MSU PROFESSIONAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES October 16, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Schmidt, Mitchell, Carroll, Ward, Puffer. MEMBERS ABSENT: Manning. OTHERS PRESENT: Assistant Director of MPEA Quint Nyman, Director of Personnel and Payroll Services Susan Alt, Chair of CEPAC Rich Stafford, Bob Snyder, Virginia Key. The meeting was called to order at 2:00 PM by Chair Leslie Schmidt. Guests were introduced. The minutes of the September 18, 2002, meeting were approved as distributed. Chair's report - Leslie Schmidt. - University Governance Council met October 9. One topic of discussion was Coach Kramer's remarks about a student athlete at the October 5 football game. MAP - Discussion with Susan Alt, Quint Nyman, and Rich Stafford. - The first cycle of MAP (setting goals, check point review, evaluation) has been completed. The project needed to be adjusted as it proceeded, but people were generally willing to work through the process. - MSU is a pilot for this new cycle's streamlined MAP process. The foundation for the structure is more completely in place now, so more attention can be given to fine-tuning the process. - Role descriptions will become job descriptions. There still will be goals and a checkpoint, but the paperwork will now be kept within the departments instead of being forwarded to Personnel. - The resources that are available this year will largely be used to help supervisors deal more successfully with the process. - A steering committee will be constituted. It will probably be modeled after the Information Technology Advisory Committee. It will advise on fine-tuning the performance cycle, serve as a mediation center, and evaluate how the process is working. The Committee may also consider ways to fund lump sum bonuses. Meetings will probably be held quarterly. - In response to a question, Rich stated that from CEPAC's point of view, there appears to be mixed reaction to MAP. Some individuals are positive, some negative, and many are in between. Many of the issues are related to confusion about the process. - CEPAC met last Wednesday with Personnel and some issues were resolved. CEPAC has met with Candy Holt twice. - CEPAC has established goals regarding communications and will be more accessible to faculty and professionals. The goals include developing a better understanding of MAP and meeting legislators before the legislative session. Tonight's discussion with legislators, organized by ASMSU, is an opportunity to do the latter. - A CEPAC manager and secretary will be appointed to facilitate better communication. - Quint pointed out that there are about 625 MPEA members on campus. About 20 attend MPEA's monthly meetings. It is important to tie MPEA into the communications process for MAP. - The acceptance of MAP is mixed across the university system. Communities differ. Missoula has implemented the process differently from Bozeman. However, Missoula has dealt with many of the same frustrations as Bozeman - deadlines, paperwork, and miscommunication. - Any base-building increase is worthwhile, even if it's as small as 0.5%. - It was understood when the university system introduced MAP that it would be a difficult endeavor. Accountability was an important aspect of the process from the beginning. MAP will continue to be re-examined in management and bargaining evaluations. - However, the same major problem which affects other new initiatives, lack of money, is still there and won't go away until Montana is economically in a better position. - Progressive pay is more closely tied to the evaluation process than other elements within MAP. - Keeping evaluations within departments is a step in the right direction. - In response to a question regarding the direction of the classification system, Quint stated that a committee is working on a policy to set salaries for new employees. It will tie to the Montana market with some flexibility. It was pointed out that years of experience need to be a consideration in beginning salaries. - Strategic pay addresses recruitment and retention of classified employees, but it's critical that new employees don't make more than current employees, or morale is affected. - Simplifying and streamlining the process will continue. The process will become less fluid as the university system has more experience with it. - There was discussion of whether more than two categories (Meets/Exceeds Goals and Does Not Meet Goals) are needed. Quint pointed out that the purpose of two categories is to make the process simple. There are other ways to recognize individuals for exceeding goals. The evaluation check-off is not the place to address super work, but the commentary part of the review can include this information. - It was agreed some of the value of the process is the communication established between a supervisor and employee. Although there may not be much financial reward, positive feedback from a supervisor can be important. - Goals should not be above, beyond or outside the usual work done in the position, so to do well on the goals, overall performance should be satisfactory. The purpose of evaluation is to improve overall performance, the same as for any disciplinary process. - According to Quint, employees are hired because they have most of the qualities desired. The supervisor needs to help develop the rest. Report from UPBAC - Jim Mitchell. - The Committee is dealing with the Strategic Planning Committee's SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis. - Institutional Research is gathering information about capacity in various parts of the university. Other. - In response to a question, Susan Alt said that implementation of MAP has also been stressful for PPS. One FTE has been added in Personnel and some FTE have been added in Payroll. Next meeting. - The next Professional Council meeting is scheduled for November 20. Please let Leslie know of any issues that should be discussed. The meeting adjourned at 3:10 PM.