FSU Classified Staff Council

1

Meeting Minutes January 29, 2014 The Classified Staff of Fairmont State University met on January 29, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. in Room 300 of the Engineering Technology Building. PRESENT: Holly Fluharty, Donna Trickett, Dalene Horner, Rosetta Kolar, Cindy Curry, Sherry Mitchell, Joni Bokanovich, Dr. Rose, Alicia Nieman, Jack Kirby, Daniel Fynaardt, and Tami Winston The meeting was called to order by Rosetta Kolar, Chair. Sherry Mitchell made a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting on November 13, 2013 after one change to the 2nd bullet under “Safety Issues” – change there to their. Donna Trickett second the motion….All in favor…..Approved by Rosetta Kolar. Dr. Rose began by saying that she wishes to thank everyone for their patients during these trying weather times. Special thanks to the Physical Plant and janitorial staff for clearing the snow and keeping the entry’s to the buildings as clean as possible. Dr. Rose said before the Holiday break it we were told to expect a 7.5% (on top of the 8.9%) budget cuts but as of now, it is at a 3.75% budget cut. Dr. Jack Kirby and the budget oversight committee are working on this. She mentioned that the construction projects are closely coming to an end. It is hopeful that during spring break, the carpet in Hardway can be installed. The green house should be finished and the new roof on Caperton once the weather breaks. Feaster Center pool renovation is finished. Other items Dr. Rose briefly mentioned:

• OASIS billing is going to cost $200 per FTE – we were given $44,000 but it will cost in excess of $88,000.

• Pay increase of $504 per employee – were given $127,000 in state appropriations but this increase will cost over $212,000.

• Not planning to cut HEAPS, Promise, or other scholarships • No PEIA employer increases, however, next year we are expecting a 12%

increase. • WV is behind in 81.5 million revenue collections. • We are required by state law to have a balanced budget. • July 1, 2014 we are going live with wvOASIS sections of Procurement,

Accounting, and Budget. January 1, 2015 Payroll & Human Resources will go live.

FSU Classified Staff Council

2

OASIS: Cindy Curry mentioned that everything is changing how we do business in the State with OASIS. Everything has to be mapped over and accounted for. Holly Fluharty said that the funding numbering will be different. Everyone will be provided a map showing old and new funding numbers. A memo went out campus wide explaining that there will be upcoming trainings. Dr. Jack Kirby and the budget oversight committee have been working hard on the budgets. They plan to have it ready by April. After that, the committee will begin talking about strategic budget rather than reducing budgets. Overall we are in a good position and are fiscally sound. Hope to improve enrollments. Cindy Curry informed the committee that we had a very good response for the early retirement plan. This will help save on the budget. Cindy is proceeding on getting all of the approvals necessary and the hope is to start July 1, 2014. Cindy mentioned that the different trainings that were offered in past semesters have been cut due and have contributed to budget savings. Her hope is to offer free trainings to employees in the near future. Currently have onboarding and Ethics training for new employees. REACH offers free training to supervisors and Cindy is hopeful to offer a Sexual Harassment training soon. Cindy will be sending out educational information soon about welcoming service animals on campus. An email and brochure will explain important information about this. It was suggested to add a component to the email about registering the need for a service animal with the Office of Disability Services. This is just to know that the animal is truly supposed to be on campus. Cindy check with Bruce Walker about the CSC doing fundraisers. Cindy reported that there is no reason why we cannot as long as all money is truly used for CSC purposes. Cindy will put together a list of what is allowed. (Ethics) It was suggested that CSC have a craft show on campus on a Saturday and charge $25 per table. It would be best to open to the community and have at the Falcon Center or Colebank. Alisha Nieman has agreed to coordinate this fundraiser. She will check with Robin to come up with a date and location for this event. Holly Fluharty had no BOG report to share. She apologized for missing the Christmas Lunch because she had a meeting in Charleston. She said she will begin planning the spring fling and asked Tami Winston to help her with this. Tami agreed. Holly said that she talked to Rick Porto about attending an upcoming CSC meeting to discuss the budget document. He has agreed that he or Carolyn Fletcher will attend.

FSU Classified Staff Council

3

The tree competition was a success. Her thought is to start this right after Thanksgiving next year to allow more time and more departments to participate. 348 pieces of food were collected and donated to the Nest. The 1st “Falcon Flame” was Francine Jurosko. Francine was very appreciative; however, she did not want any publication of it. The plan is to interview the “flame”, take a picture and give a prize. Then put it on the CSC website to share with everyone. The flame for January will be skipped and will pick up in February. Sherry Mitchell reported for the ACCE (see attached reports). Old Business:

• Thursday, March 27, 2014 – Classified Staff Employee Luncheon – Rosetta is thanking both presidents for paying for this.

• Rosetta has requested that the committee members provide her a list by Feb. 14, 2014 of all committees across campus that CSC should be involved in. Some suggestions: ADA Facilities

Meeting adjourned.

The next CSC meeting will be Wednesday, February 26, 2014

1

Advisory Council of Classified Employees 2013-2014

Minutes of ACCE Meeting October 24, 2013

Marshall University Huntington, West Virginia

ATTENDANCE

Members in Attendance:

Amy Pitzer, Concord University Kristen Hoffman (proxy), Blue Ridge Community and Technical College Fred Hardee, Bluefield State College Melanie Whittington, Bridgemont Community and Technical College Lacey Koontz, Eastern West Virginia Community and Technical College Sherry Mitchell, Fairmont State University Carol Hurula, Marshall University Chris Stevens, Mountwest Community and Technical College Beverly Jones, Pierpont Community and Technical College Kenneth Harbaugh, Shepherd University Carrie Watters, West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Deborah Harvey, West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine William H. Porterfield, West Virginia State University Barbara Boyd, West Virginia University Institute of Technology Paul Martinelli, West Virginia University Timothy Beardsley, West Virginia University at Parkersburg Johnna Beane, West Virginia University Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center Charleston Jill Nixon, West Liberty University

Excused:

Mary Alltop, Glenville State College Lee Ann Porterfield, Kanawha Valley Community and Technical College Mary M. Igo, New River Community and Technical College Teri Wells, Southern West Virginia Community and Technical College Verne Britton, West Virginia Network for Educational Telecomputing (WVNET) VACANT, West Virginia Northern Community College VACANT, Potomac State College of West Virginia University

Unexcused: Janene Seacrist, Council for Community and Technical College

Guests: President – Dr. Stephen Kopp – Marshall University

Katie Counts - Classified Staff Council, MU Valerie Smith – Classified Staff Council, MU Chris Atkins – Classified Staff Council, MU Patricia Gallagher – Classified Staff, MU Noah Lamb – Classified Staff Council, MU Leonard Lovely – Classified Staff Council, MU Sherri Noble – Classified Staff, MU Michelle Douglas – CHRO, MU Joe Wortham – Classified Staff Council, MU Amber Bentley – Classified Staff Council, MU

2

Miriah Young – Board of Governor Classified Rep, MU Nina Barrett – Classified Staff Council Chair, MU Tootie Carter – Classified Staff Council, MU Rhonda Rice – Classified Staff, MU Kristen Pennington – WVU Randy Jones – WVU Lisa Martin – Classified Staff Council Chair, WVU Robert Griffith – Advisory Council Faculty, WVU Dixie Martinelli – Board of Governor Classified Rep, WVU CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson, Ms. Amy Pitzer from Concord University convened the meeting at 9:05 a.m. Welcome from President Kopp

• Discussed continued public funding of public higher education in the state and the trend lines if the state doesn’t favor continuing funding at the level as we have in the past.

• Initiated a long-range strategic planning process in anticipation of significantly less public support for MU and all public institutions in the state.

• Magnitude – anticipate ten years from now we’ll have 10% less public funding as we had in FY13. The magnitude as we look at the state, what’s happening to state revenues and we have to have a plan in place to transition us to less reliance on public funding and more self-reliance. HEPC put together a five year plan but it doesn’t address realities we’re facing today – reality of funds. If we all talk about affordability and access at the end of the day we have to factor in what’s going to happen if we continue to get cuts from the state.

• MU has scheduled three community forums, November 4th, November 5th, and November 7th at our three campuses. Inviting all State Legislators to attend the local forums from each area – title of forum is: Future of Public Funding for WV Public Higher Education. We are encouraging every institution in the state to bring Legislators and the community in to talk about the implication and ramification if continued cuts to public higher education.

• If we do nothing, we’ll see the same results we had last year and those cuts are going to hurt more than the cuts this year.

• Substantial increase in enrollment of International students with a recruiting firm. We want to grow that enrollment to 2,000 – 2,500. The benefit for internationalizing is what it brings to the WV students but also as important; these students don’t rely on state or federal funds.

• End of year – Federal Higher Education Act expires. This is act that has all the federal financial aid for subsidized loans. It will probably get a series of continued resolutions to carry it forward but at some point Congress is going to act on the bill and either reauthorize or make significant changes.

• We’re looking at other alternative revenue streams. We pushed very hard in 2008 for funding of the WV Research Trust Fund. WVU and MU established an endowment to subsidize some research platforms. We’re going to push hard for similar programs to get the state involved in one-time funding to expand endowment for scholarships for students. The argument is, we think it might be possible to encourage the investment on a one-time basis.

• Like it or not we’re being privatized and it’s not only in West Virginia it’s a national phenomenon. Question from Paul Matinelli –What’s happening in West Virginia, are other states experiencing it just as bad?

• President Kopp - Yes, Pennsylvania is closing colleges. Seeing now the ramification of very severe budget cuts. New Hampshire public institutions severe cuts. It’s happening all over the country and some worse than others. In my nearly 40 years of public higher education I’ve never seen a financial situation like we’re seeing today. Most families in the country have not recovered financial and economically. What you’re seeing increasingly are more and more students who cannot afford to go out of state to college and can’t afford to go to college in-state;

3

so they’re borrowing more to fund education. So the idea of doing what we’ve done before by increasing tuition when funding is cut is no longer a viable option.

Question form Ken Harbaugh – Watching many legislative sessions, higher education funding has been heading downward. One thing noted is we don’t do a very good job of getting together the Presidents of Higher Education to go to the legislation with one agenda.

• President Kopp - I think we have to. The lack of unified voice, lack of legislative unified initiatives hurts all of us. We have to develop a unified agenda for the legislature. We discussed during the last legislative session the goal of raising revenue for the state – commodity tax or set of commodity taxes and closing some loophole holes. The tax structure is full of loophole holes – special interest groups lobbying to be exempt for a lower tax rate. To give you an example. On-line book sales, movies and music. You pay no sales tax whereas what you purchase locally you pay sales tax on.

• Discussed these types of commodities as opposed to all, due to the mom & pop online businesses that can’t or don’t have the means to assess sales tax throughout the country. But the major businesses we know can add the sales tax. This is costing the state revenue but the state has to close the loopholes. If we don’t raise and increase revenue in the state there is no chance we’re going to avoid these cuts, because we are one of the very few discretionary budget line items in the state. Discussed service tax. State of South Dakota began recognizing that the economy was moving to a service based economy and set up sales tax structures to tax services being provided. We have not made the movement in this state but many states have moved to a service economy instead of industrial economy.

Ken Harbaugh – we need to tell our leaders; college presidents, chancellors that this is what we want. • President Kopp - In 2018 the federal government starts backing off subsidy for the Affordable

Care Act and cost gets shifted to the states. Right now I haven’t seen a plan for how we’ll address those new costs. Higher education is always on the chopping block so we have to have unified agenda.

Question Ken Harbaugh – SB330. With more money to work with there would be less kickback on the issue of higher wages for employees in higher education. We’re talking about all three constituency groups, not just one. We’re asking to let the research come in and let’s get the data and then start making decisions after research is in, instead of trying to kill good bills. That bill had so much flexibility for college presidents, I’m sure you’ve been talking to Michelle Douglas about it. The people that are very knowledgeable in this bill understands the bill. They understand the flexibility really doesn’t penalize anyone or says any one particular group has to hold still while others are gaining. If there’s that much of a difference don’t we want some gains anyway?

• President Kopp - We’re going to push very hard too. These folks over here have to come along and work together. (Referring to WVU guests).

Johnna Beane – Chancellor Noland several years ago talked about a small round table of President’s, ACF and ACCE to work in a unified agenda. Something this group is interested in doing.

• President Kopp would add one more group and that is chairs of all Board of Governors. Quite honestly this meeting should take place when we do the HEPC Summit in July. That’s the time you lay the foundation, decide on what legislative initiatives you’re going to push hard for and get everyone to buy in. Take it to the campuses- make it part of the agendas we pass by classified staff council and faculty senate instead of what’s being passed every year which is a set of initiatives; i.e. faculty can run for election in the house and senate. That bill is introduced every year and gets parked every year. Let’s work on substantive issues that represent a unified voice across all public institutions of higher education. With that we could get something done.

Johnna Beane asks how we get on that agenda in July • President Kopp – recommends talking to the two chancellors.

Ken Harbaugh – we did request that they look at having the summit where you’re addressing 60% of your budget, your faculty and staff and HR issues that have developed over the years. Something that

4

needs to be incorporated on state wide leadership level. College Presidents are expected to be CHROs but should they have a strong knowledge of what’s happening out there, they certainly should.

• President Kopp – Critical time in the state and funding is really the source we’re dealing with now. If we can’t find a way forward to support higher education then we’re going down the road to privatizing the institution and that’s a fairly substantial change to what we’ve done in the past.

Johnna Beane – I do public health research and as I say to anyone, look at our jails, obesity, teenage pregnancy rate, drug problem and it all ties to one thing – one common denominator and that’s education. I don’t think our state leaders have taken this on as a charge. There have been hits and misses with education reform, K-12, but a P-20 initiative like North Carolina and other states would really streamline from pre-school to a four year degree, that’s what I think the future is.

• President Kopp – Agree. We hear a lot of the importance of public higher education. We need a more educated work force, and an increase in the number of graduates. But the next thing that happens is you look at the budget bill and a decrease for funding of public higher education. Funding for public higher education this last year was 38 million of the total reductions born by public higher education institutions. We have to make our case better, we don’t make a case for what impact we have on the state.

• President Kopp brought up at the Summit in July, the WVU study on PEIA premium impact. WVU indicated they are overpaying 24 million, this is probably a 1 to 10 million range at MU. President Kopp asks if we go to a self-insure system and go together as all public higher education institutions and self-fund. Could we save significant dollars for our workforce and put more in the employees take home pay. Answer is probably yes. That didn’t sit well with the State Budget Director. He had to ask the question for the following reason. If we don’t put this on the table, the leverage we actually have, then it’s hard to get people to come to the table and bargain and negotiate. We have to understand the value proposition we collectively have for the state and use this as a negotiating tool for insuring continued public funding.

Ken Harbaugh comment – asking for communication. ACCE tries to get out to seven or eight institutions each year. We ask all Presidents to communicate with the ACCE members, Classified Staff Councils, anything that needs to be understood. Please open up those avenues for communications so you get all the facts in before a decision is made.

• President Kopp – confirmed he’s made all Classified Staff Council meetings and only missed one or two in nine years. Discussed several upcoming committees and representation of who those members are.

Question Paul Martinelli on rainy day fund. • President Kopp – I’m confused as to what this rain looks like. When do we use that fund? Same

question can be asked about taking a portion of the severance taxes on natural gas and setting aside for twenty years and let it accrue interest and invest and have a future fund. Great idea, great concept. Don’t spend all your earnings today – build and put it away for the future. If we do that what does that mean to today?

ACCE members: Introduction of each person attending and the Institution they’re representing. Guests: Introduction of each person attending and the Institution they’re representing. MINUTES: Carol Hurula distributed copies of the September 26th meeting minutes in draft form. Chris Stevens from Mountwest Community and Technical College moved to accept the minutes and Fred Hardee from Bluefield State College seconded the motion. Motion unanimously approved. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Each committee took ten minutes to meet and discuss two important topics. One will be due in February and one at the June meeting. Audience members were invited to join in and provide input on any committee.

5

Legislative – Chair Amy Pitzer, Co-Chair Ken Harbaugh, Co-Chair Carol Hurula, Johnna Beane, Chris Stevens, Teri Wells, Carrie Watters and Tim Beardsley as recorder.

Ken provided handout for Legislators to assist with upcoming session. Please make contact now with your Legislators in your district. Arrange a meeting with your Legislators on your campus. You want the Legislators to recognize you, even if they can’t recall your name make sure they know you represent classified staff. Format sheet review with communication.

• Project# 1 due February – actually needs to be due tomorrow. Get all communication uploaded on the web-site to better communicate to members.

• Project# 2 due June – contacting local Legislators using packet. Develop a relationship. Charge to contact all Legislators by June and have sit down meetings. Paul emphasized that your discussion with Legislators not be individual and/or campus based– agenda should be state wide initiative.

Benefits – Co-Chair Bill Porterfield, Co-Chair Sherry Mitchell, Fred Hardee, Paul Martinelli, Janene Seacrist, Mary Igo and Carol Hurula – recorder.

• Project# 1 due February – Discussion about PEIA and benefits. Impact on PEIA and Obamacare and the impact on the state.

• Project# 2 due June – erosion of PEIA benefits and the costs that are now being put upon the individual up front. Example when child had a hospital stay the hospital would bill you – recently the employee had to pay up front. Projecting costs and assessing at time of inpatient status. What services are being reduced?

Communication & Presentation – Co-Chair Verne Britton, Co-Chair Chris Stevens, Johnna Beane, Mary Igo, Deb Harvey and Carrie Watters – recorder.

Chris will get key from Verne and update all content management. Work on developing new website.

• Project# 1 – due February but try to get out as soon as can. Update web. Better communication effort centralized on a web-site everyone can assess.

• Project# 2 – due June will be to have a new content management system along with training material that would be part of the retreat in July. Train others to use.

Special Events – Co-Chair Bev Jones, Co-Chair Teri Wells, LeeAnn Porterfield, Anne Wilmoth, Mary Igo, Ken Harbaugh, Verne Britton and Dixie Heavener – recorder. July ACCE Retreat will be at Chief Logan. Will get contract started. Student Employee / Enrichment – Co-Chair Johnna Beane, Co-Chair Tim Beardsley, Melanie Whittington, Mary Alltop, MaryAnn Edwards, Lacey Koontz, Sherri Mitchell, Teri Wells, and Barbara Boyd – recorder.

Questionnaire on policy review at 23 institutions on tuition assistance programs including central office. Currently finished eight reviews. The survey is taking a bit of time, as some institutions have information that isn’t on the web and then some questions require direct communication as some polices are vague and doesn’t answer the question as noted.

o Tuition assistance? o Credit hour limit or monetary limit? o How much is budgeted? o Is assistance tied to position or can it be any professional development? o Does employee get release time from work? o Is assistance only for undergraduate or graduate courses? o Assistance only at your institution or can you attend any institution? o Can you do on-line or private courses? o Who controls the program? Is it HR or staff council? Who makes determination?

• Project# 1 – finish policy review by February have white paper that reviews what each institution in the state with best practices and recommendation for possible improvement.

6

• Project# 2 – keep along that same line for the end of June and do a survey of employees to find out how many are at X-number of hours of finishing degree or currently enrolled.

• Suggestions by attendees on job placement review of those achieving degrees. Ad Hoc By-Laws –Chris Stevens, Fred Hardee, Teri Wells and Carrie Watters.

• Didn’t set a February deadline – actually came out of meeting looking at a means of notifying Staff Council Chairs by reporting on absence of members to Chair of Council, letting them know members aren’t diligent in attending meetings.

• Sanction College to replace member. Amy suggested a review of the State Code and ACCE statute. Mark Toor, Vice-Chancellor for Human Resources.

• Addressed SB330 as noted in agenda. o Salary rule progress. Last tweaking on existing draft was in July. Up until yesterday he

thought the salary rule had been circulated with changes made in July to the Common Grounds committee. Added this to list of things to do this week. Confirmed to Amy that she can distribute to all ACCE members upon receipt.

o Tackled all major issues and questions with Common Grounds Committee. o Feels he has agreement and language ready. o Common Grounds Committee consists of six CHROs, six ACCE members, and one

faculty member. o One institution refused to participate on Common Grounds Committee. Same institution

a week or two ago sent a letter to Chancellor Hill with comments on the salary rule. Common Grounds committee has already addressed and hashed out all things listed in letter previously. The committee has dealt with those issues listed.

o The rule at this point is a narrative. He will send to Cindy Anderson to put in draft legislative format so he can send out for comments.

o If strong legitimate comments and objections are submitted, he will get Common Grounds Committee back together to work these out.

o Ken Harbaugh comment. Salary rule won’t be complete until salary study completed and metric determined. How to input will still have to be written into salary rule.

o Ken Harbaugh comment. Non-classified - critical retention jobs is now listed as hot jobs. With the salary rule these are addressed. SB330 lists how to determine hot job and non-classified jobs.

o SB330 mentions hot jobs once. Hot jobs is one thing that Compensation Planning and Review Committee, hereinafter referred to as CPRC, is to address. Oblique reference to hot jobs in another section as related to Job Classification Committee hereinafter referred to as JCC. JCC is supposed to look at particular positions or point factor methodology if they believe the market results are inconsistent with. If you’re not on the committee that’s the extent of our guidance in SB330 on how to address hot jobs.

o Forum at Bridgemont the question came up – used an example of IT employees who are non-classified stating that they won’t be able to retain or hire new employees because they can’t pay what is necessary. SB330 answers this – hot jobs.

o SB330 reduced the non-classified percentage and SB330 addresses how those go back into the classification system.

o Purpose of legislative rule is to expand on details on what the legislation has left open. o HEPC is not setting the salary, institutions are still in control. o Currently there is no flexibility at the institutions for classified salaries because of the

2001 temporary salary schedule. You can’t do anything about that. SB330 lets any institution set any salary they want for any of their classes as long as they meet the minimum salary schedule set for classified staff. Once you meet you can pay 110% of market as long as you can afford to do so. Only thing SB330 sets is equity among classes and consistency among the three classes.

7

o Stated again. All institutions have control of salary rule; HEPC does not. Board of Governors still has salary rule at institution (still in control) – nothing has changed in that aspect.

• Series 53 Emergency Rule is complete and approved. • Employee profile request by ACCE – from Information Technology. Information not received.

Please resend to Mark and he’ll get so the 2012 salary data can be preserved for those that have been moved from non-classified back to classified. Compare 2012 to 2013.

• Director of Class & Comp / Trish Clay. In August she went to Minnesota and met with Fox Lawson. She described this as a productive meeting and they were able to get on the same page on lots of issues. Fox Lawson is to produce a work plan, specific document of what’s been done, what’s left to do, and information they need from HEPC in order to complete. Haven’t seen this document yet from Fox Lawson.

• Have produced a refinement. They proposed an amendment of $840,000. HEPC’s intent is to hold them to the contract as there’s been no change in the scope of work requested. There has been one amendment moving the RFP from $88,000 to right under $200,000. Mark’s directive is we have a contract and he is drafting an email to them on completion of the contract.

• May need to pay additional charge for current 2013 data as opposed to 2012 and this is understandable as it is HEPC’s fault that we are a year down the road on that.

• Q & A for Fox Lawson. Forty-five questions provided by ACCE and we’ve had no reply from HEPC.

• We have somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,800 non-classified employees and 900 job titles. At most there are two non-classified positions for each one job title. I know there aren’t 900 distinct jobs being performed, but non-classified hasn’t had any structure on titling positions - it’s all over the place. Trish’s enormous job is to figure out the non-classified job descriptions that match – whereas job titles don’t. Because of the task of scrubbing – HEPC can’t put a deadline date on Fox Lawson because we aren’t ready to ship this information off to Fox Lawson.

• Classified jobs are complete. • Still have to complete non-classified and faculty. • Changing the element of compensation of non-classified employees. Not changing the point

value of classification. Need to find a way to modify the classification system to an enhanced point value associated with those jobs now higher priced in market. Common Grounds Committee – statute says when placing and moving classified employees through salary structure. SB330 says to consider performance, education beyond requirements, other objective measurable factors.

• Salary rule creates criteria for HR department to assign value to those other objective criteria. Because we are doing this for all new employees, we have to do this for all existing employees at the time of assessment.

• Salary rule sets a one-year period. Every classified employee will be surveyed on what criteria will enhance that person’s position when it comes to salary. As an example. If a position only requires a bachelor’s degree but you have a master’s degree. Structure to value criteria to enhancing salary for the additional criteria.

• Experience equivalency for knowledge. o Question as it related to job hire at Fairmont University. o Mark knows somewhere there is a formula that says how to equate years of service. o You have to think through the PIQ before you put the job advertisement out. o If you hire a lawyer, they need a law degree. o Much softer requirements for non-professional positions – i.e. bachelor’s degree or three

years relevant experience. o Amy – our system has an equivalency for knowledge. Every classified employee unless

professional level job as Mark referred to; you can’t be a lawyer with an English degree, etc.

o Amy - We do have a lot of professional jobs in our system such as nurses and experience would not equate to degree requirements.

8

o Amy - There are times when a person’s experience doesn’t equate to the job. This is a judgment call on HR’s behalf. It is subjective and up to the HR person to determine if the experience that person has is equal to the degree required.

o Best practices committee commented on this area and putting some sort of recommended standard for job postings and suggested it have the equivalency on the advertisement.

• Mercer update: Two months ago started talking with Mercer and other outside compensation analysts and international companies that do compensation. Mark was not comfortable with what he was hearing that Fox Lawson’s methodology is flawed. He has heard this non-stop since he took the position but no one could give him any particulars. Since he didn’t feel he had enough knowledge to defend Fox Lawson’s methodology and to bolster credibility for Fox Lawson’s report, he hired an expert in the field.

• Just this week he was approved by the State to sign an agreement with Mercer. o Mercer criteria to get guidance on proper methodology. o Second part of contract with Mercer is so Mark can respond to criticism from SB330 in a

constructive way to modify anything in SB330 that isn’t serving the legislative intent. o Perhaps some adjustments made to the law so we can get in line with exactly what the

legislation was intending to achieve. o Hope to have a face to face at CUPA conference to outline what they’re going to do for

us. o Karen Hutchinson – Mercer specialist in higher education compensation. She does

nothing but higher education comp. She said she had a similar legislative term issue when working with the State of Maryland.

o Mercer to provide outline. o From outline Common Grounds Committee to build structure that can go to the legislation

so that Fox Lawson survey meets legislative intent. • Mark commented on the LOCEA resolution relating to SB330 to move with deliberate speed.

Legislation has been on the books two years already. • Organizational accountability is addressed in the draft salary rule.

o SB330 sets out a process for deficiency. o The salary draft rule provides a process for the deficiency. o In addition to organizational accountability there is other authority granted to HEPC in

SB330, one of which may need to be written into the salary rule. • Every three years the VCHR conducts an individual review of HR personnel at each institution. • He can’t wait three years to start the process and perform reviews at twenty-three different

institutions. Therefore he sent out an email to the CHROs asking for input on what they think the directive in SB330 means, what criteria should be used, and what considerations should go into the review. To date he’s gotten very few responses to that request. He’s considering putting that to the Common Grounds Committee. He doesn’t want to be the only one setting the criteria.

• He may put this in the salary rule draft before sending out for comment. • A lot of institutions are up in arms to the timelines in SB330 when in fact it’s been in effect since

2011 and in the predecessor bill passed a year before that as well as Bruce Walker’s summary of that legislation.

• The legislation is clear in the deadlines that are in the bill. • Timing of when to start measuring relative market equity, hereinafter referred to as RME.

Definition says it’s got to be adjusted over a three year period. Some institutions lawyers have seized on that language and said you can’t make any moves to RME until you have three years of data. We can’t do that. If we do, we would be six years from the time the law was passed before we can start making moves toward achieving.

• Soon as rule is implemented you have to start making progress toward RME.

• Misinformation out there. WVU forum PowerPoint presentation says RME has to be based on three year average of data. That isn’t what SB330 says. They are reading the law inaccurately. SB330 is clear in that RME is a test – a test that has to be done over three years and if you meet

9

the 5% differential over a period of three years, then you have achieved RME. Doesn’t say you wait three years to get data before you begin to implement.

• Salary rule currently says that in year-one every institution has to create a three year model that shows what degree of raises and changes in compensation is necessary to get to differential by year three.

• Rule also provides an escape valve. If your modeling shows you can’t get there within three years, your institution makes a proposal to the HEPC and they will consider an extended period of time.

• Once legislative rule is approved there is a progress toward moving toward RME within the next raise cycle.

• Some institutions say they can’t do any future raises since the 2001 Temporary Salary Schedule has been fully funded until the new salary rule is in place.

• Misinformation. Law says if you are fully funded you have flexibility to move forward. • Preparing web-site to address issues of misinformation concerning SB330.

o Has a draft of FAQ’s that has been reviewed by the Chancellors. o Hoping to have up on web-site within a couple weeks to address the speed of

misinformation that is going out. o His suggestion is to also address facts vs. myths in SB330. There’s plenty of

language out there in documents he can respond to point by point. He has also done so one on one but the response to him was, “we don’t care.”

• Ken suggested a blog for questions to be submitted. Mark doesn’t care for the blog as it becomes an opinion site, but he will look into an email link where questions can be submitted and the HEPC can reply and post the question and answer on the web.

Comment from WVU representative Robert Griffith. Presented the forum at WVU on Monday afternoon. I have seen Mr. Toor’s comments and criticisms and this isn’t the place to engage in a debate. But just want it understood that I stand behind everything that was on the slides. Do not believe they are myths, I have read the law, I have consulted with university attorneys and that’s enough. I stand behind everything we stated.

• So noted by ACCE. Senator Plymale.

• I appreciate the opportunity to be present. Just finished three days of pretty intense legislative meetings. Worst meeting attended was the one by Mike McCown from the Governor’s office who could make a good budget look bad. It was gloom and doom and didn’t only stop on the state budget but went to the federal budget. Being honest, things aren’t good.

• Facts as relate to history. The 1999 NCHEM (National Center for Higher Education Management System) study talked about community colleges, higher education and before that SB547. There have been a whole series of bills trying to move some things from higher education standpoint.

• ‘99 clearly set out a path to separate policy from governance and governance was set at the institution level. But at no time did the Legislator’s give away personnel rights and personnel. It has never been there, no matter what any group says, it has never been given away. The legislation has personnel. We through certain bills give some authority to the policy commission to do certain things. The legislation has personnel – not to the Board of Governors at any institution; not to any group or any individual present. It is with the legislation.

• Where do you go when you have a grievance? Do you go to the BOG? No, you go to the state grievance board.

• There has been a lot of misinformation on this and I’m not going to get into specifics. It is the policy commission’s job to handle the misinformation.

• In 2010 we approved SB480 but it had flaws in the title or it would have passed that year. What came back in SB330 the following year was almost identical and there was no addition of the faculty.

• History: To be very clear when changes were made. WVU President came to Governor Manchin wanting to be free of everything – set loose. He gave a whole long list of things. What

10

else was occurring at this time in history was University of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as UVA and Virginia legislature was having severe budget problems. UVA said cut us loose but when you cut us loose we take no state money. UVA has no state funding and complete freedom. UVA is in name only. Longwood, Virginia Tech and William and Mary also as it relates.

• Governor Manchin had no bill at this time to work with. He went to the Senate and said, “Write a bill that gives flexibility to WVU and MU.” He provided a whole list of things you couldn’t do. A trade off as well because there was nothing being done to any great degree related to faculty salary, classified staff and meeting classified staff and non-classified percentages. Every institution told us that none of them were above a 20% yet most of their calculations included faculty and other employees.

• It was clear when doing SB603 providing flexibility to WVU and MU that we clearly said to them you’ve got come back with recommendations. Every time we spoke to the Presidents at WVU and MU and asked are you a strong supporter of SB603? The answer was yes. Then you also support personnel issue that are coming along? So it’s very clear. This is what we did and we had long discussions on that. Everyone was clear on what needed to be done.

• There’s a lot the HEPC has not done. One of the first items in SB603 is addressing faculty, classified staff and non-classified salaries. It’s in SB603 so the fact that some are saying it was added in SB330 in 2011 is incorrect.

• SB480 a year in between SB603 and then SB330. Once passed you then you go to comment period. There was no comment whatsoever given to the policy commission when going thru the process.

• Lesson: You need to go back and understand the political situation and how you’re supposed to address comments. If you have a problem – make a comment. Absolutely no comments submitted. This is particularly for the faculty.

• I’m not going to tell you that SB330 does not have things that need to be changed. I’m not going to tell you that’s the case.

• Every bill you pass has issues that you’re going to have to address. One I’ve lived through is Worker’s Compensation. When we did Worker’s Compensation we were the worst in the nation as it relates to Worker’s Comp. By far we couldn’t fund it and I was a business person paying worker’s comp. You didn’t get a welcome to that State of West Virginia letter for opening a business. Your letter was from Worker’s Compensation and this is what you owe. But it was so flawed that we had to do a series of steps that changed things. Voted on four times before we finally privatized it. We now have one of the top five rates in the Country because of this. I’ve been involved in the pension liability changes. The worst so far was the PEIA select committee. The things you have right now where you’re not having problems on access to care with PEIA were set up in a select committee in 1996. We had to change that bill drastically. OPEC among others. We’ve had to make incremental steps in every bill.

• I will tell you this, I’m not going to change anything until we get the studies back on Fox Lawson or other studies that come back because that’s a moot point. Why do you want to change something when you have no facts to say this is what you need to change?

• I do know that when I look at one definition, I know that one definition will need to be changed. But why do this until you have the facts on the other part of this side to do that.

• HEPC has not acted as fast as they should. They need to and they need to be done quickly and get to the answers so we can move this along.

• Passed bill in 2011 and it takes two years to get an emergency rule to guide you and it’s still only half of the emergency bill that you need.

• Budget cuts: I’m not saying that we’re going to be away from mid-year budget cuts. We don’t know this yet. Right at this time when you start looking at it we may have mid-year cuts. If you noticed the other day, and this hasn’t been discussed at any length, but you need to have a policy on furloughs. It was mentioned in a committee meeting this week. You need to start looking at how you perceive this, and how you want to look at it and be ready with input.

• Budget: when you look at the budget – everybody talks about coal. Coal is one part of the budget. We’re trying to make this state progressive where we can have business in here that aren’t paying where Pennsylvania is here and we’re up here. Where Maryland is here and we’re up here above them.

11

Question from Paul Martinelli – Explain the rainy day fund. • Tentatively you have more problems with administration than you do with the legislature

concerning the rainy day fund. Lot of respect for Governor Tomblin as he helped design rainy day fund to get us where it is. Series of meetings where you go to Wall Street and decide where WV wants to be. My opinion is I don’t have a problem with using rainy day fund but it’s to what extent you do it.

Comment from Ken Harbaugh – Ten years ago we had a different Chancellor who said, basically you have as much money as you have, and it’s all in how you choose to spend it. I’ve been in system 42 years and seen the times when you didn’t have as much fanciness in the buildings, institutions that are buying upgraded equipment, travel, campus beautician, etc. I like all the beautification but I don’t think we’ve kept up with the employees and we haven’t kept up to K-12 as far as wages. Is there any way to re-align, the giving a certain amount of tuition leeway so that personnel problems could be taken care of. • Capital Facilities Act. My thoughts we needed to review and did a three-year study and came

back with recommendations. Unfair to WVU and MU to a lesser extent. Capital projects took student fees throughout the state and then you did a bond and WVU did approximate 47% of all capitol but what they got back in return was less. The 2012 bonds found the biggest savings. WVU, MU and all institutions were having to pay the bonds. The state did bonding for community colleges, higher education, HEAPS, etc.

• State was hoping that when you the institutions received the 2012 savings back they would start taking some of the savings and put it back into faculty and classified staff salaries. Most institutions basically took the funds and rolled it into new bonds that are paying for new buildings on campuses.

• Deferred maintenance at the state level to try to help out. This was a big portion of the east bonds.

• My opinion is, there is more money, or as much money on campus. There’s less state money but more money overall because of tuition and fee increases.

• There should be a policy at each institution on how you’re going to use the tuition fees and a portion should be going to faculty and staff salaries, in my opinion.

• I’m not on any Board of Governors. Each institution can set a policy to do that. No approval is necessary. Only approval is when you increase tuition above a certain % - then HEPC has to approve.

Comment from Ken. We need to make the institutions realize that human resources is more important than that new covered breezeway being built. Comment Johnna Beane –How many of your colleagues do you feel would be open to using the rainy day fund?

• Really don’t know, haven’t taken a poll.

Question from WVU Lisa Martin – How confident are you in the results from the Fox Lawson study based on their initial contract amount and their now asking for more funds to complete?

• Can’t answer that until he sees the results. Feels there will be credible elements. • RFP 1212082 has all the details of the study.

Question from Paul Martinelli – Was information on the bonding provided to the institutions.

• There was many conversations on bonds and usage of funds but it was not written in legislation. We are trying to allow local governance – except on personnel by providing flexibility in capital projects. Greater flexibility to WVU and MU. Extended some things to other institutions as well. Should it have been written that a portion go to salaries, yes, he takes responsibility for not doing so as he chaired that committee.

12

Question from Dixie Martinelli – regarding mineral enriched state but we don’t capitalize on such things as Marcellus Shale and don’t understand the change in food tax. Why can’t we expect more revenue in near future rather than distant future?

• Understand food tax because we have lower income people getting reimburse and it was more of affair tax than anything.

• Severance tax similar to what North Dakota did. Applaud Jeff Kessler for reviewing and looking at what future fund becomes. For example, Marshall County is getting more money than they’ve ever received from local share. In North Dakota they have a legacy fund set up. Visited North Dakota to get a better understanding. 70% is actually being spent on things now and 30% set aside for legacy fund. Which doesn’t come about until 2017. Very clearly defined on what they can spend the funds on.

Question from Bev Jones – regarding tuition for hours exceeding 12 credits. • Have to look at student impact. It worked somewhat at Pierpont but when they looked

closer it didn’t work as well as they thought. Suggested if they consider this that a quick economic analysis is done to see the advantages and disadvantages.

Senator Plymale spoke on hybrid car rebate.

Question from Johnna Beane regarding Fox Lawson’s request for additional funds and is there a plan B? Second question on P-20 and revamping our education system.

• Fox Lawson study is in HEPC’s hands and they would have to answer the question on plan B.

• We have to increase our education attainment level. Study shows we would need 118,000 four year graduates to move into the state to meet the national average. This is sad. Further discussion on middle skills job and increased high school graduation rates. Currently fifty percent of kids are being raised by someone besides their parents. College and career readiness – data systems connecting and seeing the flow of what’s effective and where people are being hired. Sixty-seven percent of students in college have to take remedial courses. Two-thirds of these students are those that have lost jobs and are retraining. Traditional students from high school is a lower percentage but also highest percentage of those needing remedial courses.

Question from Carrie – Will we protect financial aid from budget cuts.

• We should and plan to protect financial aid, but also have to be careful on whom we provide loans to due to default rate.

Question from WVU student concerning tuition increase to fund SB330. • States do not place enough priority on the budgets of higher education. Having a priority

for funding higher education is important. I agree we have a problem but don’t think SB330 is causing the problem. We have less students coming from high schools in West Virginia. We are graduating less each year. We have two to three institutions that are on the brink of not being able to continue. We shouldn’t put that on the backs of students and parents every time. That’s been the low hanging fruit, unfortunately. When institution budgets are cut they increase tuition. As a parent I pay that. I agree student debt that is accumulating and is concerning. We’ve got to keep tuition as low as we can.

Senator Plymale, in reply to information from WVU regarding peer institutions, stated, you are gaged by your peer institutions. No part of this bill state you will be looked at by an institution in the State of West Virginia. Your peer institution is what you’re being gaged on for faculty. On the classified staff side we need to have a basis for what that is at a state level.

We have to get through the steps in order to see where we’re at. WVU has nine people in compensation and at no point did he get a comment on SB330. He needs comments during the comment period.

13

ACCE Chair Further Discussion:

ACCE has always taken the stand and ACF always had a shared Philosophy in that we’re equal partners in educating the students, full-filling the mission of the institution and guiding principle of the State of West Virginia. We can’t do this without each other. There are certainly differences within the groups, how they function, especially how the groups are paid and should be paid. If you lose sight of the fact that it takes all groups in that we’re there for the benefit of the student. If you lose sight then you will never, ever get the culture change that’s coming. Cultural change will guide us all back to where the legislature wants us to be for the benefit of the students.

ACCE- group always supports financial aid programs, make sure that’s on our legislative agenda every year. In addition to that, we have given up salary increases because we knew where they came from; off the backs of student and their parents. We have foregone many items over the years because we understand it means you pay more. We would never support legislation that we feel would be harmful to even one student in this state.

Concern state wide on how we’re going to fund SB330 and would prefer to spend time talking to Legislators than defending SB330.

A lot of items in SB330 that people are saying are mandates, aren’t. They’re goals, principles, and suggestions. There are mandates in the bill as well. They are mandated because the legislature has tried through encouragement to get institutions to do this for several years and failing to do so. They thought the only way to get this done is to mandate it. I hope everyone reads the bill for themselves. If you have questions anybody around the table is able to answer or refer someone to you. I’m sure Mark Toor, Senator Plymale or Mary Poling in the house would answer any question that you have. You can’t look at this in a vacuum but you have to look at it globally. How it affects everyone and while understanding some institutions are bigger than others – you still handle HR the same way. For ACCE it’s about fairness, accountability, credibility, transparency, and that we have a systematic approach to a maintainable system. It has to be sustainable or it’s no good for any of us. If it’s not going to work we’ve been assured it will be fixed. But as Senator Plymale indicated today you have to implement it before you know where all the holes are you need to plug. To not implement, to give up on it, even before trying – I can’t agree with that personally.

Ken Harbaugh comment. We’re realistic that we’re West Virginia and we won’t be able to pay employees at a level such as Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. But can we implement a fair system for all employees with the resources we have? We should be able to.

PRESENTATION The remaining time of the ACCE meeting was used to discuss the ACCE presentations to the Legislative Oversight Commission on Education Accountability (LOCEA), the Higher Education Policy Commission (HEPC), and the Council for Community and Technical College Education (CCTCE). Some of the points mentioned for use in the presentation were:

Cultural change SB330

Responsibility as listed in bills Constituency groups – President, students, staff and faculty

What authority does HEPC/CCTCE need to drive change that they don’t currently have? Communication on misinformation

Fact sheet – handout to HEPC, CCTCE and LOCEA

Campus concerns, updates and announcements

Ken Harbaugh. Shepherd University Faculty Senate Chair requested the ACCE representative or a classified staff council member be present at all meetings. President of Faculty Senate also attending Staff Council meetings. Discussion of faculty compression on the campus due to new hires.

14

Discussed some concerns with data reporting at HEPC with change in staff.

Discussed data reporting as it relates to WVOASIS.

Ken Harbaugh and Amy Pitzer spoke with the Vice Chancellor on Wednesday. HEPC will be providing in a couple weeks a report that lists all institutional raises for all three classes of employees that are being provided this fiscal year.

Bill Porterfield indicated that West Virginia State will be providing raises for faculty at 2% on January 1. In July the faculty will receive a second raise of 2% for 65% of the tenured faculty making this a maximum of 4% for faculty. Non-classified will receive 2% across the board raise on July 1, 2014. Classified will be fully funded as of July 1, 2014. No raises for classified staff that are currently red-lined. Plan is to revise the classified raise policy later that will include those red-lined employee. Discussion of what institutions are fully funded and as of what year ensued.

Next ACCE meeting in Summersville 11/21/13 Annual presentation at HEPC 12/6/13 and at CCTCE 12/12/13 ACCE meeting at MUGC 12/5/13 LOCEA presentation in January ACCE meeting at Concord 1/14/14

There being no further business to come before the council, Tim Beardsley made a motion to adjourn at 2:40 p.m. The motion was seconded by Chris Stevens.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Carol Hurula, Secretary

1

Advisory Council of Classified Employees 2013-2014

Minutes of ACCE Meeting December 4, 2013

Marshall University Graduate College South Charleston, West Virginia

ATTENDANCE Members in Attendance: Amy Pitzer, Concord University

Fred Hardee, Bluefield State College Melanie Whittington, Bridgemont Community and Technical College Sherry Mitchell, Fairmont State University Mary Alltop, Glenville State College Lee Ann Porterfield, Kanawha Valley Community and Technical College Carol Hurula, Marshall University Chris Stevens, Mountwest Community and Technical College Kenneth Harbaugh, Shepherd University Carrie Watters, West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Jenna Derrico, West Virginia Northern Community College Chris Gray (Proxy). Southern West Virginia Community and Technical College Deborah Harvey, West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine Barbara Boyd, West Virginia University Institute of Technology Paul Martinelli, West Virginia University Johnna Beane, West Virginia University Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center Charleston

Excused:

Anne Wilmoth, Blue Ridge Community and Technical College Mary M. Igo, New River Community and Technical College Beverly Jones, Pierpont Community and Technical College VACANT, Potomac State College of West Virginia University Jill Nixon, West Liberty University Lacey Koontz, Eastern West Virginia Community and Technical College Verne Britton, West Virginia Network for Educational Telecomputing (WVNET) Timothy Beardsley, West Virginia University at Parkersburg William H. Porterfield, West Virginia State University

Unexcused: Janene Seacrist, Council for Community and Technical College

Guests: Rob Anderson – HEPC VC Administration

Robert E Long – Retired Classified Staff *Not every guest is present for the entire length of the meeting due to other obligations and time limits.

2

CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson, Ms. Amy Pitzer from Concord University convened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. MINUTES: Carol Hurula distributed copies of the November 21st meeting minutes in draft form. Ken Harbaugh from Shepherd University moved to accept the minutes, Mary Alltop from Glenville State College seconded the motion. Motion unanimously approved. UPDATE FROM VICE CHANCELLOR FOR ADMINISTRATION – Rob Anderson:

• Discussed agenda for state and the current “hot topic” as it relates to SB330. • In reference to topics relating to SB330 Mark Toor put out a Facts v. Myths on HEPC web-site to

dispel rumors. Unfortunately misinformation is still circulating. • Behind schedule with implementation of SB330 legislation and unfortunately comments didn’t

come up at that time they were rolling up sleeves and digging into this piece of legislation. • Unfortunately loss of staff at HEPC and not much progress to date. • Currently dealing with a vendor (Fox Lawson) who doesn’t appear to be able to get the job done

when dealing with RME. Very important component and very important that it be done right. • Process was flawed from the start when previous VCHR set up the committee to gather RFP’s.

Committee should have been a more broadband group. • HEPC is advocating to Senator Plymale that with new RFP – get ACCE, faculty representative

and other entities involved in the process. • Mark has been very pointed with Fox Lawson. Fox Lawson didn’t realize we had law schools or

medical schools. Roadblock on RME and campus to campus basis. They have requested $40,000 per campus to complete study as it needs done. $800,000 additional. That amount isn’t available or in the contract, it’s actually 3-4 times more.

• Everyone has lost confidence in Fox Lawson by now to complete this job. • Rob spoke with Senator Plymale and Delegate Poling involving how they can salvage and move

on with what’s productive. • Mark Toor and Mercer believe they have good classified salary information. Would like to age

information by one year due to date this was pulled. Go ahead and create new classified salary schedule. Think they’re 90% there. Get that across the goal line. Move forward with that piece, classified having a new salary schedule that is a lot more up to date than the old one we’re currently working under.

• Then they could start working with institutions on what their plans are to fulfill the salary schedule and get to where they need to be.

• Mean time take a big step back on RME. Form a new committee and make sure it’s inclusive of everyone that needs to be involved with that process.

• Get an RFP out, which is going to be expensive. What we saw from other vendors when looking back at to proposals since Rob became involved, all were in the three quarter million dollar type range to do all this. Probably what it’s going to cost.

• Senator Plymale and Delegate Poling are willing to be advocates with the legislature to go after the funding so that we can choose a proposal that’s best and get this done in the right way.

• Meantime so things aren’t completely at a standstill, we could concentrate on the Fox Lawson salary data for classified. Start getting salaries at the institutions closer to where they need to be.

• Meantime run this other process (RFP) and have it done in random. • Figure out what the bindings are in RME from the data when completed. Senator Plymale

advocates about not seeing change in in the legislative session because you don’t know what the data is yet. He’s committed to that.

• Possibly be a lot of people making a run at changing during legislative session saying this component of SB330 is flawed and so on. Comment is legislation is never perfect but until we have data and see what the data says we don’t know what to change. Maybe in a future legislative session we need to go back and make changes. One being peer institutions in SB330 may be in how it’s stated now. This is a big piece of legislation and there could be some shifts but until Senator Plymale sees the data he’s not willing to go down that road.

3

• Try to get classified salary schedule updated they would try to fend off any legislative changes that might be proposed.

• Question Ken Harbaugh– what confidence do we have in Fox Lawson knowing what we’ve heard and our lack of answers on the 49 questions that ACCE requested? Rob Anderson – Regarding the questions sent to Mark. Obviously not best communication. Thinks he tried to answer some of those through the FAQ’s and Facts v. Myths. As you read through those you’ll see some flow of the questions being answered, but not a point by point answer on what ACCE submitted. Most questions there’s information about – others Fox Lawson refused to answer or give HEPC replies. Regarding confidence in what Fox Lawson put out. We think it’s close enough that we can work with Mercer or someone this group is comfortable with. We tentatively showed Mercer what we have and they feel confident in being able to update the data for the additional year. What needs to take place is a conversation with Mark, ACCE group and others to give you the confidence. Here’s the data and whey we think it’s good and here’s what remains.

• Comment Ken Harbaugh – we have confidence in Mercer but we haven’t heard any information from them or even know if there’s a contract with Mercer.

• Rob Anderson – contract finally signed last week. Working contract with them right now.

• Question Ken Harbaugh - Is HEPC wiling to continue to use credible outside sources like Mercer for faculty and non-classified to revalidate work?

• Rob Anderson - Absolutely. If ACCE is tentatively or philosophically on board with this direction that’s an important next step. Make sure Mercer is involved and we have a contract so he thinks this is direction HEPC will go.

• Question Debbie Harvey – so if classified is finished does someone know if we’re low, high or any data if the new schedule will be lower than the current one?

• Rob Anderson – it’s just segregated data. Line item CUPA type data and nothing to roll up, but definitely doesn’t think it will be lower than current salary schedule. HEPC feels good about the data. Let’s get assurance from Mercer and update for one more year and I think fairly quickly get information to review.

• Comment / Question Chris Stevens – Mercer is validating the data and if ACCE is willing to move forward is HEPC willing to face the challenges that this reputable group came in and said your 2001 salary schedule needs to be replaced with this, when you then have a very large institution say we don’t view that as credible? I have a concern from my campus that we’re saying that this group isn’t capable of doing all the work but they’re okay to do classified work. Another institution bulked at what Mercer did several years ago. Is HEPC ready to go toe to toe with an institution when they bulk no matter what?

• Rob Anderson – HEPC will catch flack no matter what we go with. That’s the lay of the land. The classified CUPA data is very defensible and we’re comfortable with that and with the leadership bodies being comfortable, such as Senator Plymale and Delegate Poling. There’s more art involved in RME and we realized that Fox Lawson never had a clue from day one, campus to campus and wanted to pool all of the peers instead of looking at each campus. We want each campus compared to their peers and market. As far as classified salary schedule with the CUPA data it’s ABC of what was done and why and people can kick and scream but it’s just them not liking the process – that the state has oversight of this process.

• Comment / Question Debbie Harvey – I understand the problem with faculty salary study completely, but why can’t non-classified salaries be completed since they are what they are; directors, IT, graphic designers, etc. and such.

4

• Rob Anderson – Presidents have consensus on who they considered non-classified but now with the parameter at 25% and moving to 20% that will tighten up a lot more and we’ll see more continuity but there was a lot of exemptions but as this tightens this will come more in line.

• Comment Amy Pitzer – Spoke a little on the phone with Rob but to reiterate to the ACCE group; the whole problem with SB330 and people claiming that they’re just now finding out how it affects them. Number one, I don’t buy that because I was heavily involved in that process and there were representatives on every committee I served on. Now if those people did a bad job of communicating back to those they represent I can’t help that, but I don’t buy into that, and I personally took it upon myself to have conversations with the Advisory Council of Faculty about issues that were effecting them when we wrote Series 53 which they had a representative on. When SB330 first came out and we started having conversation with the Commission and Council, I took it upon myself to have conversations with them. For them to come out at this late date and say they didn’t know is just like what the CHRO’s did and said they didn’t have any input in SB480. This isn’t’ true. I was there and I know who I had meetings with. Nevertheless, that problem in my opinion has been exasperated by the Commission and Council and maybe the VCHR as they felt no urgency to correct the misinformation that was out there. This is a travesty from our stand point because it’s made it a lot bigger problem to fix. The fact that you’re hearing things when you’re at the legislature and we’re hearing when we’re there. Some of us have legislators that are powerful people and it’s easy to talk to those people and make a difference. In my area I can talk until the cows come home but it makes no different. Mine only has one vote. Therefore I only make them aware of the misinformation but I concentrate on the power houses of the legislature which is where I need to concentrate. It almost makes us feel like the Commission and Council aren’t behind SB330 because there was such a lack of urgency to correct the misinformation and the fact that Mark Toor in particular went to all those meetings being held across the state and there visually as the face of the Commission and Council and did nothing to correct the misinformation has made this a huge problem and we’re not happy about that and want you to know that. We don’t feel there’s transparency because of that. I work very closely with my CHRO and work closely with my President we have a great relationship and talk about this information all the time and feel comfortable talking about these issues. There are others where their relationships aren’t that great as these people are believing this information that’s out there and they think the people in this room are crazy. We’ve been accused of misleading the people we represent. We’ve been accused of that by the VCHR. When he says that to other groups we feel like he’s doing a lot to discredit our group and we work really hard for the credibility that we have.

• Rob agreed. This has been a lot of years in the building.

• Amy – yes a lot of years in the building. Hurtful number one but two, it continues to exasperate the problem we have. What do we do, how do we fix that. We don’t want Mark Toor to fail, as if he fails what we want is going down the drain. We want him to be successful. Feel like he’s pitting one group against the other.

5

• Rob Anderson – don’t think any of that is intentional on his part. Thinks doing his job in this type of arena is foreign to him and instead of putting all these conversations together and having a platform or strategy of one or two things to focus on. He’s a very intelligent guy and he gets down into the weeds and should probably focus on some big policy directives as far as this goes and stick to those talking points. Thinks it’s a matter of him getting off point and a lot of times and leads to misinformation and conversation goes where it never meant to go.

• Question Sherry Mitchell – who is going to point VCHR in the right direction. He came to my campus for a forum and he continues to talk about the imaginary 10% and never once explains where this came from. I asked the group where does this 10% come from and he’s never saying I made it up because it’s what I think it should be. Also at meeting for the third time in my presence he said that faculty is the most important group. That does not sit well with me at all.

• Question Paul Martinelli - He said the most important group in SB330 or on campus in general? • Sherri Mitchell - He said in general, referring to RME.

• Comment Ken Harbaugh - There’s also comments by VCHR such as I don’t necessarily believe

everything in SB330. If you’re supposed to run this group you better believe in it all or convince the parties involved, the stakeholders that something needs changed. Be direct in what needs to be changed. This is a very logical group that you’re with here today and we’ll listen to anything and if it needs to be changed for the betterment of Higher Education and we can be convinced by credible sources we’ll be there in support.

• Rob Anderson – Answer to earlier question, Mark reports straight to both the Chancellors and he’ll be updating them on this meeting and make sure these different issues are mentioned, particular what is being said at various meetings. It’s good to have specifics and has heard that some people aren’t happy with these meetings but this is the first time he’s heard specifics that he can point to regarding what is actually being said. He appreciates that.

• Comment Ken Harbaugh – we say all that and at the same time we want the VCHR out there promoting this agenda. Such as the items recently put on your web-site is a good beginning, we have 6,000 classified employees in this system and they need to know personally what’s happening and what direction this is. Same way with the faculty, all three groups have to be involved, your President’s, CHRO’s, classified & faculty. All have to see what’s supposed to happen and why.

• Rob Anderson - Absolutely and these are tough discussions. Amy described her relationship with her President and CHRO and he knows they are very open with each other and they don’t always agree but they have the latitude to have these discussions and speak their mind. What we need is some type of space where that can happen more at a state level an option of having this on campus but with people coming together to have these conversations about these pressing issues. Thinks that’s what the intent of the common grounds group to be but doesn’t appear to be achieving that purpose.

• Comment Amy/Ken - Not meeting to allow this to happen. We last met in June. We have a meeting on Monday only because this issue was pushed.

• Comment Melanie Whittington - Forum between Bridgemont and WVU Tech he allowed the faculty representative to say that they added faculty into SB330 at the twelfth hour on the twelfth day. Last thing that was said and wasn’t corrected or stopped.

• Comment Ken Harbaugh – he addressed in last publication that was put out. Should have been handled at time.

• Group - Discussion on how this should have happened at that time during the live meeting to those present.

6

• Comment Amy Pitzer - email to Mark Toor to ask if he intended to share those documents with members of Commission and Council if he intended to share those. He responded that he didn’t think that was a good idea.

• Rob Anderson – what document? • Amy Pitzer - The two documents on the web-site. • Rob Anderson - Actually commissioners and councilors? I know the commissioners have been sent

the document through Chancellor Hill’s office I don’t know about Council. It make sense that we’re putting it out there. It’s a public document and my theory is I don’t want them to be surprised and want them to know first. Don’t understand why we wouldn’t want to do that.

• Comment Paul Martinelli – Something should come from the central office on the Fox Lawson market study being ceased. Knows faculty on his campus is planning to come down during interims. They have no idea because he’s kept the latest developments confidential. They have no idea that this has come to a temporary stop so to speak. Can’t see faculty coming down to talk to legislators and be embarrassed. I think something should come from the central office quickly addressing this.

• Rob Anderson – that makes sense. Our thoughts were to have this conversation with this group after his meeting with Senator Plymale and Delegate Poling right before Thanksgiving it was agreed that I would speak with this group as I was already invited to come here. We wanted to gauge your level of buy in with a pathway before doing that because we wanted to make sure that you guys as a group that has been invested in this for years. The next step coming out of this will be getting the right information in your hands to feel comfortable with the classified salary schedule update. Working with Mark Toor, Mercer and whomever to having a meeting so that ACCE can feel good about that. If we get a consensus around that, then we could say what we need to do is a new RFP and then we need a new contract. That’s where we’re going to commit to having representation from classified staff, faculty and non-class system office’s having committee set up like it should have been the first time.

• Question Debbie Harvey – do you have to have a new RFP. • Rob Anders on – if it basically was the same thing you could roll it over, but no this one can’t be. • Rob Anderson - Fox Lawson was way lower than anyone else. • Comment Debbie Harvey - That should have thrown up a red flag. • Comment Ken Harbaugh – questioned from the beginning as the big groups weren’t bidding – red

flag immediately but ACCE wasn’t able to comment on it.

• Comment Ken Harbaugh – wants to see an outline written out on what you want to see accomplished going out to all interested parties that clearly states on what is needed to get this done. Would also like to see a general timeline. Anything to make it more solid.

• Comment Amy Pitzer – communication is critical right now. We don’t want to further divide the

groups. One group thinking that one group is moving forward and the other group won’t. We don’t want that to further divide us.

• Comment Ken Harbaugh – because the code itself says that personnel has always been under the

Commission and Council. I think the Chancellors need to have some strong understanding with all the CHRO’s in the system to nail this down so we can get cooperation.

• Comment Sherry Mitchell – CFO is relied upon by the President very much on her campus. • Comment Ken Harbaugh – CEO, CFO and everyone else they don’t have a strong background on

personnel. That’s why we’re in the position we are. • Rob Anderson – absolutely right. • Comment Ken Harbaugh - we need to get these people educated. I mentioned to Mark Toor that this

would be a good subject for the BOG retreat in August. Start meeting some of these people, that’s running the campus, a stronger background on higher education personnel issues.

• Comment Barbara Boyd – obviously not the norm on this case as I thought Mark Toor did very well at Bridgemont. The animosity was all directed at him. It was set up where we didn’t know what was

7

going on and we were responding. The faculty was almost like in a mob, they had the answer before they asked their question. He was responding and they cut us off at the need and didn’t know the meeting was over. It was not driven well but it was shear hate. Not a forum of information. I thought he did well with what we were looking at.

• Rob Anderson - good to hear that as well. • Comment Barbara Boyd – I should not have been there, I wasn’t as informed as I should have been.

It was a frenzy. They weren’t listening to what I said anyway. • Comment Melanie Whittington – agreed he did give facts up front, this is the code and so on. The

one issue was the one I mentioned earlier that he didn’t correct. He did give straight answers when he was asked.

• Rob Anderson – glad to hear that. • Comment Debbie Harvey – it appeared to her that Mark understood a little into the meeting that he

wasn’t going to get anywhere.

• Comment Chris Gray – discussion/rumors on his campus is, if someone is higher than the other group when the RME comes out that salaries will be cut.

• Comment Carrie Watters – Mark Toor hasn’t said a word to the Commission employees about the

documents. I’ve been the one to distribute the information. I believe Mark should have shared the information at least with Staff Council.

• Rob Anderson – made a review of auction things he has taken from this meeting. Systematic answer

to questions posed to Mark. He thinks he’ll say a lot is answered in these documents. Suggests he go through one by one and cut and paste what’s answerable, what he has no answer for and so on. Lay out a timeline of what’s actually being pitched as far as all of this and what we want to do with classified salary schedule and rebidding RME process. Schedule some type of meeting to discuss the validity of the classified salary data by Fox Lawson in conjunction with someone like Mercer, outside entity, which we have to use by mandate in code.

• Comment Ken Harbaugh – recommendations since they’ve been through this, they can provide some

strong recommendations on best practices. • Rob Anderson – Mercer has done some work prior to contract being signed. Thinks they are ready to

begin.

• Comment Ken Harbaugh - we need a plan from Commission and Council on the direction. We’d also like to have some input on this plan so we can make recommendations and have considerations.

• Rob Anderson - sure, what we’re dealing with is diverse interest groups and people will approach from different angles and that’s why we need to coordinate all this, sort through what’s achievable and there will be some give and take ultimately in different groups.

• Rob Anderson – sent a text to Paul Hill yesterday afternoon that he was attending this meeting and will follow up with him later this morning.

• Comment Ken Harbaugh – as far as funding goes, please don’t have that hold us up. Even if takes

1/10th of an increase of tuition – you can imagine what that will generate to take care of personnel. Pay back to students by having a healthy staff. Never seen morale so low as it is now. People aren’t doing job as well as they can, there’s no hope. No support from Commissions and Council.

• Rob Anderson -unfortunately we’re looking at budget cuts again this coming year. I think you’re going to see a concerted effort across all institutions on lessening the higher education budget cuts because of what we ultimately add to the work force in West Virginia and work force knowledge and produce in the economy.

• Comment Ken Harbaugh – President Kopp at MU was supportive in budget cuts as a group effort. Rob Anderson – yes he’s a welcome component on budget cuts.

8

• Comment Amy Pitzer – you mentioned a definition of peer groups might need adjusting at some point. If peer groups that Fox Lawson used for classified if that changes down the road isn’t that going to make RME harder to achieve if you have two different peer group data being used?

• Rob Anderson – will look into this. Jean Lawson mentioned this to Rob recently. Maybe some things need to be changed, will look into this and how the dominoes go into effect.

• Comment Ken Harbaugh – let’s not get sidetracked on other issues like outsourcing, RIF etc., let’s get the market study done first. Don’t get spread too thin.

• Wrapping up meeting, Rob indicates that ultimately Mark reports to the Chancellor. Campus

meetings are tricky and you want information out there. Stay away from items not in SB330 stick strictly with what’s in legislation and use Myths v. Facts and let’s all put up a solid front and do what SB330 says and how it comes out.

• Amy Pitzer comment – we didn’t invite you hear to bash Mark Toor. What we said today we’ve said

to his face. We want to see Mark Toor succeed. • Rob Anderson – he’s a very smart guy, diligent, workaholic. If it’s not done it bugs the heck out of

him. He’s gotten bogged down on a few fronts and some friction he needs to work through with this group and even with the CHROs. Keep focus on SB330 until implementation or such time as the language is changed.

• Comment Carol Hurula – once the validity of all data is determined will you schedule meetings with groups like ACCE, CHROs, etc., to determine how to move forward.

• Rob Anderson – yes, this is what we would like to do, why we want to do it, why we think data is good, and have a group in the room and someone like Mercer on the phone to give a stamp of approval – yes we can work with this it’s CUPA data and here’s why we think it’s good.

• Comment Carol Hurula – so everyone can then decide - the group on going forward? • Rob Anderson – yes, it would have to be a pretty good reason not to go forward and I think you guys

are going to be feel comfortable with it once we take that step. He’s already thinking of what reasons some institutions might have but the reason would have to be really good, not just we don’t want to go with it.

COMMITTEE REPORTS: Retreat/Leadership Committee – No updates. Legislative – Work on developing relationship. Benefits – Committee hasn’t met.

Web / Communications – No progress since last meeting. Verne emailed Chris and Amy with a plan. Chris’ plan is by end of week to access Joomla on ACCE web-site. Student Employee / Enrichment – Tim indicated they are still collecting data on the questionnaire. Melanie indicated trouble with survey email and Amy suggested using Survey Monkey. Ad Hoc By-Laws Committee –Committee hasn’t met.

9

Presentations to HEPC/CCTCE/LOCEA Organizational accountability. Budget cuts to higher education. Training and Development hire. Cultural change. Unity agenda. SB330 timelines and lack of progress. Discussion continued. JANUARY MEETING Ken Harbaugh made motion to move January meeting to South Charleston campus. Ken rescinded motion. Chris Stevens made motion that executive committee determine date and location of January meeting. Ken Harbaugh second motion. Motion carried. SERIES 56 REDUCTION IN FORCE AND FURLOUGH Reviewed draft policy of Series 56 with discussion and comment / recommendations from committee. Chair will discuss recommendations at the Common Grounds meeting with VCHR on Monday December 8, 2013. Annual presentation at HEPC 12/6/13 at Higher Education Tech Park Annual presentation at CCTCE 12/12/13 Next ACCE meeting TBD LOCEA meeting 1/5/14 (tentative) There being no further business to come before the council meeting adjourned at 4:15pm. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Carol Hurula, Secretary