The University of Kansas Libraries
KU Libraries Support Staff
Home · Code · Guidelines · Membership · Minutes · Committees · SSEYA · Links
Classified Conference Executive Board (CCEB) – Minutes – 2003
Guest: Chantel Guidry, Sue Hewitt, Angie Rathmel
Present: Jeff McAdams (Chair.), Mike Rusche (Vice-Chair.), Kurt Blythe (Secretary), Monica Claassen-Wilson (Group I Rep.), Kevin Fussell (Group II Rep.), Mary Ann Baker (Group IV Rep.)
Absent: Denise Swartz (Group III Rep.)
CCEB Internal Matters
· The next meeting of CCEB will take place in Rm. 240A of the Music and Dance Library on Wed. the 10th of Sept. from 1-2:30.
· CCEB members will have two days to review the CCEB Meeting Agenda before forwarding it to their constituents.
· CCEB members and concerned guests will have three days to review the Minutes of Executive Meetings before these are posted on the CC website.
· Mike is still working on the Code change ballot for Staff Development Committee (SDC), but he predicts that it will be ready for review by the 3rd of Sept.
· Mike will create a weblink in order to inform staff of Classified personnel serving on faculty committees by dint of their job descriptions, as opposed to serving in established staff spots on the committees in question.
Meeting w/ the Dean and the Personnel Officer
Jeff’s minutes from his and Mike’s Aug. 18th meeting with Stella Bentley and Sandy Gilliland follow:
Ø We are close to getting a full slate of names for CEYA. Do we need to review the form or procedures developed last year?
o The current CEYA nomination form and guidelines still seem to be very usable for next year, both the Dean and Sandy agreed that last years process seemed to work rather well.
o They want to start in Dec./Jan and finish up in Mar./Apr.
Ø How could a cross-training program fit in with changing job
descriptions? Is it still possible if a person wants to cross-train
and their dept. isn’t over taxed?
o SDC is interested in meeting with Al Mauler to discuss the survey and possible ways to go from there. Apparently SDC plans to invite Al to a meeting in the not to distant future to discuss this topic.
Ø Campus phones for most libraries at the main desk? So patrons
could call campus numbers (i.e. safe ride or dept. offices) without
tying up main desk line. A good service for patrons.
o Stella does not see a need for Campus phones at the desks due to the fact that a very large percentage of college students now carry cellular phones with them.
o It also sounds like there may possibly be a base station for Safe Ride or some kind of escort service located in the Anschutz library, due to the fact that it has a large number of students inside in very late hours.
· Note from CCEB Meeting of Aug. 27th: Mary Ann will follow-up with Anschutz regarding the possibility of a base station of some sort being established there.
Ø The new copiers leave no recourse for patrons who make mistakes.
How will the new contractor reimburse patrons? How should we assuage
the patrons’ disgruntlement?
o Stella believes that there should be fewer problems with the new copiers due to better maintenance and equipment.
o We will also need to take a tougher stance, and not give free copying for people’s mistakes. It is costing too much.
o If staff encounter angry customers, we could apologize for the situation and allow them to call the copier company.
Ø What’s your opinion from the Reference Roundup? New
or exciting things to look for in the future?
o Stella and Sandy were both in agreement that the Reference Roundup meet and exceeded their expectations. People seemed to be very engaged in discussion and did a very good job of keeping the ideas flowing.
o Information from this meeting will be typed up and available soon to all staff.
o It is also hoped that task forces will be constructed soon to work on some of the ideas that were thought up at the Roundup, because deadlines for pilot projects will be very short. (The pilot projects will report back by mid-Oct. and successful projects will start by Fall Break.)
o They also stated that participation was phenomenal, only a very small amount of those invited were unable to attend. The agenda for the next management council meeting will include a discussion of what all committees are and what their functional purpose is.
Ø What is the purpose of the recent re-classing of several
positions? Is this a trend or is it still a position-by-position decision?
o The reclasses result from organizational changes and will come based on assessing the changing needs of the particular department.
o Stella said that she strongly encourages thoroughly examining all vacant positions before rehiring.
o There is a possibility for yet more reclassifications in the Retrieval Services department.
o It seems for the time being that most of the reclassification is going on in Retrieval Services, but there may be more departments following suit.
o This is a normal occurrence, and positions have been on the block for review for years, in some cases, waiting for an appropriate time for change.
Ø For Sandy, any new news in the HR dept. committee on LA series?
o The state has decided not to fund the LA IV level, but it will be forwarded on beyond that anyway. If the level is still passed, it will be something that will have to be administered on an Ad Hoc basis at each of the state institutions and it will be funded by that institution and not by the state.
o Sandy says that they have done a study to determine what the financial impact would be on the KU Libraries if this position were to be used and she stated that there would be no impact whatsoever.
At the next meeting with Stella and Sandy, Jeff and Mike will attempt
1) A determination of the official copier policy for the Libraries.
2) They will inform the Dean that Classified Employee of the Year Award Committee (CEYA) has reached its membership quota and they will ask when the list for CEYA is required.
3) They will also attempt to gain support from the Dean for students of Emporia State University’s School of Library and Information Management who are hoping to see more favorable tuition assistance policies.
· Planning & Resource Committee (PRC): Jeff will present PRC’s charges, unchanged from last year, to Gaele Gillespie, who, in her capacity as chair of LFA, will be asked for concurrence. It must also be noted that PRC has published a year-end report and a strategic plan, but, unfortunately, CCEB has received neither.
· SDC will meet Tuesdays at 2:30.
· CEYA’s final position has been filled by Kurt.
· Resource Development Council (RDC) is currently focusing on the development of closer ties between bibliographers and faculty. RDC is also reviewing electronic resources.
· Classified Conference Personnel Committee (CCPC) welcomes Ann Snow as a silent member, in recognition of her service to Classified staff in providing the latest news pertaining to our working lives. Ann will be asked to do no more than continue this service. Angie reports that CCPC will meet on alternate Wednesdays from CCEB and she has also agreed to take on the following tasks:
1) Find out the name, number and purpose of all Library committees.
2) Look to CCEB Representatives for updated department organizational plans.
3) Meet with Lynn George regarding possible time-in/out measures.
4) Attend the review session of the LibQual survey on the 18th
5) Assist Al in meeting with SDC on cross-training proposal.
· Monica reports for Group I that the hiring process has begun for a new LAII in Retrieval Services. In addition, Monica will be taking Maternity leave in March… Congratulations!
· Mary Ann reports that the small branches are “trying their best to deal with new students and new reserves requests as well as with the challenges of the new photocopy machines and new Ids and laser printers. Things at Spencer Library [are] going will.”
· The Personnel Committee of the Classified Senate met with Lindy Eakin and two other members of the Tuition Assistance Committee on the topic of loosening the restrictions on tuition assistance. This subject is of special interest to CCEB and will be followed closely.
· Representatives of Classified Senate will meet October 17th in Fort Hays to create a position paper for presentation to the legislature in February.
· A new vote on the Alternative to Civil Service Proposal will take place sometime in the Fall. In the meantime the Executive Summary of the recent survey conducted to find out why the vote failed follows:
Alternative to Civil Service Survey
All classified staff were surveyed in an effort to understand the most important issues regarding whether there is support to pursue an alternative to State Civil Service. Respondents were asked to identify which features of the new proposed system they liked, and which they didn’t like.
Respondents reported the following as the best-liked features of the new proposal.
Overall Percent Who LIKE This Feature
· Appeal of performance evaluations comparable to current practice 82%
· Lay-off procedures comparable to State Civil Service 77%
· Portion of salary increases to be awarded based on performance 73%
· Salary increases determined by the University administration rather than the legislature 71%
The feature that respondents DISLIKE the most is:
· 50% DISLIKE – Performance portion of salary awarded at the discretion of supervisor
Although the percentage of respondents who DISLIKE this feature differed by job classification, it was the MOST DISLIKED feature across all job classifications.
Percent of each Job ClassWho DISLIKE This feature
Skilled/Craft Maintenance 64%
Service Worker/Protective Services 49%
About one-third of the respondents had extreme opinions about the proposal, either responding that they LIKE EVERY feature of the new proposal, or that they DISLIKE EVERY feature.
· 26% of the respondents reported that they LIKE EVERY feature of the new proposal.
The percentage of respondents who LIKE EVERY feature of the new proposal only differed slightly by job classification.
Percent of each Job ClassWho LIKE EVERY Feature
Skilled/Craft Maintenance 21%
Service Worker/Protective Services 23%
· 7% of the respondents reported that they DISLIKE EVERY feature of the new proposal.
The percentage of respondents who DISLIKE EVERY feature of the new proposal
differed by job classification.
Percent of each Job ClassWho DISLIKE EVERY Feature
Skilled/Craft Maintenance 17%
Service Worker/Protective Services 2%
Approximately 40% of the respondents offered verbatim comments, either offering additional features they would like to have added to the proposal, or sharing their opinion about the proposal, in general.
Common themes in the comments were:
Suggested Additional Features:
· Include an “opt-out” option
· Assurance of fair raises
· Changes in the current performance evaluation process/safeguards against unfair performance evaluations
· Additional options for retirement/increase in employer match
· Maintain longevity bonus in lump sum payment
· Don’t want to leave State Civil Service
· Don’t trust the University to fairly administer the new proposal
· Concerns about supervisors determining performance portion of salary increase
· In favor of the alternative/continue to pursue the alternative
Response Rate Analysis
Surveys were sent to all 1,465 classified staff via campus mail on July 1, 2003. One follow-up postcard reminder was sent on July 10. Completed surveys were accepted through July 18.
· Overall Response Rate = 48% (710 surveys responses out of 1,465 surveys mailed)
707 Completed Surveys
3 Verbatim Responses Only/Survey Not Completed
710 Total Responses
Number Completed Percent of Total Respondents
Secretarial/Clerical 351 49%
Skilled Craft/Maintenance 96 14%
Service Worker/Protective Services 87 12%
Technical 72 10%
Professional 83 12%
Unknown Job Classification includes 3 returned with verbatim only) 21 3%
Total 710 100%
· Jeff reports that the Reference Roundup hopes to determine how best to convince our theoretical patrons to use the Libraries. In this interest, task forces will be established, to which all staff are encouraged to contribute, in order to brainstorm ideas for pilot projects, the most feasible of which the Libraries administration hopes to implement by the Fall break.
· Mary Ann found solid information pertaining to the previous CCEB discussion on the five or seven-minute rule and its relationship with any possible new time-in/out procedure. For this information please review the following websites: