two questions IRS has to rule on before our existing employees get to make
their choice. (1) Can the employee leave OTRS? and (2) Can the employee take
OTRS money and put it in the Optional Retirement Plan? Nick said this is the biggest decision
that an employee is ever going to have to make concerning benefits because it
is irrevocable. Even if you leave
and come back 10 years later, you will still be held to that choice. HR is working to get the information
out to employees.
Nick was asked about short-term
disability insurance. He said they
did the RFP and got five responses.
Four of the responses were from companies that required minimum participation
rates, but he said we could not meet rates like 20 or 25% of employees. Many of our employees have large
accounts of paid leave and those employees are not interested in purchasing
this type of insurance. However,
Nick said there was a policy on the table from Aflac that may be given further
consideration. This plan would not have to be introduced as part of the
cafeteria plan; it could be introduced off cycle if there were enough support
for it. The committee is trying to
gauge how much interest there might be in this type of plan. In closing, Nick said the HSC
campus is enrolling online through self service and the Norman campus is hoping
to enroll online next year as well.
Diana Biggerstaff spoke to the group
regarding the new online employment system. She said in the past the employment office entered the
applications into the mainframe system through CICS, and the applications were
copied, sorted and mailed to the departments. Employment wanted to be able to provide better service to
the applicants and to the University so they prepared an RFP. Eight companies responded. They selected a company called People
Admin. This company works
primarily with higher education.
Many of our peer institutions in the Big XII use their product. The company hosts the data so it
doesnÕt require any University IT resources to run it. It is a web based system and one
can use the system 24/7. Diana
listed some of the advantages for OU.
It is an effective recruiting tool because of easy access. For people who donÕt have computer
access, the employment office has installed a bank of public computers. Anyone can come into the office and be
assisted. People can apply at home
or at the public library – anywhere there is a computer. They can submit all of
their materials online: cover
letter, resume, anything of that nature; they can track the referral status to
see if they have been referred or if a position has been filled. It takes less time to process and enter
the application. Diana said hiring
managers can submit their job requisitions online, instead of the paper forms. Hiring managers can view applications
and supporting documentation online and can print them if desired.
A member asked if there were
concerns about security because of the large amounts of information on people
applying for jobs. Diana said they
had asked IT to participate in their selection process to be sure the company
they selected met the security requirements for OU so they would be sure that
concern was covered. Diana
said once an individual makes application online, they can edit their
application and update it from that time forward, but they do have to submit
their online application that first time.
Employment is not importing data from CICS.
Diana also addressed a memo that was
distributed earlier in the spring regarding employment practices. She said the
memo is on the HR Website and distributed copies to those in attendance. She discussed the changes. Prior to April 1, the minimum posting
time for monthly positions was 15 working days. As of April 1, the time was reduced to 7 working days. The Norman campus had a freeze
exception process prior to April 1 and that was eliminated. The memo dealt with
standardizing temporary employment procedures across all three campuses. As of April 1, temporary employment
beyond 90 days requires Human Resources review. Temporary employees cannot be extended beyond six
months. Temporary employees will
not be eligible to participate in University benefits programs. Diana said if you have a special need
and you are seeking an exception to the temporary policy, you can go through
the HR Director. They have a
special provision for special circumstances.
CHAIR'S COMMUNICATIONS
Joan said she had the opportunity to meet
earlier in the month with Vice President for Executive and Administrative
Affairs Nick Hathaway. Joan
indicated that Nick was encouraged with the StateÕs outlook in light of tax
revenues and the lottery. Joan
said these monthly meetings with Nick will take place throughout the year, and
she will keep us updated.
Joan said a meeting was held on August 16 with
Anna Biggers from IT for the purpose of developing a mass e-mail system for
staff. Attending that meeting were Past Communications Committee Chair Lisa
Bowles, Administrative Coordinator Barbara Perry and herself. The team discussed the development of
the mass e-mail list that was approved by the Senate in July. Joan explained that the Staff Senate is
trying to improve communication by gaining access to mass e-mail lists for
staff through IT that will be automatically updated. Joan reported that there had been discussion in some of the
groups about using the new mass e-mail lists to announce charitable
events. Joan read a letter from
President Boren which she felt addressed this issue. Ò I have received and reviewed the Staff SenateÕs proposed
guidelines for a mass e-mail system that would allow the Staff Senate to better
communicate with all staff at the University. I wanted to express my support for the proposed
guidelines. Obviously this
powerful tool for official Staff Senate communications carries an equally
powerful responsibility to prevent the distribution of unnecessary
communications to our community.
As you know, the issue of unwanted e-mail has been a prominent issue
guiding mass-e-mail policy. Thank
you for all the contributions you and Staff Senate make to the University of
Oklahoma.Ó Using the letter as
guidance, Joan said she felt staff should limit its use of mass e-mail to
communicate Staff Senate information or member group information to staff. She said the best way to handle Òother
informationÓ would be the use of our list serves. Joan said it might miss some people, but it is still a
valuable tool and could get out word about charitable events. She said another possibility would be
the individual group websites. If
further questions on this issue arise, the Executive Committee can explore it
further.
Joan reminded the group that the Staff Senate
Office is the contact point for information about carpooling. Anyone interested can call the office
at 325-4672.
ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF JULY 20,
2005, MEETING
The minutes of July 20, 2005, meeting
was accepted as written.
OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
Administrative Staff Council: President Sue-Anna Miller
reported that ASC met on September 16.
Nick Kelly spoke to the group about benefits. The group discussed the network policy and future meetings.
Organizational Staff Council: President Tina Ledgerwood reported that
OSC met on September 1. The group
had a pizza luncheon and conducted business. They had a very large turnout.
Hourly
Employees Council: President Pam
Shoopman reported that HEC met on September 14. They filled vacancies on Staff Senate and HEC
subcommittees.
Informational Staff Association: Vice President/President Elect Stephan Ice
reported that ISA met on September 7. The group had an organizational
meeting. They discussed the
network policy.
NEW BUSINESS
Consideration of merit awards
reallocations: This item and background
information was linked to the agenda.
Joan introduced Tracy Reinke, Chair of the 2005-06 Awards Committee, to
present this item. Tracy said once
every three years, the Awards Committee is charged to review the allocation of
the number of merit awards per Staff Senate group. The current allocation is: ASC: 1 award;
ISA: 3 awards; OSC: 3 awards; HEC 12 awards; for a total of
19 awards. Tracy said the
committee looked at the number of eligible staff each group had and the number
of awards. The Awards Committee
felt it was unfairly allocated.
Both the OSC and ISA have more people than awards when you look at it on
a per person basis. The current
allocation for HEC is 1 award for every 139 members; for OSC it is 1 for every
247 members. The new allocation
the Awards Committee is recommending is 1 award for ASC; 4 for ISA; 4 for OSC
and 10 for HEC. With a University of approximately 3,200 permanent staff and 19
awards, that averages close to 1 award for every 170 people. Barbara said that although the numbers
of staff within the member groups had shifted somewhat, the number of awards
(19) had not changed for over ten years.
The number of permanent staff has remained relatively stable as well.
Funding for the program comes from the PresidentÕs Office. Debbie Copp added that the last time
the Senate looked at awards allocation was when the Senate went through HRÕs
broadbanding of titles. There were
changes to the groups at that time, primarily within ISA and OSC. ASC merged with another group, the
Council of Administrative Officers [ASC became larger in the process].
Susan Lauterbach made a motion to send the issue
to the members groups for discussion.
The motion was seconded.
Debbie said new ratios would be: ISA, 1 award for every 157 members; OSC, 1 award for every 185 members; HEC, 1 award for every 167 members; and ASC, 1 award for every 206 members. There appeared to be general support for the recommendation. After more discussion, Susan withdrew her motion. Robert Murphy then made a motion to accept the changes proposed by the Awards Committee. His motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.
REPORTS
The following reports were linked
to the agenda:
Staff Senate Foundation account
report.
Minutes from Employment Benefits
Committee meeting of July 21, 2005.
OLD BUSINESS
Consideration of Network Policy
from the Information Technology Council: The policy was linked to the agenda. The network policy had been sent to the
member groups for discussion at their September meetings. Joan called for reports from the
member group presidents. ASC
President Sue-Anna Miller reported that ASC discussed the policy but there were
no recommended changes. OSC
President Tina Ledgerwood said OSC was not recommending any changes. HEC President Pam Shoopman said HEC
members were instructed to send
their comments to her by Monday afternoon. She received several comments in favor of the policy; one
member requested more time to discuss it; and she received some comments after
the deadline. ISA President-Elect
Stephan Ice reported that ISA had some questions about wireless which the group
was able to resolve, but he had questions about the email concerning the
network policy he had received earlier that morning. Stephan said the email raised new questions for
him.
Joan explained that the email to
which Steffan was referring was not sent from Staff Senate. Joan introduced and
called on Information Technology Council representative Cheryl Carney. Cheryl explained that the policy that
ITC approved and sent to Staff
Senate was dated May 6, 2005. HEC member Robert Murphy said he had authored the
e-mail. He asked what the ITC was. Cheryl answered that it was a committee
comprised of campus faculty, staff, presidential appointees, and the provost,
working on campus information and technology policies. Barbara added that ITC was not a Staff
Senate committee, but a University committee with Staff Senate representatives
on it. Robert moved
that the changes he was proposing be accepted. The motion was seconded. Joan noted that a great amount of effort had gone into the
original network policy from the ITC, and that the email authored by Robert had
come to the Staff Senate at the eleventh hour. Robert asked to address the Senate.
Robert explained that he was new to
the HEC. He said he received his
first copy of the network policy at the HECÕs meeting on September 14. He had objections to the way it was
worded. Robert read part of his revised policy. A member said from his point of view, as a network
administrator, some of the terms used in the email were awkward. After more discussion, Linda McCarty
made a motion to table the discussion so the member groups would have a chance
discuss the policy. Joan commented
that she thought that would be the best course of action since the e-mail was
sent out just that day. She said
she would be happy to forward it to the groups if anyone needed a copy of
it. The motion to table
carried. Debbie suggested setting
a deadline for the member groups to report back to the Senate. She commented that many times a
lot of behind-the-scenes work with Legal Counsel may have taken place. Cheryl added that the policy ITC
presented had gone through Legal Counsel.
Joan said that as a body, Staff Senate can make recommendations, but
could not enforce the policy one way or the other. Joan asked that comments or questions be sent to her by
Thursday, October 13.
A member asked why this type of
document was needed at all.
Immediate Past Chair Debbie Copp said she believed the request may have
come from Legal Counsel. She said
we needed this because there was no policy, no standard by which to judge
whether someone was breaking a law or infringing upon someoneÕs rights. Marko Sherbon added that the
University needed some kind of document to show how things should be operated. He said this document could provide a
means for the University to protect themselves legally.
A member asked if HEC did not have
enough time to get in their comments.
Joan replied that the e-mail under discussion was sent out that
day. HEC President Pam Shoopman
added that the original network policy was sent to her members the day before
their regular HEC meeting. Some
members needed more time so they were given until the following Monday to send
in their comments. RobertÕs e-mail
was sent out Wednesday morning.
Another member commented that he thought RobertÕs e-mail should have
been directed to HEC, not Staff Senate.
Joan reminded members that there is a standard deadline when agenda
items have to be received in order to be on the Staff Senate agenda and asked
members to be mindful of the fact that they are representatives of their member
groups, not of themselves.
HEC member Larry Craig said the HEC bylaws noted that their agenda is to
be sent five days prior to the meeting.
He said he received the policy the night before their meeting and said
that was not enough time. Joan
asked if HEC members were given an extended opportunity to respond after that
date. Several members responded
affirmatively. Joan pointed out
that the network policy had been around for discussion for numerous meetings
although she realized for new members it was a new issue.
ADJOURNMENT
As there was no further business,
the meeting adjourned at 3:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Perry
Administrative Coordinator
Karla Woodfork
Recording Secretary