MEETING WITH DR. GAMBLE, JANUARY 29, 2004

 

Bonnie White, Bob O’Driscoll, and Sara France met with Dr Gamble to discuss CEPAC’s recent MAP survey. 

 

Bonnie, Bob and Sara asked Dr Gamble about various topics:

 

What did Dr Gamble think of the survey:  Dr Gamble said he thought the survey well done, and was impressed by the high number of respondents.  He thought the comments were constructive and generally well thought out.  He’d noted, not only the MAP-related feedback, but was also eager to pursue some of the other comments embedded in the responses.

 

Dr Gamble described his expectation of MAP, at the program’s introduction, to have been enhancement of supervisor/employee communication, and provision of performance-based rewards.  He said that the survey confirmed disillusionment with some aspects of the program, and that he hoped to see changes that would rectify as many of the program’s weaknesses as possible.

 

Dr Gamble stressed that he wants to be kept informed as the project progresses.  He doesn’t want the process to become bogged down in bureaucracy and felt that Susan Alt’s suggestion of CEPAC reporting first to the Bozeman MAP Advisory Committee, and on up through the Labor Management Committees, was the correct path to take.  Sara commented that the Bozeman MAP Advisory Committee had yet to be formed, and Dr Gamble said that its creation could be expedited.  He remarked on Jim Rimpau’s suitability as chair of the committee.

 

Funding for Flexible Pay Options:  Dr Gamble said that UPBAC has reserved $84,500 for employee rewards.  [At Dr Gamble’s request, CEPAC is investigating the exact nature of the intended use of the $84,500].  Additionally, in FY03, $152,000 was spent on strategic pay raises and another $29,000 in other achievement pay rewards for classified staff alone. 

 

MPEA’s statement that campuses would no longer fund achievement pay (starting with the next bargaining period):  Dr Gamble said that he wants to help all employees (those covered by bargaining units and those not).  However, there are some serious questions involved in this which encompass the university system as a whole.  Dr Gamble spoke of his intent to encourage the Board of Regents to produce a five or ten year plan for state salary funding which would greatly assist the universities in forward planning.

 

What is Dr Gamble’s opinion of supervisor evaluation, and could it be part of MAP:    Dr Gamble spoke of his commitment to evaluation, of the richest nature, canvassing the maximum number of people.  This concept, he said, applies to every employee in a leadership role.  He described having set the model for this commitment by paying for his own “360o” evaluation (involving feedback from people at every level), and instigating a similar program, from “the top down”, campus-wide.  He said it’s currently performed at the Dean’s level already and, this year, he anticipates implementing it at the Director’s level.  Dr Gamble identified difficulties with effective evaluations at the mid-management level, (the band to which most survey respondents were referring) – something he observes in every university with which he is familiar.  These supervisors rarely are given the opportunity for training in supervisory skills.  He recognized that, if MSU is serious about employee evaluation, it must commit to training and development.  He would like to see everyone adequately trained in evaluation but mentioned the limitations in achieving this.  Namely the cost, and the logistics of dealing with a mix of unionized and non-unionized staff.  Such limitations complicate the question of incorporating supervisor evaluation into MAP.

 

The obvious confusion around the concept of the “three goals”:  the meeting recognized that there is considerable confusion with every aspect of the goals concept.  Personnel and Payroll Services’ dilemma, as raised at the January 14 CEPAC meeting, was mentioned: how to communicate when staff have expressed that they don’t want more instruction from Personnel.  This will be an issue for further research and discussion.

 

-0-

 

Dr Gamble went on to recognize that people’s hopes of MAP have not been realized.  The demands on the system have grown far more quickly than the program has developed.  He wants to encourage CEPAC and everyone involved in this project in identifying the components that aren’t working, and fine tuning them as much as possible.

 

Sara outlined CEPAC’s next steps: to answer the Board of Regents’ three questions, and then to pursue the issues raised via the Bozeman MAP Advisory Committee.  She said that CEPAC would invite Dr Gamble’s comment on their proposed documentation (for the Regents) as the final draft is produced.

 

-0-

 

Dr Gamble’s advice was sought on two other issues:

- CEPAC officers were conscious of certain individuals being named in the comments sections of the responses and were in a dilemma about whether or not it was acceptable to publish the comments in that form.  Dr Gamble declined to instruct CEPAC in how to proceed.  He did comment that removing the names, in this instance, would not alter the substance of the comments concerned, and cautioned over the possibility of any statement being seen as inflammatory.  After the meeting, Bonnie, Bob and Sara agreed to replace the names with that of the person’s employing department.

- What degree of officers’ expenses could be claimed (eg the cost of temporary staff when officers are away performing committee tasks).  Dr Gamble said he would call another meeting to pursue the matter.