First Panel Meeting (October 27, 2011)

By , November 4, 2011 3:48 pm

At the first meeting, the Panel discussed the charge and agreed that it captured the role we would intially address. We also identified what the Panel felt were the biggest challenges facing a classified employee at Fort Lewis College, and what the biggest advantages of being a classified employee at Fort Lewis.

Biggest Challenges

  • Raising morale
  • Low pay and making ends meet
  • Upward mobility-promotions-lateral moves
  • No voice /communication
  • Lack of options to make changes within the classified system
  • Decisions are made at the state level
  • Insurance & benefit options
  • Overworked/job creep
  • Budget allocations and how they are determined

Biggest Advantages

  • Job security
  • Some flexibility as Higher Ed (more than other State agencies)
  • Good work environment
  • Benefit package/options
  • Seniority protection

Members of the panel noted that CU had announced an incentive plan for their classified employees. Darren Mathews stated he was aware that CU was working on a plan, but was unaware that the plan had been finalized or announced.

Next meeting: Tentatively, December 1st.

9 Responses to “First Panel Meeting (October 27, 2011)”

  1. Dana Shinn says:

    Darren, thank you for the setting up this blog and providing updates.

  2. dawn says:

    It was discovered that UC Boulder has notified their classified staff that they will be getting a one-time non-base building 3% incentive award. Here is a link from Boulder’s HR dept. http://hr.colorado.edu/Director/Pages/Classified-11-IncentiveAwardFAQ.aspx
    The question was brought to the attention of FLC Human Resources and this committee to find out the feasibility of this being an option for FLC.

    • Darren says:

      We believe CU has instituted their plan under some of the new legislation from HB1301. In that legislation (that went into effect on August 10), it allows for an “incentive plan” for classified employees that can be different for different institutions. The incentive plan still has to meet a number of criteria. We’re asking CU to provide us with the details of their plan to see how they were able to justify some of those criteria.

      Hopefully, we’ll get a copy of that later this week, then we’ll be able to more adequately assess the feasibility of a similar plan for FLC.

      • dawn says:

        Darren – Can you list specifically what the criteria (that you mentioned above) for the incentive plan are?

        • Darren says:

          The new legislation (HB1301) was based off constitution § 24-80-804 which was originally intended to allow for incentives when a state employee instituted a program with demonstrable cost savings. The elements that need to be addressed in § 24-80-804 are:

          (a) Criteria for eligibility for the employee incentive program;

          (b) A formula for calculating and distributing cost savings;

          (c) Employee protections against retaliation for initiating or participating in an employee incentive program;

          (d) A means of providing public recognition and financial compensation to employees whose innovations result in cost savings to the state;
          (e) A method for the centralized or departmental administration of the employee incentive program; and

          (f) A mechanism for returning an amount equal to fifty percent of the cost savings realized by any department as a result of an employee’s cost-savings innovation to the Colorado taxpayers and for allowing the department in which the employee is employed to retain an amount equal to fifty percent of such cost savings.

          HB1301 still requires that those same elements be addressed (except for (f)) in order to create an incentive program. Because the original constitutional language was written from a “cost savings” perspective (and funding is allowed from the actual money saved), addressing those elements from above under HB1301 become a challenge, especially in elements (b) and (d) when there is no clear cost savings (or funding mechanism) in giving employees “incentive pay”.

          • dawn says:

            Darren –

            I’ve had a few folks asking for an update on this. You mentioned on 11/16 (as well as on 10/27) that 1) you were going to contact them for more info and 2) that you had asked them for more info. What has been learned from your inquiries?

          • Darren says:

            The update is that on Friday I did get a response from CU. Their plan doesn’t address the questions we were hoping it would, so there’s still some work that we need to do on this. Also, we have an attorney at the state Attorney General’s office that advises the College on legal matters and interpretations who has some questions that he’s trying to answer. He and I have not yet been able to connect to find out what his specific questions are.

            So, while there has been some action, there hasn’t been any significant answers. Still working on them.

  3. David says:

    Have they considered giving additional holiday days? We may not be able to pay more but can we save people with children the cost of daycare on the holiday days we move around? 3% should be worth a few days.

    • grogan_p says:

      We pay our holiday leave in accordance with Rule 5-14 observing each legal holiday designated by law, the Govenor, or the President. While the College has the right to designate alternative holiday schedules for the fiscal year, the College does not have the right to add more holidays. The College also does not have the right to change the amount of accrual of paid leave for Classified employees.

Leave a Reply

*

Panorama theme by Themocracy


Hit Counter provided by laptop reviews