Employee Assembly Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, March 15, 2000
12:15–1:30 p.m.
Day Hall Board Room

I. Call to Order and Introductions

M.Esposito called the meeting to order at 12:15 p.m.

Attendance:

Present: Trudie Calvert, Joe DeMarco, Michael Esposito, Brian Goodell, Tom Hoebbel, Denise Howland, Sarah Johnson, CJ Lance-Duboscq, Marlene Reitz

Excused: Dawn Darby, Cheri Woodward

Others Present: T. Anguish, A. Bishop III, A. Harris, D. Stein, C. Gardner, K. Riley.

II. Approval of Minutes

III. Open Forum

M. Esposito announced that A. Vail has taken a position at Boston University and would be resigning his position at the University and on the Employee Assembly.

M. Reitz commented that on many occasions she could not wait inside a bus shelter because there were people smoking inside. She asked what would be involved in examining the current smoking policy on campus? She suggested having signs placed in the bus shelters that prohibit smoking. M. Esposito asked T. Calvert to bring this issue up at the next TAC meeting. He suggested that the issue be brought to the University Assembly.

IV. Report from the Chair

Assemblies Executive Breakfast

M. Esposito reported that at the breakfast, Hank Dullea discussed the new reporting relationship of the Office of Assemblies to his unit. Also discussed were the student elections and negative campaigning.

Election 2000 Update

M. Esposito reported that the Office of Assemblies is still receiving ballots for the employee elections. C. Gardner explained that the ballots are due by March 20, 2000, 4:00pm.

Opperman-Craft Lunch-March 20

M. Esposito reported that the next luncheon would be March 20, 2000. A sheet of paper was passed around for EA members to record any questions they wished to be addressed at this meeting.

Annual GPADS Reception

M. Esposito reported that the annual George Peter Award Reception was held March 2, 2000. He commented that it was a very nice reception that was both well attended and well received.

V. Business of the Day

Revised Vacation Policy, Anita Harris and Allan Bishop III, Human Resources

A. Bishop gave a brief explanation of the new vacation policy, then took questions from the EA members. He explained that the question was raised about how to handle the accrual and maximum balance of vacation time for part-time employees. The policies of various other institutions were examined and it was decided to change the maximum balance of vacation time that a part-time employee can accrue. This change will affect exempt, non-exempt, statutory and endowed employees.

A. Bishop also explained that this change would affect forty-five non-exempt employees on campus who are currently above this balance? The individual departments would have to be contacted for the total hours for exempt employees, to determine if any are over the maximum. The Office of Human Resources is currently working with these people to reduce the amount of vacation time they have accrued, so they will not lose any. It has been decided that those who are not able to use all of their time before the end of this fiscal year will be allowed another fiscal year to use it. The policy states that an employee can carry a balance above the maximum during the year, but must be back down to the maximum by the end or the overage will be forfeited.

T. Calvert asked if those employees that are over the maximum would be notified of this? A. Bishop answered that the non-exempt employees have already been notified. They are currently working to find which exempt employees are over the max to generate a report of those at or over the maximum. He also mentioned that if an employee is missed and not notified, they would allow an exception for that person to take the time due to them. T. Calvert also questioned how an employee could figure out if they are over? A. Harris explained that the best way to figure that out is to go to their local Human Resource representative for assistance.

T. Calvert asked exactly how the policy would be changed? A. Bishop explained that the number of vacation hours a part-time employee can accrue is lower with the new policy.

T. Hoebbel pointed out that, while it is important to notify those who the new policy will affect, it is also important to continue that communication in future years. He also stated that it should be made easy for an employee to determine whether they have gone over the maximum. A. Bishop explained that this is something that each employee could work with his or her Human Resource representative to determine. He mentioned that this information would be conveyed to a new employee at the time of hiring. M. Reitz suggested including it in the appointment letter.

M. Esposito mentioned the need to recognize those employees who, for work-related reasons, are not able to take a vacation during the year. He suggested compensating those employees monetarily for the hours over the maximum that they would otherwise forfeit. A. Bishop explained that there are provisions in the policy, which address exceptions due to business needs. He remarked that it would be sensible for a supervisor to make time for an employee to take a vacation, as an employee who does not take vacation can become less productive. A. Bishop also pointed out that in the University policy, it stipulates that an employee can not receive pay in lieu of vacation. M. Esposito then suggested pooling this extra time, so as not to take time away from an employee that they have earned.

B. Goodell questioned why the policy was being revised at this time? A. Bishop explained that many problems arose with the implementation of People Soft, which led to the entire policy being examined. B. Goodell expressed agreement with M. Esposito, regarding the compensation of employees that lose vacation time. He questioned the fifty-two week maximum that an employee is allowed to work without vacation and asked why it is fifty-two weeks? He also asked if fifty-two weeks are reached, should an employee be compensated for anything that is take away? A. Bishop remarked that he couldn’t answer these questions, as he had no involvement in the fifty-two week policy.

B. Goodell commented that this policy leaves a great deal of responsibility to the individual departments. He pointed out that some managers don’t get involved in each employee’s hours and some people lose vacation time as a result. A. Bishop stated that any employee with this problem should contact their Human Resource representative, who could then work with the supervisor to get an employee their deserved vacation time. B. Goodell questioned why the exception for carrying over vacation time is limited to two years? A. Bishop pointed out that there is some flexibility in extending that time period, but the vacation time that accrues is a liability to the University and it needs to be taken.

D. Howland asked if there is any follow-up work being done to assure that those people affected by the new policy are taking their deserved time? A. Bishop explained that they discussed the progress during their Human Resources meetings. D. Howland mentioned that, though this policy does not affect the full time employees, some of them are losing vacation time. She asked whether these employees should also contact their Human Resources representatives? A. Bishop commented that it would be wise to contact the representative and determine why time is being lost. He also noted that the full-time employee policy has been in place for awhile and an employee should know what the maximum is and how to work with that.

D. Martyniak asked what the affect of this policy would be on the accrual of sick leave. A. Bishop explained that this new policy does not affect the sick leave policy.

M. Reitz questioned whether the people who will be affected by the policy change could receive a one-time bonus at the end of the year, instead of taking the time off? A. Bishop explained that monetary compensation in lieu of vacation time is not allowed under University policy.

M. Moschella, SA liaison, asked if this policy change is part of a larger Human Resources goal, as he does not see it fitting into any employee satisfaction models? A. Bishop explained that, while it is not part of a larger goal, it is resulting from research. He mentioned that many full-time employees had expressed dissatisfaction with the current policy, as it allowed part-time employees to carry the same amount of vacation time.

B. Goodell commented that this new policy reflects the loss of a benefit, which some people may have problems with. A. Bishop noted that this will be a factor, but they are also trying to be fair to both full-time and part-time employees. B. Goodell remarked that to be fair, the University should increase the maximum for full-time, instead of decreasing the maximum for part-time.

D. Stein commented that it is a fair practice to cap the part-time hours differently than full-time. He remarked that since the part-time employee works less time, their leave would have a greater impact. He also commented that it should be the responsibility of the employee to keep track of his or her own hours. A quarterly report was recommended, but data collection for such a report may not be currently possible.

C. Gardner agreed that as a supervisor of part-time employees it makes sense to pro-rate both the cap and the accrual rate based on time worked. Her concern was in the transition of a full-time employee to a part-time employee and how vacation hours accrued would be handled. She questioned if the potential of inheriting an employee with the maximum vacation accrual would put that employee at a disadvantage for being hired into a part-time position? C. Gardner suggested changing the sentence at the topic of page 6 in the section under Change in Standard Hours to read, “Any time accrued over the new maximum accumulation amount will be forfeited unless the change in standard occurs at a point during the fiscal year that doesn’t realistically provide time for the staff member to use up accrued time.” As currently written the statement, “Any time accrued over the new maximum accumulation amount will be forfeited.” is too definitive and adding the “unless” helps make it less so.

T. Hoebbel added that the policy would be equally demanding on employees and supervisors saying that an employee going to part-time would feel added pressure to take time off from their new job and the supervisor would feel equal pressure allowing the employee the time when they had just been hired to do a required and needed function.

A. Bishop remarked that some places of employment require the department to buy out the vacation before a transfer, but he felt that this policy was a real loss for the employee who would be paid, but would loose all vacation time accrued. He said it would be most beneficial for the supervisor to find time for the employee to take vacation.

M. Esposito explained that, due to time constraints, the remainder of the discussion would have to be postponed until the next meeting. He thanked A. Harris and A. Bishop for coming and invited them back again to finish answering questions.

VI. New Business

M. Esposito announced that with the departure of A. Vail, there is a vacancy on the University Assembly. T. Anguish will be the new EA representative on the UA.

IOC Recommendations to fill EA Vacancies

M. Esposito explained that, with the departure of J. Worden and A. Vail, there are now two vacancies on the EA. Dawne Martyniak is an applicant to fill one of these seats. The IOC is recommending that D. Martyniak be accepted to the EA. A motion was made and passed to appoint D. Martyniak to fill the seat vacated by J. Worden. M. Esposito reminded all EA members to update their email lists.

M. Esposito also mentioned that there is a vacancy on the IOC that needs to be filled. The commitment consists of two to three more meetings. D. Howland volunteered to fill this position on the IOC.

VII. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kristen Riley