TABLE OF CONTENTS |
FRONT PAGE
| NEXT ARTICLE |
PREVIOUS ARTICLE |
UNC HOMEPAGE
Prospects have dimmed for management flexibility coming to Carolina any time
soon, but the campus plans to go ahead and start thinking about what a
custom-made University personnel system might look like.
In its 2001-02 budget proposal, the state Senate included a special provision
that calls for UNC system schools to have more flexibility in managing their
affairs, but the House dropped that measure from its version of the spending
plan. The road to flexibility here won't be opened this legislative session
unless the Senate's proposal is resurrected in on-going conference committee
negotiations between House and Senate budget writers.
While he couldn't guess what might happen in negotiations, N.C. Sen. Howard
Lee, who is involved in the discussions and represents Orange County, said he
would support flexibility for two reasons.
"First, budget management flexibility has worked well for our campuses," he
said. "Second, we have given piecemeal flexibility for the last four years in
specific areas -- for example, construction. This would offer comprehensive
responsibility and flexibility and sets up standards for flexibility in the UNC
system."
Meantime, Carolina will form a panel of employees representing all levels that
will advise the administration on how a more flexible personnel system here
should look, Nancy Suttenfield, vice chancellor for finance and administration,
announced at a July 11 Employee Forum meeting.
Suttenfield said that the campus is moving ahead with the group because the
topic of flexibility is likely to resurface in future legislative sessions even
if it goes nowhere this time. In fact, State Personnel Director Thomas Wright
has floated the idea of giving all state agencies more freedom in how they
handle personnel.
The University advisory panel will begin its work by looking around the nation
at other university and private-sector personnel systems to see what's working
and put their best elements into practice at Carolina.
"We'll have an opportunity to learn from them and tailor a system that meets
our unique set of circumstances," Suttenfield said.
Employee Forum Chair John Heuer said employees would be privileged to be
involved in the group's work. He said there are a number of issues that the
group could work on to develop a system that would improve on the state's,
under which Carolina now operates.
He said those issues include how to handle adverse weather, whether geographic
pay and a "paid time off" system might be possible, and the prospect of giving
tuition-waivers to the dependents of employees.
"If we had our own personnel system, these are the kinds of issues we could
take a look at," Heuer said.
University administrators feel that having more flexibility would enable the
campus to better compete for workers with universities and corporations around
the country. They say a research university's personnel needs differ a great
deal from other state agencies.
That was a point Carolina Chancellor James Moeser made at a June 14
forum-sponsored community meeting, where flexibility was the main topic of the
day.
"How does somebody in Raleigh understand better what a research technician in
this building deserves?" he asked the crowd. Yet, he said, the campus is
treated as if its needs reflect those found at other state agencies.
Moeser opened his comments on flexibility by noting that it looks like state
employees will get a raise this year of $625, less than what many employees
will have to cover in higher out-of-pocket costs for health insurance.
"I hope you won't spend all of that in one place," he joked.
The backdrop of this year's likely pay increase served to highlight one of the
main reasons Carolina administrators feel that more flexibility would be good
for the campus -- administrators here would no longer be bound by what happens
in Raleigh.
"In a system of flexibility, you have infinite more possibilities to reward,"
said Robert Shelton, Carolina executive vice chancellor and provost, who was
also on hand at the community meeting to take employees' questions. He came to
Carolina from the California university system, where he said flexibility has
helped improve personnel practices.
Several employees voiced concerns that flexibility would lead to a "zero-sum
game," whereby some employees would get raises while other wouldn't because the
pot of money available for salaries would remain the same.
But Moeser and Shelton said flexibility would enable Carolina to put other
revenue sources toward staff salaries. Those sources could include overhead
research receipts, funds from public-private partnerships and licensing revenue
from intellectual property.
"If you believe it's a zero-sum game, it's over," Shelton said. "I don't
believe that."
Other employees asked why the University couldn't focus on taking more
advantage of its current flexibility.
Peter Schledorn, a computing consultant, said that was particularly the case
with in-range salary increases, through which supervisors have the freedom to
give their employees raises provided the increase doesn't put their pay over
the state-allowed maximum for their classification. Schledorn said the system
needs more money to be more effective.
"A large number of employees simply don't think flexibility will mean a lot to
them because they don't see the campus taking advantage of the flexibility it
has now," he said.
But Moeser said Carolina would take pains to design a system that would be
better than the state's. He said that while he would back a merit-based pay
system, he would consider one that included a cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA)
component.
He said a merit-based system would reward employees for working hard.
"The harder you work, the more this University will give back to you -- that's
the system we want," he said.
Moeser said flexibility also would help end the frustration employees feel when
they've bumped up against the ceiling of their salary scale, because with more
freedom the campus could adjust those scales or reclassify employees at a
better-paying position.
"We want to take that ceiling off," he said.
Some employee said they would be concerned that individual supervisors might
use increased flexibility to reward some of their employees rather than others
because of personal issues.
Moeser said every effort would be made to root out any such supervisors. He
also said he realizes that employees would want security, and that would be
built into the system.
The chancellor said he welcomed employees being involved in coming up with a
personnel system for Carolina -- including "voices of dissent."
"We want you to work with us to develop a better system," he said.
The bottom-line, he said, is to create a campus where people want to work.
"We want to retain our excellent staff. It's in our benefit to keep you."
Suttenfield: Goal is `to make Carolina a more attractive place to
work' for all
Editor's note: The following question-and-answer with Nancy Suttenfield,
vice chancellor for finance and administration, takes a look at management
flexibility.
Q Why is the University administration in favor of increased management
flexibility?
A Our personnel needs are not the same as those found at most other state
agencies. We need staff to perform the clerical and maintenance tasks needed to
keep any large organization going, of course, but we also need people who can
engineer computer systems, care for patients in our medical and dental schools,
and conduct complex research and analysis.
We must be more competitive to attract and keep these kinds of employees, given
the job market we're in. We compete for staff against other major research
universities and corporations around the world. That's a reality most other
state agencies don't have to face.
Q This sounds like the system would cater to employees in high-demand areas.
What about the others?
A We want the flexibility to be able to be competitive in the market place.
So, in that sense, the system would cater to employees in high-demand areas.
But our data suggest that most employees at Carolina are paid below market
rates, so the flexibility would be important for all areas. In addition, it's
important to note that "high-demand" areas change rapidly, so an area that is
in high demand today may not be next year and vice versa.
Moreover, our goal is to make Carolina a more attractive place to work for all
employees. To go in the other direction would make no sense. In fact, it would
be damaging. We want to be the leading public university in the nation, and
that will never happen if we alienate the people who will play such an
important role in getting us there -- our staff.
Q Aside from trying to make staff salaries more competitive, what else would
management flexibility enable the University to do to make Carolina a more
attractive place to work?
A It would enable us to make more personnel decisions based on what makes
sense for our employees. For example, the University would have more
flexibility in deciding how to handle adverse weather. Another example is that
because we'd determine our own pay schedule, we'd be able to make sure that
earnings didn't fluctuate from paycheck to paycheck even in years that have
more workdays due to a calendar quirk.
Also, this would free us from the constraints of the state's qualification
requirements. They require specific education and numbers of years experience,
and even when we have someone who has been working as a contractor or a temp
who shows that the can meet our job requirements, we cannot hire them if they
don't meet the state's requirements.
This also hurts current employees who might otherwise be eligible for a
promotion. We believe Carolina should have the opportunity to fill positions
and promote people who demonstrate they can do the job.
Another advantage would be that because the University would be a more
attractive place to work, more vacancies would be filled and more current
employees would stay, thereby easing the workload for everyone.
Q Would employees still have workplace protections? What would prevent some
managers from taking advantage of their staff in order to pursue a personal
agenda?
A Yes. With or without flexibility, the University will still be subject to
the full complement of federal and state laws that protect workers from
arbitrary or discriminatory practices. And "flexibility" would not mean
"free-for-all." The University would put in place a system designed to ensure
fair treatment of all employees.
Q We already have the authority to grant in-range pay increases. Why not just
take better advantage of that?
A We have taken advantage of it, at least compared to other state agencies. In
fact, the University has awarded more than $8 million in SPA in-range salary
adjustments since that program began in 1996, more than any state agency except
for the Department of Transportation, which has twice the number of employees
that we do.
But the in-range program does not allow us to give increases to employees at
the maximum of salary ranges or to those who, by the Office of State
Personnel's very detailed and archaic specifications, do not "qualify" for
additional salary. Flexibility would enable us to design a program that would
apply to all employees.
Q Would employees have a say in developing a new personnel system?
A Yes. Regardless of what happens in this legislative session, we believe that
we could very well be given more flexibility at some point in the future. So we
are forming a group of employees from all levels that will advise us on what
would be best for all of us here at Carolina. That group will include staff
members who now feel a change wouldn't be in their best interest. We want to
hear their concerns so that we can address them.
TABLE OF CONTENTS |
FRONT PAGE
| NEXT ARTICLE |
PREVIOUS ARTICLE |
UNC HOMEPAGE