Administrative
and Professional Assembly
October 17,
2007
3:00 p.m.
Foy 213
Meeting
Minutes (Approved)
Call to Order
Maria Folmar, Chair of the Assembly, called the meeting to
order at 3:01 p.m.
Roll Call
Representatives Present: Christopher O'Gwynn, Kirsten Perkins, Barnese Adair-Wallace, Lisa Powell-Brantly,
Seth Humphrey, Mark Wilson, Julie Nolen, Katie Mantooth, Phillip Coxwell, Wiebke
Kuhn, Greg Ruff, April Staton, Ellen McManus, John Owen, Jane Hoehaver, John
Folmar, David Hennessey, Maria Folmar, and Todd Storey (19)
Representatives
Absent: Teresa
Logiotatos (provided
sub: Leanne Greene), Robert McKinnell (provided sub: Kim Trupp), and
Drew Burgering (3)
Number
of A & P Members Present: ~100
Health Update
Maria
shared that the “Health Update” will be a permanent addition to the agenda of A&P
meetings. Today, Robin Pokswinski, a representative from the Harrison School of
Pharmacy, has been invited to talk to about their services, and more
specifically the Flu Vaccination Clinics. Robin shared that the clinics are
available and April Staton distributed a flyer detailing the remaining Flu
Clinics available and Robin shared that they are “going” in the first 30
minutes. She encouraged people to get there early. They have 60 shots available
per session, and clinics are scheduled through Nov 1. After that, the shots
will be available in the AUPCC Pharmacy on a walk-in basis, but the hours vary
so you may want to call ahead. April requested that each A&P representative
make copies of and post/distribute the flyer throughout our divisions:
2007 Flu Vaccination Clinics
AU’s
BCBS plan covers at 100%.
If
you are not covered by AU BCBS, the charge is $20. Pay with cash or check (made out to
50-60
doses are allotted for each clinic – first come, first serve.
AU
Employees and Dependents (18 years and older) Clinics:
|
Date |
Time |
Location |
|
Thursday,
October 18 |
2:00
pm – 4:00 pm |
Library
– Room 2031 |
|
Monday,
October 22 |
12:30
pm – 2:30 pm |
AUPCC
– 2155 |
|
Thursday,
October 25 |
9:00
am – 11:00 am |
Theater
– Faculty Workroom |
|
Tuesday,
October 30 |
2:30
pm – 4:00 pm |
Telecom
– Conference Room |
|
Thursday,
November 1 |
2:00
pm – 5:00 pm |
AUPCC
– 2155 |
After
November 1st, employees may come to the AUPCC Pharmacy for flu
immunization.
Please
call the AUPCC at 844-4099 if you have any questions.
Program
Maria
Folmar introduced Lynne Hammond and Chuck Gerard, representing Human Resources,
who would be updating the Assembly on the compensation project, process, etc.
Maria reminded the Assembly that questions would be taken that were of a
general nature, not personal and asked that individuals wait to be recognized
by chair and then share his/her name and location of employment. She also
shared that index cards were available to write down questions to pass to the
front to be addressed.
Maria
thanked Lynne and Chuck for coming and expressed the Assembly’s appreciation for
their willingness to share their time and update us with the progress of the
compensation project and address any concerns.
Lynne
thanked Maria for being asked as they have tried throughout the whole project
to keep communication lines open. The website is another way they have
communicated with all people impacted by the study. She paused before talking
about the appeals process, to introduce a new staff member who is replacing
Albert Snipes who retired. Scott Page started this week. He is not a stranger
to the University as he has worked with Facilities and the EEO offices/divisions
in the past. She shared her delight to have him back on campus.
Lynne
then reiterated that they have tried to make this process fair, well thought
through and objective in driving decisions made. Human Resources contracted
John Hicks, a PhD consultant, who has also worked with the state and is highly
regarded in HR world. He facilitated the process. Two committees were
established to hear appeals for certain types of jobs. The make-up of the committees
represented both internal and external people to the University. They needed
objective input from external and an understanding of jobs provided by internal
people. Internal people represented a cross section of the University.
Colleagues that were represented ranged from Agriculture to Extension, Athletics,
the
To
preempt questions of why the process took so long, she shared the following
numbers: Human Resources first reviewed and evaluated over 4000 positions and
got documentation from employees. They added some new positions and got
additional feedback. Out of that, they received 211 appeals (5%). Consultants
say that that is a low number. Though they may not have gotten it all “right”
she feels confident that they tried to approach it correctly. The number is
good, and she is proud of that. Out of those 211, about 38% were approved. Some
employees will be notified of title changes. 62% were upheld as originally
issued. She hopes this offers some
perspective of the appeals process.
Even
though the number of appeals is not that high, she encouraged those in
attendance to imagine having to review the appeals and accompanying
documentation. She reiterated that she would like to publically thank the
committee members, but she cannot at this time. They did this while maintaining
their full-time jobs. She thanked them anonymously for their hard work and time
commitments.
She
recognizes that there will be some people who are disappointed. And while it
would be nice if she could make everyone happy, she knows that there is no way
to make that happen. They made a good faith effort to hear people’s concerns,
and they have tried to err on the side of benefiting the employee. No one lost
salary through this process. She feels good about what has been done but
recognizes that there will be some who are disappointed with the outcome.
Lynne
then started to address questions submitted to her ahead of time:
Concern for Placement in Job Family Levels: Their original goal was
that they be consistent with the job family concept and broaden it if needed
given the current market to give people the opportunity to advance. Some Families
were tweaked, some added, some reduced in levels. Some employees weren’t in a Family
and were moved into a Family and vice versa. In some situations one might have
been in a family where he/she moved from a Family with the same number or
levels and some had different levels. They had to think quite a bit about how
to “slot” people into appropriate levels. With the assistance of Don Large and
administration, they tried to remove the personal component and be objective in
the approach. Some kept the same level if moved between different Families. If
moved to a different number of levels, they evaluated based on salaries,
relative to the midpoint. Sometimes, it moved people down in level, sometimes
it resulted in them moving up. However, no one lost any dollars as result.
Recognizing
that there are unintended consequences when a person moved down (for example
from a 2 to a 1), as we move people into University, the concern is that they
will be in same pay grade/classification as more seasoned professionals. She
emphasized that HR evaluates each employee coming in from the outside as they
do not want them to make more than someone already working on campus with a similar
education and experience background.
What is the benefit of “dumbing down” job
description and reducing education requirements? She answered, that they
don’t look at it that way. The job description and position description differ.
Some job descriptions cover positions that are widely different in position
duties. The Job Description is generic so that it captures the essential
functions that capture key responsibilities. The position planning/performing
planning document describes the actual position description.
Regarding
minimum qualifications, they have tried to make things consistent across
campus. It simply identifies what minimum requirements are to enter in the
position, but you can add desired qualifications. You must just make sure you
can demonstrate that requirements listed are actually needed to perform job.
Otherwise, you could be discriminating against candidates.
Exempt/Non Exempt Concerns: This seems to
stem from if an employee appealed. If a person meets the criteria to be exempt, he/she
will not be put in non-exempt job. Exempt means exempt from overtime
requirements of based on the Fair Labor Standards Act. HR offers a class on the
Fair Labor Standards Act if you would like to learn more. This is mandated by
law, it isn’t coming from HR. Sometimes there is a judgment call, but it is
most important that we as a University be in compliance with the April 2006
changes to the Act. Salary is another component that influences exemption
status. To quickly answer the question…if your job/position meets exemption it
will be classified as exempt. She is willing to address further if needed.
Maria
came forward to take additional questions/concerns:
April Staton, School of Pharmacy: If
someone in a department was reclassified into new title and appealed that, but
during the appeals process a new employee was hired into the same job, will the
new person be changed if the appeal is accepted? Chuck said that anytime
a new position is created, they get a form to reevaluate the position
questionnaire. So, they’ve determined upon information from position
questionnaire what the title, level, etc. should be.
Maria Folmar, A&P Chair: Listening to
you talk, how many of those who were appealed were A&P and were there both
A&P and Staff employees represented on committees? 87 Admin Support Jobs
were appealed and could be classified as A&P and Staff positions. All
A&P are exempt. All Staff are non-exempt. Admin support is a mix. 124 of
the appeals were non Admin Support or “regular.”
Maria Folmar: Now that letters are being
prepared, if I receive my letter and my appeal wasn’t approved, do I have
recourse and may I speak to someone in HR? Supervisor? Any process following
receipt of letter?
Lynne said no, the appeals process was the process to resolve it.
David Hennessey, Business Office: Regarding
people moving to different levels, can the employee use the performance
appraisal process to get back up to status where they were? Lynne said this was an
important question. People seem to forget that if you moved down in levels, you
gained an opportunity to promote and get more money. The answer is YES! She
encouraged people to move through the performance management process and work
with supervisors to develop a plan so you can move up. Information is provided
to show levels and what is required to promote. It isn’t just meeting time
requirements, performance needs to be good, etc. Job Family Guidelines are on
the website too.
Brenda Wood, Ag & Soils: Regarding
different representatives on the committees, if an appeal came in from Ag and
someone from that department on the committee, did they give feedback or
“vote”?
They did give feedback, but they did not “vote” on that person if they were in
the same department. They chose to recuse themselves from the vote. They may
have even left room for vote. However they were allowed to give input if they
were present.
What does letters ready soon mean? Lynne said they have
tried to be specific on the timeline…and they expect them to go out in the next
two weeks. Chuck said many appeals may have appealed multiple things and the committee
evaluated each part. To respond in writing, many individual letters are being
written so it takes time to craft all of the letters. He clarified that part of
an appeal may have been approved but some parts not.
When
asked about new people being hired into the University from the outside who
would be placed above seasoned employees who are at the minimum of the new pay
scales, Lynne said that it may be concern…but they hold to matching people with
education/experience. If exception is requested, they take the information, but
their goal is that internal equity is maintained. It may hold back new people
coming in from the outside.
Marilyn Johnson, Polymer and Fiber
Engineering: Will they get time to switch/transition to different pay
styles…biweekly vs. monthly? Chuck said that yes, they are talking to Payroll
to see the best time to transition.
Lynne
wrapped things up by welcoming questions to HR and encouraging people to use
the website to submit any anonymous questions. They are happy to answer them. She
thanked the Assembly for the opportunity to be here, and Maria thanked them
both as well.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the September 19, 2007 meeting
were approved as corrected of grammatically/typographical errors.
Comments from the Chair
Maria
shared that there is progress being made towards Health & Wellness
initiatives. This month we are having things made available to us through the efforts
of Jenny Swaim, specifically the mammogram arrangement with EAMC, as well as
Assembly efforts. Cater Hall will be lit this evening in pink to honor Breast
Cancer Awareness month. Robin
Pokswinski spoke on behalf of Jenny asking that A&P
members come and support the Cater Hall effort. Maria will be there as will the
provost and others. April Staton and David Hennessey and Kirk Cramer (Campus
Health and Wellness Committee) have put forth effort on behalf of the A&P
assembly. Dr. Gogue is supportive of centralizing screening and assessment
efforts, etc. and perhaps bringing those functions together in one facility
(one stop shop). He suggested the Medical Clinic could be a good area, and he
said it may be time to hire someone to head up those efforts. We are making our
preferences known, and they are being heard.
Please
be aware that the Strategic Plan is being initiated again. There is a button on
the AU home page and new information is available. It will be an on-going
process, and we will have the opportunity to give input. There will be focus groups,
and Staff Council and A&P will be involved in that process. Some of us may
be able to be part of planning the future of University. Please make sure to
complete surveys sent out via email.
Introduction to Place 11
Greg
Ruff presented on the
Departments
and Degrees
Aerospace Engineering
Biosystems Engineering
Chemical Engineering
Civil Engineering
Computer Science and Software Engineering
Computer Science
Software Engineering
Wireless Engineering
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Wireless Engineering
Industrial and Systems Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Materials Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Polymer and Fiber Engineering
Polymer and Fiber Engineering
Textile Management and Technology
Students
Graduating Annually
About 600 with Bachelors, Masters and Doctorates in Engineering
Typical Starting Salary and Entry Level Job
·
$50,000 to $75,000
·
“Engineers In Training”
Multidisciplinary
Centers
Center for Advanced Vehicle Electronics
Center for Innovations in Mobile,
Pervasive, and Agile Computing Technologies
Center for Microfibrous Materials
Manufacturing
Material Processing Center
Materials Research and
Wireless Engineering Research and
Employees
(Faculty and Staff) in the
Faculty – 198
Staff - 158
Employees in Engineering Outreach and Continuing Education
Staff – 15
Students - 30
Engineering
Outreach and Continuing Education
Serves off-campus Graduate Degree-seeking students in
Engineering and Business.
·
11 Degree Programs
·
MS in Engineering (8)
·
MBA, MMIS, MAc
·
55 Courses per semester
·
About 400 Students per semester
·
Serves professional clients with
Engineering and Surveying Continuing Education.
·
6400 attendees at conferences and seminars
in FY 2007
·
2700 clients in FY 2007 for Distance
Education courses in Engineering and Surveying Continuing Education for
licensure renewal.
·
Serves K-12 with programs designed to
promote an awareness of Engineering as a profession.
·
The South’s Best: 2021: A
Robot Odyssey, December 7-8, 2007, Beard-Eaves Memorial Coliseum
The Ginn
Challenge
Auburn Engineering is the recipient of a $25 million commitment
in 2001 from Samuel Ginn, a ’59 ISE graduate and pioneer in wireless
communications
The vision of the Auburn University College of Engineering is
to move into the arena of
Short-term goal: By 2008, position college to move into the Top
20
Long-term goal: By 2014, position college to move into the Top
10
Engineering
Undergraduate Rankings
3rd Georgia Tech
17th
35th
Fall 2007 University Enrollment
|
College/School |
Undergraduate, First Professional |
Graduate |
|
Agriculture |
931 |
248 |
|
Architecture, Design and Construction |
1,395 |
97 |
|
Business |
3,664 |
532 |
|
Education |
1,648 |
759 |
|
Engineering |
3,092 |
673 |
|
Forestry & Wildlife Sciences |
313 |
50 |
|
Human Sciences |
1,081 |
108 |
|
Interdepartmental |
74 |
57 |
|
Liberal Arts |
4,176 |
402 |
|
Nursing |
572 |
17 |
|
Pharmacy |
525 |
21 |
|
Sciences and Mathematics |
2,866 |
335 |
|
Veterinary Medicine |
389 |
50 |
|
Total |
20,762 |
3,375 |
American
Society of Engineering Educators Undergraduate Engineering Degrees Awarded in
Alabama 2004-2005
A&M 72
UAB 63
UAH 188
UA 220
AU 517
TU 52
AU % of total 42.7%
Joint Program
with Business
Business–Engineering-Technology minor
Global
Education Initiative
Harold Conrad, Director
Purpose: Encourage and facilitate opportunities for
international education
|
Domestic Partners |
International Partners |
|
Georgia Tech |
|
|
|
MAIT ( |
|
|
|
|
|
Pukyong National U. ( |
|
|
Universitat Stuttgart ( |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Birdsong Study Abroad
Research
Awards
|
College |
FY02 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY05 |
FY06 |
Faculty
(FY06) |
|
Agriculture |
$10.1
M |
$7.17
M |
$12.18
M |
$10.396M |
$7.846M |
148 |
|
Architecture |
$0.03
M |
$0.19
M |
$0.11
M |
$0.088M |
$0.425M |
52 |
|
Business |
$0 |
$0.15
M |
$0.026
M |
$0.229M |
$0.075 |
82 |
|
Education |
$0.15
M |
$0.18
M |
$0.11
M |
$0.165M |
$0.159M |
87 |
|
Forestry
|
$1.45
M |
$1.21
M |
$2.03
M |
$1.906M |
$2.652M |
28 |
|
Human
Sci |
$3.06
M |
$2.23
M |
$3.01
M |
$2.776M |
$5.403M |
44 |
|
Liberal
Arts |
$0.54
M |
$0.96
M |
$1.08
M |
$0.474M |
$0.022M |
280 |
|
Nursing |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
12 |
|
Pharmacy |
$1.02
M |
$0.41
M |
$0.35
M |
$0.866M |
$0.495M |
39 |
|
Sci
and Math |
$6.02
M |
$5.54
M |
$8.65
M |
$7.307M |
$8.326M |
146 |
|
Vet
Medicine |
$5.69
M |
$4.39
M |
$11.94
M |
$8.754M |
$7.942M |
99 |
|
Engineering |
$
27.1 M |
$33.91
M |
$30.08
M |
$36.319M |
$37.176M |
149 |
|
|
49.1% |
60.2% |
43.2% |
52.4% |
52.7% |
12.8% |
Update of
Development Goals
|
Constituency
|
Goal |
Gifts
and Commitments |
Percent
|
|
Agriculture
|
$
27,700,000 |
$
28,676,537 |
103.5%
|
|
CADC
|
$
20,000,000 |
$
22,881,332 |
114.4%
|
|
Athletics
|
$
68,400,000 |
$ 133,229,502 |
194.8%
|
|
Business
|
$
19,400,000 |
$
30,094,639 |
155.1%
|
|
Education
|
$
5,750,000 |
$
12,745,636 |
221.7%
|
|
Engineering
|
$105,000,000 |
$
96,578,060 |
92.0%
|
|
Forestry
|
$
11,150,000 |
$
11,495,366 |
103.1%
|
|
Human
Sciences |
$
8,200,000 |
$
7,037,217 |
85.8%
|
|
Liberal
Arts |
$
15,000,000 |
$ 13,196,562
|
88.0%
|
|
Library
|
$
5,000,000 |
$
3,520,077 |
70.4%
|
|
Museum
|
$
15,000,000 |
$
23,813,385 |
158.8%
|
|
Nursing
|
$
3,000,000 |
$
22,254,284 |
75.1%
|
|
Pharmacy
|
$
6,000,000 |
$
11,477,946 |
191.3%
|
|
COSAM
|
$
16,000,000 |
$
16,729,527 |
104.6%
|
|
Vet
Med |
$
17,000,000 |
$
28,358,958 |
166.8%
|
|
AUM
|
$
25,000,000 |
$
29,936,895 |
119.7%
|
Student Teams
Formula Car
Mini Baja Car
Sol of
Solar Decathlon
SAE Aero Design
2006
Successes of Student Teams
Mini Baja: 3rd at
Formula SAE: 6th at West
Aero Design: 1st in
Southeast
Solar Car: 4th in stock
(2005 competition)
Materials Handling Student Design: 1st place
Environmental Science Soil Judging: 1st place
ASCE GeoInstitute: 2nd place
AIChE Fuel Cell Powered Car: 3rd place
2007
Successes of Student Teams
To date this year…
SPaRC Robotics Team: 2nd at IEEE SoutheastCon
RoboticsCompetition
AIChE Fuel Cell Powered Car: 5th in race, 3rd in design poster
TigErgonomics Applied Ergonomics Team: honorable mention at
national competition
Formula SAE West: 3rd overall
Baja SAE
2007 Formula SAE West
1st
2nd
3rd
12th
31st
45th
53rd University of Alabama-Birmingham
67th University of Alabama-Huntsville
2007 Baja SAE
1st
2nd
3rd SUNY-Stony Brook
6th Rochester Institute of Technology
38th
52nd Institut Superieur de l’Automobile
60th University of Alabama-Birmingham
69th Georgia Institute of Technology
Facilities
Modernization
2000 – NCAT research lab and test track
2002 – Wilmore Laboratories renovation
2006 – Ross Hall renovation
2007 –
2011 –
NCAT Test Track
$15M Wilmore Laboratories renovation has been completed
Ross Hall Renovation
Sen.
Richard C. and Dr. Annette N. Shelby Center for Engineering Technology
Reports
Maria
said there will be two brief reports. The Executive committee will be
represented by Todd Storey. Todd shared that Exec met once since the last
A&P meeting. Maria shared some of our efforts. We have met with Place Groups
and have attended committee meetings and are trying to get out there and
communicate with A&P employees. Todd encouraged Assembly members to listen
to constituents and bring concerns to Assembly. We will present a comprehensive
list of wellness services available in the near future. Maria added that
regarding Health & Wellness, the University is in the process of providing
one well visit to be approved by University to be covered by insurance. It
would be for employees and those covered by the insurance.
New Business
We
will have a call for nominations in December, first for officers of the
Assembly (three At Large positions, one Chair Elect position and Secretary). It
will be done electronically. Closely following that will be the call for
nomination for representatives for those rolling off. Those rolling off who
have only served once are eligible to serve a second term. We will have seven
slots opening and she encourages us to try to get people interested.
Open Forum
Maria
made it available for anyone to make comments/ask questions.
Todd
asked those in the audience how we can attract people to attend, other than
controversial issues. No one offered anything, but Maria asked that they be in
touch.
John
Folmar asked how the President’s reception was. Several people shared that it
was very welcoming, there was good food, and it was a time to visit with one
another and meet spouses as well. It was a nice occasion.
Maria’s
side note: We have received questions and in the Monday morning meetings with the
president, she has the opportunity to ask questions and set the agenda. She
says that she would love input by Thursday afternoons if anyone wants specific
topics addressed. One item that has come to her attention is dealing with
holiday leave and the amount available at the Christmas/New Year time. She will
try to get input and consideration regarding that. She hopes to find out soon
Dr. Gogue’s look on that.
Adjourn
Meeting
was adjourned at 4:24 p.m.