Classified Senate Meeting Minutes • February 20, 2020
Call to Order Jacob Jakuszeit, Chair of Classified Senate, called the meeting to order at 10:00 AM on February 20, 2020.
Roll Call
Classified Senate Members in Attendance: Angie Brock, Tina Brucker, Pat Bungard, Tyler Bump, Virginia Ferrell, Jeff Fulk, Heather Gould, Jacob Jakuszeit, Marilyn Maher, Theresa Meyer, Melanie Quolke, Teresa Smith
Classified Senate Members Present via Webex: Dave Jezewski
Classified Senate Members Absent: Amanda Graham
Guests in Person: Jalyn Bolyard, Megan Collins, Dylan Thompson
Guests via Webex: Nickie Bailes, Adam Grimm, Kalan Greiner, Pam Harvey, Carrie Linscott, Noel Payne, Susie Pitts, Allison Weber, Tammy (no last name given)
Secretary Report – Marilyn Maher . The January minutes were approved and posted to the website . Please send committee reports to Marilyn if you have not yet done so
Treasurer Report – Theresa Meyer . The February report was reviewed . There is an unknown postcard stamp charge that Theresa will try to get more information about
Chair Report – Jacob Jakuszeit . Jacob reviewed the points of the letter that was crafted by the Senate Executive Committee and delivered to President Nellis and Jennifer Kirksey on February 13 o Jacob is waiting to hear from Jennifer about when Senate will get a response from Dr. Nellis to the letter o Dr. Nellis is scheduled to attend the May Senate meeting o The updated letter and enclosures are attached to the end of the minutes . Jacob and Melanie met with Colleen Bendl on February 11 o They asked for an update on the status of the Leave Donation Policy There will be no changes to the proposed policy other than edits to grammar typos HR is waiting to implement the policy until policies 40.029 and 40.030 are addressed, to avoid a potential “windfall” Administrators lost 21,000 hours of vacation time from FY 19 to FY 20 Jacob reviewed the background of the Leave Donation Policy Heather asked about the processes involved in the policy • Jacob indicated that processes are intentionally left out of policies by HR Virginia asked, what are the benefits and drawbacks of being able to donate to an individual versus a bank? • Jacob reviewed the benefits and drawbacks of both aspects Pat asked if the policy is just for Classified employees, or if it is also for administrators and faculty • Jacob indicated that anyone who is eligible to accrue vacation and sick leave is eligible to participate • HR claims it is an administrative burden to have separate pools by classification Theresa commented that policies at other universities in Ohio require employees to have “donated time” to be eligible to “receive time” Senate gave comments on the policy because we are reviewers on the policy o Jacob and Melanie asked Colleen about employees signing up for online courses The supervisor should not be required to approve these courses Colleen indicated that HR does not have a mechanism to track this As a side note, Jacob commented that HR also does not have a mechanism to track performance management ratings from last year Jacob emphasized that employees should reach out to Senate or to their HR Liaison if the employee’s supervisor will not sign off on online classes Virginia asked about educational benefits being changed . Heather reviewed the BAC discussion last Fall o 5 year Market Study – HR will not call it “Comp 2019” – went to Total Compensation Committee for final approval They will review the results of the study . Transportation and Parking Committee – nominees sent to President’s Office o Marilyn was invited to serve on the committee for 3 years and accepted the invitation
Committee Reports Classified Senate Committees Policy and Procedures Committee – Amanda Graham (Chair) . Jacob and Melanie gave the report . Working on handbook with HR . Need to revisit bylaws
Professional Development and Relations Committee – Jeff Fulk (Chair) . Customer Service Workshop was February 11th o The workshop had 25 attendees. Robin Ambrozy was the presenter . Employee positive note update: o We have the new positive notes and magnets. They should be ready to go out this month. We are finalizing details with mail services . Start planning meet and greet by planning unit or college o We are sending out an email to a couple of small departments to gather information about their preferences for a meet and greet. To determine date, time, location. We are planning to hold the first small meet and greet in early March . Newsletter o The committee is meeting next week to work on the newsletter
Scholarship Sales and Recognition Committee – Pat Bungard (Chair) . Valentine’s Sales o 1 bobcat, 2 totes, 3 pint glasses, 7 pairs of earrings . Next planned sale is Mom’s Weekend, then Graduate and Undergraduate Commencement . Met today (February 20) to do inventory . Jacob emphasized the need for members to participate in sales . EOTM o One pending nomination o Flyer will go out soon as well as digital ad in Baker o Need nominations
Ohio University Standing Committees Committee on Committees – Jacob Jakuszeit . Have not met
Diversity and Inclusion Committee – Pat Bungard and Janet Russell . Have not met
Intercollegiate Athletics Committee – Jacob Jakuszeit . Rich Franchak, Chief Financial Officer/Senior Associate Athletic Director gave a financial overview of the Department of Athletics. . The PowerPoint is attached to the end of the minutes.
Kennedy/Frontiers in Science Lecture Committee – Sharon Romina . No update provided
University Library Committee – Jeff Fulk . Have not met
Post Publishing Board – Theresa Meyer . Met on January 30. . Attending: Hans Meyer, Theresa Meyer, Andrea Lewis, Chelsa Moran, Ellen Wagner . Follow up from last meeting o None . Business Manager’s Report: Andrea Lewis o Post Financials (see attached report) The numbers the board reviewed included what will be billed the first of February to accurately reflect all gains in January The Post has a net deficit of $16,373.82; however, last year at this time, the Post had a deficit of $22,395. Also remember this deficit includes a carryover from last year of $12,894.53. This means without the deficit the Post would break even before Spring Break. Andrea said she remains confident the Post will post a profit of $1,030 by the end of the semester. This includes other expenses not posted last year as well, so the Post is in good financial condition. New businesses signed to contracts are Papa John’s and Hilltop Gun Club. o Advertising / Marketing efforts o Staffing 2 New employees. 1 is continuing. . Editor’s Report: Ellen Wagner o Digital Traffic (see report) Anytime David Dobrik is in the news, the Post sees a huge increase in the numbers of people viewing its blog post about him from Oct. 2018. The Salary Guide continues to draw large numbers. The Post’s coverage of Joe Burrow has also received a lot of visits and attention. Other top performing stories include a report on a man masturbating in the library and the culture story about the school’s party reputation falling o Staffing Hired new longform editor. She is working to get more production from the senior writers. Only one story has been turned in so far. Noah Wright has joined the staff as the new assistant opinion editor. The opinion staff is now editing 16 regular columns each week. o Goals, challenges, plans The diversity team held its first meeting. More and more people are getting involved. They plan to have a separate week ahead meeting looking just at diversity. The Post has started a TikTok account. This will be more of a fun thing they will integrate with Facebook. Plans for the alumni reunion are getting set. Ellen was not sure who the keynote speaker will be, but there will be a sports panel on Friday of Post alumni, a Happy Hour at Uncorked and Newsroom in the Morning, where alums can talk with students about jobs and internships. The Post is also starting a mentorship program with alumni. . Board Charge: o Next year’s editor Only one person applied to be editor next year. The board reviewed her resume and cover letter and decided to invite her to speak at the next board meeting. While there were some concerns only one person applied, Ellen assured the board she is a good candidate. The lack of applications is probably because the newsroom does not have a lot of juniors right now, but has plenty of sophomores and freshman to ensure the Post’s future. This year’s news editors have also asked if they can stay on another year. The Post also has a recruitment plan in place with the School of Visual Communications to try to find more coders and designers. All of the current designers are graduating. o Membership We haven’t heard from the President’s Office about new members. I’ll bug them again o Critiques of journalistic quality and specific content Keep up budget coverage Ellen deserves congratulations for being so willing and helpful in submitting Post content to contests. . Board member news/announcements/questions . Future meeting dates/times are Feb. 27, March 26, April 23 at 4 p.m. Sorority and Fraternity Life Committee – Vacant
Sustainability Committee – Heather Gould . Heather accepted a 3-year term on the Sustainability Committee . They meet twice a year and the next meeting is March 16
Transportation and Parking Committee – Marilyn Maher . Have not yet met
Ohio University Ad Hoc Committees and Councils Benefits Advisory Council – Heather Gould . Our most recent meetings have been cancelled but a select group of us are participating in the RFP finalists for health insurance. The medical portion has been scheduled with Medical Mutual, Anthem BCBS and United HealthCare for 2/24 & 2/25. . The prescription drug finalist interviews will be scheduled soon
Budget Planning Council – Amanda Graham . No update provided
Facilities Planning Advisory Council – Shelley Barton . Waiting to find out the status of this committee from Committee on Committees
Joint Police Advisory Council – Amanda Graham . No update provided
Outstanding Administrator – Virginia Ferrell . Attended the meeting on Friday, February 14th to observe . The committee members each had a chance to deliberate on the six remaining candidates and their thoughts on the interviews. A Qualtrics survey was sent out that night and three awardees were chosen . Details on recognition ceremony to follow
PACSM ProVention Subcommittee – Adam Grimm . Have not met
Performance Management Taskforce – . Have not met Student Services Committee – Angie Brock . Will meet next week on February 25 . We have been split into three subcommittees to explore new wellness apps to replace WellTrack, to brainstorm ideas to lessen wait times for students wanting a counseling session, and to brainstorm ideas for marketing and communication to breakdown the stigma around participating in counseling . I’m in the group to explore new wellness apps
Training Advisory Council – Melanie Quolke . Melanie was not able to attend the last meeting due to it being the same time as the Patton College Colloquium
Women’s Achievement Dinner Planning Committee – Heather Gould . The awardees were selected after everyone put in thoughts and opinions
Mentoring Program – Melanie Quolke . Many files have been uploaded to the OneDrive . Have most of the material together but would like to gather a bit more information for mentors and develop the mentor workshop more before initiating . This also includes setting up regular meetings for the Mentoring Program Committee
Open Discussion . Jacob will confirm meeting guests for upcoming meetings . Melanie asked all Senate members to document how much time they are spending in Senate meetings, including travel time, as well as committee work (sales included), over the last fiscal year o Colleen asked for hard data to present to Executive Staff Policy Committee o Jacob will send out email to Senate members asking for this information . Heather’s closet in HRTC is full of Senate merchandise and her office location will be moving o Will move the merchandise to Senate closet . The Customer Service Leadership bachelor’s degree program will be available to apply to over the summer. It will be a bachelor’s degree program rather than a bachelor’s degree completion program. It is fully online and eligible for educational benefits . Jacob received questions for President Nellis as well as suggestions for guests from other Classified employees . Melanie mentioned that HR will not be able to present at the March Senate meeting, but they will present in April. Colleen Bendl and Greg Fialko will be the presenters . Tyler is serving on the search committee for the Vice President of Enrollment Management o Other committee members are Hugh Sherman, Robin Oliver, Elizabeth Sayrs, Matthew Shaftel, Brad Cohen, Sarah Poggione, Nicole Pennington, Julie White, Justin Kelley, Lauren McMills, Marlene De La Cruz, Gigi Secuban, Jayden McAdams, Melissa Van Meter, Jneanne Hacker, Loralyn Taylor, Teri Gartland and Ginny Valentin o This position will report directly to President Nellis o Jacob brought up that many former Vice Provost positions have been elevated to the rank of Vice President o Pat pointed out that the educational requirement for the Vice President of Enrollment Management position is only a bachelor’s degree . Melanie commented that Senate members are awesome
Jacob reiterated Melanie’s comment and adjourned the meeting on that note at 11:45 am.
Respectfully submitted, Marilyn Maher 2019-2020 Classified Senate Secretary 1
Ohio University Department of Athletics Financial Overview
February 2020 2 Executive Summary • Ohio University operates a 16-sport NCAA Division I (FBS) intercollegiate athletics program with 425 student-athletes
• Intercollegiate Athletics at Ohio is a university-wide enterprise with high visibility and broad appeal that augments a wide-range of overall university goals with operating costs shared by the University
• Revenues generated directly by Athletics account for 38% of total revenues in FY 2020 vs. 24% in FY 2010
• The Athletics Foundation reserves have diminished by 67% during the past two years 3 NCAA Financial Report
Revenues
$34.0
$32.2 $32.0 $30.8
$29.7 $30.0 $29.4
$28.0
$26.2 $26.3
$26.0 $25.3 $24.9
$24.0 $23.2
$21.7 $22.0
$20.0 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 4 NCAA Financial Report
Revenues Millions Expenses $34.0
$32.2 $33.3 $32.0 $32.1 $30.8 $29.7
$30.0 $29.4 $30.1
$28.0 $28.7
$26.2 $26.3
$26.0 $25.3 $24.9
$24.9 $24.7 $24.7 $24.0 $23.2
$21.7 $22.0 $22.1
$20.0 $20.6 $20.5 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 5 Athletics Revenue • Athletics self-generated revenues have grown by 184.5% (12.3% compounded annually) from FY10 to FY19 • Donor contributions grew by 491% from FY10 to FY19; driven by campaigns for multiple facility projects (Walter Fieldhouse and Sook Academic Center) • Distributions from the Mid American Conference have grown significantly from $100K in FY10 to $1.9 M in FY19. The result of new ESPN agreement beginning in 2014 and distribution from the College Football Playoff beginning in 2015. • Licensing & Sponsorship revenues saw one-time bonuses of $2.5 million in FY19 attributable to new agreements with Learfield/IMG, with proceeds used to reduce debt on new videoboards • Athletics Events related revenues are trending negative; down 15% in FY19 from FY14 6 NCAA Financial Report - Revenues
2009-10 2013-14 2018-19
Direct University Support $16,460,250 76.0% $16,046,712 63.4% $17,399,722 54.1%
Ticket Sales, Concessions, Parking $985,639 4.6% $1,632,889 6.5% $1,392,211 4.3%
Contributions $630,322 2.9% $2,337,759 9.2% $3,723,497 11.6%
Royalties, Licensing, Sponsorships $829,476 3.8% $1,357,110 5.4% $4,245,359 13.2%
NCAA & Conference Distributions $1,180,974 5.5% $2,054,820 8.1% $3,241,167 10.1%
Other Revenues $1,565,577 7.2% $1,883,651 7.4% $2,169,668 6.7%
------
$21,652,238 100.0% $25,312,941 100.0% $32,170,624 100.0% 7 NCAA Financial Report - Expenses
2009-10 2013-14 2018-19
Scholarships $6,569,858 31.9% $7,174,844 28.8% $8,734,107 27.2%
Salaries & Benefits $6,599,338 32.0% $7,940,453 31.9% $9,839,350 30.7%
Team Operations $3,815,842 18.5% $4,622,572 18.6% $5,373,938 16.7%
Medical $478,205 2.3% $748,372 3.0% $646,970 2.0%
Facilities, Debt Service, Administrative $862,843 4.2% $1,996,925 8.0% $5,118,550 16.0%
Other Operating Expenes $2,295,437 11.1% $2,408,494 9.7% $2,371,622 7.4%
------
$20,621,523 100.0% $24,891,660 100.0% $32,084,537 100.0% 8 Athletic Department - Debt
2009-10 2013-14 2018-19
Total Revenues $21.7M $25.3 M $32.2 M
Total Debt $3.2M $2.6M $9.3M as % of Revenue 14.7% 10.3% 28.9%
Total Debt Service $151K $240K $2.7M as % of Revenue 0.7% 0.9% 8.4% 9 Athletic Department - Debt
Ohio Athletics Debt
Total Debt Annual Debt Service
$10,000,000
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 10 Athletic Department Debt Service
Annual Debt Service
Pruitt Field Walter Fieldhouse Peden Videoboard Convo Videoboard Sook Center
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 11 Athletic Department – Reserves
Ohio Bobcat Club – Foundation Account
$1,400,000 $1,247,062
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$564,386 $600,000
$409,045
$400,000
$200,000
$0 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 12 Capital Project Funding - ~$33 Million Project Cost Athletic Training-Convocation Center (2012) $400K Peden Stadium Turf Replacement (2013) $480K Softball Field Lights (2013) $320K MBB Locker Room Renovation (2013) $290K Walter Field House (2014) $12.5M Convocation Center Concrete Restoration (2014) $1.2M Pruitt Turf Replacement and Track Resurfacing (2014) $1.1M Football Locker Room Renovation (2014) $400K Convocation Center Arena Lights Replacement (2014) $160K Chessa Soccer Field Renovation (2015) $210K Convocation Center Hall of Fame Renovation (2015) $150K Convocation Center Seat Replacement (2016) $2.6M Peden Masonary Stabiliziation & Repair (2017) $620K Peden Stadium Scoreboard (2017) $600K Softball Bleachers (2017) $410K Peden Stadium Sound System (2017) $290K Perry & Sandy Sook Academic Center (2018) $7.1M Convocation Center Scoreboard (2018) $2.1M Carin Center Renovation (2018) $825K Baseball Infield Turf (2018) $600K 13 MAC Comparisons - Revenue
Direct Institutional Support Athletics Generated Revenues Central Michigan $30,025,782 Ohio $13,477,620 Akron $24,289,339 Toledo $12,893,742 Miami $23,323,412 Western Michigan $11,628,975 Buffalo $23,124,801 Miami $11,286,775 Kent State $20,308,261 Bowling Green $10,653,775 Eastern Michigan $20,171,890 Akron $10,311,661 Western Michigan $19,155,508 Northern Illinois $10,214,570 Ball State $19,143,400 Buffalo $10,021,496 Toledo $18,685,680 Central Michigan $9,610,901 Ohio $17,278,027 Eastern Michigan $8,772,376 Northern Illinois $14,955,096 Kent State $8,481,558 Bowling Green $14,020,182 Ball State $7,873,482
Source 2017-18 NCAA FRS Source 2017-18 NCAA FRS 14 MAC Comparisons
Tickets. Concessions, Parking Guarantees Toledo $2,078,087 Eastern Michigan $2,510,482 Bowling Green $1,990,218 Western Michigan $2,087,900 Western Michigan $1,888,192 Kent State $2,080,500 Miami $1,443,947 Bowling Green $2,020,479 Akron $1,383,499 Buffalo $1,748,500 Ohio $1,237,303 Miami $1,631,000 Northern Illinois $1,138,953 Ball State $1,507,500 Ball State $1,132,691 Northern Illinois $1,489,250 Buffalo $1,131,583 Akron $1,295,512 Central Michigan $793,707 Central Michigan $1,158,500 Eastern Michigan $738,186 Ohio $916,000 Kent State $493,707 Toledo $804,000
Source 2017-18 NCAA FRS Source 2017-18 NCAA FRS 15 FY20 Athletics Budget -Revenue
NCAA & MAC Distributions 10% $3.0 M 16 FY20 Athletics Budget - Revenues
Licensing, Advertising, Sponsorships 6% $1.67 M 17 FY20 Athletics Budget Revenues
Athletic Events 8% $2.48 M 18 FY20 Athletics Budget
Fundraising 11% $3.14M 19 FY20 Athletics Budget
Institutional Support- Scholarships 30% $8.82 M
Direct Institutional Support - Operations 32% $9.32 M 20 FY20 Athletics Budget – Revenue $29.4 Million
NCAA & MAC Distributions $3.03
Licensing, Advertising, Sponsorship $1.67 Institutional Support-Scholarships $8.82
Ticket Sales $1.22
Guarantees $0.97
Concessions, Parking, Merchandising $0.29
Fundraising $3.14
Other $0.90 Direct Institutional Support - Operations $9.32 21 FY20 Athletics Budget - Expenses
Scholarships 31% Salaries & Benefits $9.1 M 35% $10.4 M 22 FY20 Athletics Budget - Expenses
Scholarships 31% Salaries & Benefits $9.1 M 35% $10.4 M
Team Operations 22% $ 6.4 M 23 FY20 Athletics Budget – Team Operations
Team Travel $2.04 7%
Game Operations Equipment , Uniforms, & $0.49 Supplies 2% $0.77 3%
Medical $0.65 Memberships & Dues 2% $0.29 Recruiting 1% $0.59 2% Guarantees $.79 3%
Direct Maintenance $0.82 3% 24 FY20 Athletics Budget - Expenses
Scholarships 31% Salaries & Benefits $9.1 M 35% $10.4 M
Fundraising & Marketing 2% $ 0.6 M
Team Operations 22% $ 6.4 M 25 FY20 Athletics Budget - Expenses
Scholarships 31% Salaries & Benefits $9.1 M 35% $10.4 M
Fundraising & Marketing 2% $ 0.6 M
Team Operations 22% $ 6.4 M Debt Service 8% $ 2.2 M 26 FY20 Athletics Budget – Expenses $29.4 Million
Scholarships 31% Salaries & Benefits $9.1 M 35% $10.4 M
Fundraising & Marketing 2% $ 0.6 M
Team Operations 22% Other Operatng $ 6.4 M Expense 2% $0.6 M Debt Service 8% $ 2.2 M
March 25, 2020
Dear President Nellis,
Upon your arrival to Ohio University in 2017, you immediately expressed your commitment to shared governance and the value of Ohio University’s staff. However, over the last year, Classified Senate has experienced a much different practice from senior leadership. After multiple areas of concern have been brought to the attention of the Chief Human Resource Officer regarding OHIO’s civil service employees, it is the opinion of Senate’s executive committee that none of the suggestions/implementation designs have been taken into consideration or integrated into the University strategy moving forward. This lack of legitimacy provided by University Administration has undermined the value of the Classified Senate and hampered its ability to fulfill its role within the institution.
Since its formation in 1989, under the direction of President Charles Ping, the Classified Senate, formerly known as the Academic Support Staff Council, has made astounding accomplishments that have not only benefitted classified employees, but those of administrative and faculty ranks as well. The impact of this governance body has provided 107 undergraduate students a scholarship to attend college; the establishment of vacation accrual for permanent part-time employees; improvement to insurance processes; the creation of a service awards program to honor dedication and service to the institution; adjustments to the compensation plan for classified personnel for more equitable pay opportunities; educational benefits for employees, spouses and dependents; professional development initiatives, a proposed grievance procedure; improved human resources processes; and an employee handbook.
Although there have been great accomplishments, many areas still need to be addressed. Since 1989, our organization has continually worked to implement a Sick Leave Donation Policy, a Handbook for Classified Employees, fair and clear employee compensation and classification, an inclusive Professional Development Policy, and proper exit interviews for employees leaving the University.
• Sick Leave Donation Policy: Since Senate’s second formal meeting in July 1989, a sick leave donation policy has been one of our top priorities. While it is unfortunate that it took constant perseverance from Senate over 25 years for the Administration to finally pilot this program, it was abruptly ended by the state government. However, after the legislature quickly established guidelines for leave donation, OHIO did not re-establish a leave donation policy, unlike most of our in-state counterparts. Over the past two years, Classified Senate has again worked for our leave policy to be considered by Senior Leadership. While Senate did extensive work to propose the most effective, beneficial policy structure, the University responded with a draft that serves only the bottom line. Senate was asked to review this policy. Included with this letter is the report Senate submitted to the Chief Human Resource Officer on October 1, Ms. Bendl’s responses are highlighted. Classified Senate has been informed that neither the spirit of our initial proposal nor the suggestions of classified employees have resulted in any substantive impact on the Administration’s draft policy.
• Classified Employee Handbook: In 2000, Classified Senate created a “Handbook for Classified Employees”. The handbook was designed as a quick reference guide for employees to quickly and efficiently find information on vacation, sick leave, FMLA, policies, compensation, work hours, holidays, etc. Under new HR leadership, and in consultation with the Director of Employee & Labor Relations, the handbook was discontinued. This left OHIO as the only IUC institution in the state to not offer a handbook for its civil service employees.
o In January of 2019, with your support, Classified Senate proposed a need to re- establish an employee handbook. After meeting resistance from the Director of Employee & Labor Relations, Senate submitted their first draft to Human Resources in April 2019. After several months of requesting updates, Classified Senate received HR’s edits in August 2019.
o One hesitation expressed from HR was the need to keep the information succinct for ease of updating each year. Using Senate’s 2000 version, our draft proposal was a 20 page, easily updatable handbook, quickly highlighting key areas that affect OHIO’s civil service employees. What was given back to us from HR was a 47 page manual, with multiple areas of either incorrect or inefficient information pertaining to Senate, the University or civil service employees.
Several Senate members devoted significant time and effort creating a resource for the 500+ classified employees at OHIO. Frustratingly, this effort was discarded in favor of a more complicated and dated document. The writers of the HR version did not reach out to collaborate. It appears their version was cut and pasted from outdated OHIO web pages. This handbook would have provided the Administration with an easy partnership with OHIO’s civil service employees, but instead they made a mockery of our proposal.
• Employee Educational Benefits – Senate has actively been working toward enabling classified employees to utilize their educational benefits more effectively. While it is understood that some departments cannot permit employees to physically leave their scheduled shift for classes, Senate and the Chief Human Resource Officer agreed that online classes did not pose such a conflict.
o To restrict supervisors from deterring employees’ use of their educational benefits, it was decided that a supervisor’s signature was no longer needed to register for online classes. While this agreement was reached last May, Human Resources has not been able to implement this change, claiming it would be an administrative burden.
o This limitation furthers the concern that civil service employees are unable to utilize an advertised benefit available to all employees and does not align with OHIO’s support for education. As Manasseh Cutler stated in the founding of the university, “the means for education shall forever be encouraged.”
The use of Employee Educational Benefits provides more than a simple course offering for employees within OHIO. It is truly one of the few means of attaining higher education available in our area. The Appalachian Regional Commissions (ARC) data on “County Economic Status and Distressed Areas in Appalachia Ohio” shows that there are four counties considered “distressed”. Two of those counties are Athens and Meigs, the same two counties that most of OHIO’s staff live in. In addition, the Ohio Alliance for Innovation in Population Health has a ranking system of 1-88; “1” being the healthiest counties and “88” being the most distressed. In 2019, Athens County ranked at “84” and Meigs County ranked at “86”. Educational opportunities have been one of OHIO’s strongest offerings to increase employee morale, allowing lifelong residents the chance to pursue personal goals while contributing to the prosperity of our region.
• Professional Development Policy – Against the Senate’s recommendation, time spent serving on a University Senate is now considered part of an employee’s 10% “professional development” time. Since its inception in 1989, work on Classified Senate has always been considered service to the institution.
o This is rooted in the fact that the mission of the Academic Support Staff Council was to aid the university, by advising the Chief Human Resource Officer, formerly known as the University Personnel Services director; and to create a formal mechanism for ongoing discussion, information exchange, and consultation. The value added by the council was serving a greater purpose than any individual’s development.
o Counting service to our university against professional development time makes recruitment and membership for Classified Senate difficult to sustain over time. The expertise classified staff bring to university service is to the benefit of our employer. Policy 41.129 indicates that professional development time be spent in credit-earning courses, delivering learning experiences to others, or enhancing career related knowledge. Instead, Senators are being told that being in meetings with administrators is development. Classified staff are prevented from becoming leaders at OHIO under this policy interpretation.
In closing, the Classified Senate has been tasked with advocating for the rights of the civil service employees at OHIO. We will continue to persist in requesting the timely dissemination of information and resolutions from senior leadership, especially on areas that directly impact the lives of over 500 employees across OHIO. You have made many comments over the last few years that express support for Senate’s initiatives along with the work of all classified employees. We believe these expressions show that you are an advocate for the work we do. Unfortunately, your senior leadership has engaged in actions that contradict your words. We sincerely hope that you will prove this wrong and reverse this culture of mistrust created by the institutional leadership.
We hope this letter highlights our work and informs you of the pushback Senators have been receiving from Administration. The decisions made by your leadership team reach into our local communities as well as affecting our structural role within Ohio University. We hope to have more open and honest communication with you as we move into the future, similar to our organization’s close relationship with Dr. Ping at the inception of the Academic Support Staff Council. We look forward to many productive collaborations.
Sincerely,
Classified Senate Executive Officers Jacob Jakuszeit, Chair Marilyn Maher, Secretary Theresa Meyer, Treasurer Melanie Quolke, Chair Elect Tyler Bump, Treasurer Elect
Enclosures: Leave Donation Policy Feedback and Response State of Ohio Leave Donation Comparison Classified Senate Committees List History of Classified Senate’s Scholarships Proposed Exit Interview Questionnaire
West, Miranda
From: Bendl, Colleen Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 10:18 AM To: Jakuszeit, Jacob; West, Miranda Subject: RE: Vacation Leave Donation Policy (40.035) Attachments: Leave Donation Classified Senate Review and feedback.docx
Hello Jacob,
Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the Leave Donation policy and for surveying the Classified employees to obtain their feedback as well. I have read through and provided a response to the feedback you sent. As you know, this information will be shared with ESPC at a future meeting.
I look forward to finalizing this policy as it provides an additional benefit for all valued university faculty and staff.
Sincerely, Colleen
From: Jakuszeit, Jacob
Dear Colleen and Miranda,
Thank you both for the conversations and assistance provided while Classified Senate reviewed this proposed policy. Please find attached a document introducing our feedback and suggestions, summarizing our survey findings, and displaying the raw responses of our survey.
I look forward to working in tandem to best build a policy to assist employees on leave.
Cordially, Jacob
Jacob Jakuszeit [he • him] Classified Senate Chair 2019‐2020
Alden 206 • 1 Ohio University • Athens OH 45701 740.593.9501 • [email protected] • ohio.edu/csen
1 Dear Colleen and Miranda,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and gather feedback on the proposed Vacation Leave Donation Policy.
It is the goal of the Policy and Procedures Committee of Classified Senate to help ensure Ohio University is Fearlessly First in implementing bold policies that support our employees and students. We seek not to be middle-of-the-pack but a leader across the state. It is in this aspirational and pioneering spirit that we reviewed and summarized our findings in this document.
Please find below the suggestions Classified Senate proposes. Included in this document are the results of a survey conducted to better gauge employee perspectives and feedback. I look forward to continuing dialogue regarding this proposed policy.
Sincerely, Jacob Jakuszeit
Jacob Jakuszeit [he • him] Classified Senate Chair 2019-2020
Alden 206 • 1 Ohio University • Athens OH 45701 740.593.9501 • [email protected] • ohio.edu/csen
The general response and the perspective of the Policy & Procedures Committee regarding the proposed policy (40.035) is summarized with the following points:
1- Sick Time should be the primary focus of this policy. Sick time does not expire, accrues at the same rate across years of service, and is directly in line with the need of donation recipients. I appreciate your thoughtful feedback and information provided in your response. The goal of the leave donation program is to provide a mechanism for staff and faculty to donate earned vacation time to a pool for use by other employees who have a need for the time and meet the eligibility requirements. 2- Donors of leave time should be able to donate both to a bank/pool of employees within their classification, and also directly to specific individuals who are eligible. While employees expressed interest in donating to a pool, the willingness to donate within a employment classification was much higher. Higher still was the willingness to donate to an individual. Thank you again for your thoughtful feedback. The prior program permitted both pool and individual donations. Providing both types created additional administrative burden that was eliminated with the pool only policy. Allowing individual donations puts the university at risk for potential HIPPA violations as in the prior program UHR frequently noted individual employees soliciting for donations to specific employees while disclosing protected medical data. Creating pools by employee classification creates an undue administrative burden. Different systems are used to calculate benefit accruals and usage. In light of this, tracking for this program is done manually and doesn’t support the creation of donation pools by employee classification. 3- The cap on leave time transfers raised some concerns. In the event that someone is undergoing long-term care, or providing long-term care for a covered family member, four weeks / twenty days of donated time would be helpful, but insufficient to cover the approved leave. The leave donation program is one of many benefits offered by the university to help our employees balance their career, personal and family needs. Other benefits employees may choose to use or purchase include short term disability and long term disability insurance, FMLA, vacation time, sick time, personal time, as well as unpaid medical leave. 4- The balance of any pool / bank should be readily viewable on the UHR website. The policy does not indicate when UHR would solicit annually for donations, nor what “as needed” means in regards to the pool balance. Clarification and transparency is needed to ensure support and utilization of this policy. Section E-1 notes UHR will solicit donations for the pool at least one time per fiscal year, or as needed. Donations will initially be sought for the beginning of the fiscal year, and as needed, thereafter should the balance not insufficient to meet the needs of the program. 5- Under G. 3. : “Generally, departments and/or supervisors should not prevent an employee from using donated time.” This implies a supervisor or department can interfere with an employee utilizing leave and/or donated paid leave. As UHR is the approver of medical and FMLA leave, this gives the impression a supervisor can influence whether an employee is able to access donated leave time. This is a point of concern expressed by many constituents. The leave donation may or may not run concurrent with FLMA. In cases where the leave is not concurrent with FMLA or not being used for the employees own serious medical concern, departments may work with the employee regarding scheduling time away from work. This is not different from current practice. 6- The annual elimination of donated time is a non-starter for the vast majority of our constituents. This is not required by ORC, does not match with other similarly-sized state of Ohio peer universities leave donation policies, and is viewed by many as a benefit solely for the university at the expense of employees. This policy, if put in place as currently structured, could quickly become known as a “vacation elimination” policy, providing the university an avenue to show support for employees in need at a superficial level, while wholesale eliminating earned time. This would have a chilling effect on the donation of time, regardless of type of paid leave, but especially regarding vacation time. Thank you for the feedback. The goal of the program is provide an additional benefit for eligible employees to use if needed provided sufficient donations are available. . Donations to the pool are completely voluntary and no one is required to eliminate or reduce their vacation time earned . 7- This policy is vastly different from the earlier pilot program. It is also vastly different from the policies and practices exhibited at Kent State University (KSU Policy 3342-6-11.4 https://www.kent.edu/hr/benefits/leave- donation), University of Toledo (UT Professional Staff Association Sick Leave Bank Committee https://www.utoledo.edu/org/psa/sickleavebank.html), and Bowling Green State University (BGSU Policy 3341-5-18 https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/general-counsel/documents/Leave- Bank.pdf). These institutions are governed by the same state laws and have policies that promote transparency and are oriented toward serving employees with a valued benefit. UNR conducted a review of the various leave donation policies offered by our IUC peers. After completing this review, a determination was made to structure Ohio Universities leave policy in a manner consistent with Ohio States program. 8- Questions regarding parental leave and donated leave time remain. While paid parental leave may be adequate for some situations, FMLA leave often accompanies parental leave due either parent or child health, or both. Many folks have expressed interest in having clarity over how paid leave recipients and donated leave applicants would be coordinated. Each situation is unique and should be discussed with the HR Liaison and the Leaves Manager when a need arises.
Default Report Vacation Leave Donation Policy September 30, 2019 2:53 PM MDT
Q1 - To better support our colleagues, would you prefer to donate your sick or vacation time to employees in need?
Vacation Time
Sick Time
I would donate both, my vacation and sick time
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Std # Field Minimum Maximum Mean Variance Count Deviation
To better support our colleagues, would you prefer to donate your 1 1.00 3.00 2.24 0.59 0.34 62 sick or vacation time to employees in need?
Choice # Field Count
1 Vacation Time 8.06% 5
2 Sick Time 59.68% 37
3 I would donate both, my vacation and sick time 32.26% 20
62
Showing rows 1 - 4 of 4
Q2 - Would you prefer your time to go to an overall employee bank (classified,
administrative and faculty all in one) or would you prefer each employee classification have their own bank based on how time is accrued?
Overall Employee Bank
Employee Classification Bank based on how time is accrued
I do not support a bank. I would prefer to donate to an specific individual.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Std # Field Minimum Maximum Mean Variance Count Deviation
Would you prefer your time to go to an overall employee bank (classified, administrative and faculty all in one) or would you 1 1.00 3.00 2.34 0.72 0.51 62 prefer each employee classification have their own bank based on how time is accrued?
Choice # Field Count
1 Overall Employee Bank 14.52% 9
2 Employee Classification Bank based on how time is accrued 37.10% 23
3 I do not support a bank. I would prefer to donate to an specific individual. 48.39% 30
62
Showing rows 1 - 4 of 4
Q3 - Do you support, "Each July 1 all time in the pool will be eliminated and new
donations will be sought. Eliminated time will not be refunded to donor.", as currently stated in the proposed Vacation Leave Donation policy?
Yes
No
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Std # Field Minimum Maximum Mean Variance Count Deviation
Do you support, "Each July 1 all time in the pool will be eliminated and new donations will be sought. Eliminated time will not be 1 1.00 2.00 1.92 0.27 0.07 62 refunded to donor.", as currently stated in the proposed Vacation Leave Donation policy?
Choice # Field Count
1 Yes 8.06% 5
2 No 91.94% 57
62
Showing rows 1 - 3 of 3
Q4 - Do you believe that the leave bank balance should be made public to University
Employees?
Yes
No
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Std # Field Minimum Maximum Mean Variance Count Deviation
Do you believe that the leave bank balance should be made public 1 1.00 2.00 1.23 0.42 0.17 62 to University Employees?
Choice # Field Count
1 Yes 77.42% 48
2 No 22.58% 14
62
Showing rows 1 - 3 of 3
Q5 - How satisfied are you will the proposed Vacation Leave Donation policy?
Very Satisfied It would greatly benefit employees exactly how it's currently proposed
Satisfied I support a leave donation policy with minor revisions
Dissatisfied I support a leave donation policy with major revisions
Very Dissatisfied This proposal is not in the best interests of the University’s Employees as it's currently proposed 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Std # Field Minimum Maximum Mean Variance Count Deviation
How satisfied are you will the proposed Vacation Leave Donation 1 1.00 4.00 2.82 0.87 0.75 60 policy?
# Choice Field Count
1 Very Satisfied It would greatly benefit employees exactly how it's currently proposed 5.00% 3
2 Satisfied I support a leave donation policy with minor revisions 33.33% 20
3 Dissatisfied I support a leave donation policy with major revisions 36.67% 22
4 Very Dissatisfied This proposal is not in the best interests of the University’s Employees as it's currently proposed 25.00% 15
60
Showing rows 1 - 5 of 5
Q6 - Please provide us with any additional comments or concerns you may have
regarding the proposed Vacation Leave Donation policy?
Please provide us with any additional comments or concerns you may have reg...
I find it ridiculous that in the current proposed policy unused time in the pool in a particular fiscal year would not carry over or be refunded to employees who donated that fiscal year. This is very unfair to employees and I feel that this would discourage employees from wanting to donate knowing that there is a possibility that they might be throwing away their vacation time since they wouldn't get back any unused time that they donated, if it was unused. I support a Leave Donation policy but I do not feel that the proposed policy is a good fit. I also disagree with the idea in the proposed policy that it is vacation time that is being donated because I currently accrue sick time at a higher rate than I accrue vacation time. I think that employees would be more reluctant to donate their vacation time than sick time, because it may take longer for them to accrue vacation time than sick time and they may be very protective of their vacation time, and also because there is a disconnect between donating vacation time to a bank where it will then be used for sick time. I feel that this will lead to a perception that employees using the leave bank are also using it for vacation rather than sick leave. Thanks for sending out the survey and collecting the feedback of Classified employees on this proposed policy.
Faculty do not earn vacation time, so they would never be able to donate to this...and that is not fair. Why would I, as a Classified Staff person, give my vacation time up for faculty who come and go as they please anyway? You can hardly get them to complete the documentation for sick time as it is. I do not believe a recipient should get to retain all the donated time if they do not use it. It should go back into the bank, so another person has an opportunity to use it, if necessary. And leave the time in the bank on July 1st, or divide it up and give it back to those who donated it. I'm willing to donate sick time, but not my vacation time. When I retire, I want to be able to cash in what I have not used. It's my benefit. Also, please check for spelling errors on this. Thanks!
There is a typo on the current draft. Section C: Recipient Guidelines, D. it states ren consecutive days. I believe it was supposed to say ten? In reviewing the draft policy I don't believe it is in the best interest of staff regardless of level to wipe out the balance each year. You should always hope for the best but prepare for the worst and with zeroing it out every year that will put burden on the employees who donate. Also there is currently abuse of FMLA usage and until the abuse I see is rectified I am very cautious that I would even donate. I would donate to someone who really was in need but again I personally see the abuse of FMLA so that makes me very hesitate to participate.
I do not believe the bank should be emptied at the end of each year. The time should be given back to employees who donated or carried over to the next year.
People will need to know where there donated time is going.
This is not what senate has fought for all of these years. Why should the time be eliminated at the end of the year and not stay in a bank for future use? Employees donated their time so that someone in need can use it, it should be used not just returned and unappreciated. Also, how often do faculty submit their "sick time", why are they being lumped in with classified when typically faculty do not account for their sick time. Unless that is managed better they should be allotted the time from classified employees who are scrutinized over their time off. I'd like to see how HR will determine who is eligible for the donation of the time off and if that person does not use all of the donated time will it go back into bank, if not, why would they get to keep it if they are not using it for what it was intended?
I think the donation system would work best with less intervention and restriction. I believe that if an employee has earned time that they would like to donate to another employee, that should be allowed. Also, earned time off should never go away if unused.
If I am understanding this correctly....I feel there is a downfall of a newer OU employee - 2 years, for example. If they want to donate time, they almost always can't because they do not accrue that much vacation time per month. So the ones who can donate, are the ones that have been here for a number of years.
Concern over whether Faculty can apply for "vacation" hours donated without faculty donations coming in. Also, the bank should be for an individual - more employees would donate that way I believe.
Section 2b Donation Information As it reads now, it sounds to me as if "Donations to an individual" would mean that I, as the "donor" could choose an "individual" to whom to give my time. I don't think that's what's intended. Maybe the Donation Information section should all be about "Donation to the Pool."
Please provide us with any additional comments or concerns you may have reg...
The faculty should not be part of any part of this policy. They are given vacation time "scheduled within the academic calendar". They also get time off all summer and when they are granted sabbatical and that is WITH pay!
Classified staff have representatives and a senate that oversees our needs. The senate and has a true understanding of our work environment. Classified Senate should be charged with the responsibility of overseeing our donated time and selecting awardees. Our senate truly understands specific situations that are unique to classified staff. HR should not "control the donations in any way nor benefit from them financially or terminate time off that has been EARNED by their employees". HR should place eligibility requirements, but our senates (Classified and Administrative) should administer and determine their awardees. This is not a popularity contest nor is it something that should be determined by a spreadsheet. Administrative staff usually make more than the classified staff as a rule. The university is actually "SAVING MONEY" and is taking 'ADVANTAGE" of their employees by allowing Classified staff and Administrative staff be in one pool. UHR "eliminating donated time and not refunding time back to individual employees, if it is unused" IS UNETHICAL and detracts from the true goal of assisting employees who are in NEED OF SUPPORT during a difficult time. We need to SUPPORT our employees in their time of NEED. This is a great opportunity for UHR to show they are going to stop taking advantage and control of the classified employees of Ohio University and start SUPPORTING THE EMPLOYEES instead of the university and themselves. THE ELIMINATION OF USED TIME IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!! Would you donate to a cause who would "burn" your money if it were not used? Seriously, eliminating earned time off is UNETHICAL!!!!!!
I love this idea. I think it should be allowed to come from Sick and Vacation time. I would love to see the ability for those who may retire to donate unused sick leave to the pool (with a max amount, example would be 3 or 4 weeks max). It doesn't make sense to wipe it to 0 each year, you should carry forward the balance so you may have less asking if the needs arise.
I don't like that the pool resets on july 1st to zero. anyway to keep at least half?
1) Do faculty have vacation time as noted in the Overview section and Donation Guideline (I didn’t think faculty accumulated vacation time). 2) B.2.b. states “donations to an individual of less than eight hours…if a full donation of eight hours would result in recipient exceeding the fiscal year twenty day recipient limit”. This appears to suggest that the recipient may have as much as 153 or up to 159 hours of paid time available. However, C.1.c. says the “recipient must have or will exhaust all other paid time off before receiving donated time.” This appears to be a conflict but maybe I am mis-reading the content. 3) Typo in C.1.d. – assume you mean “ten” consecutive working days (not “ren”). Also I am surprised about the “intermittent time off” not being eligible as this (in my experience) is when a person can run out of time if they have several hours/days per month when they are absent due to a recurring medical issue. 4) The document initial refers to the “recipient” of the donation but in C.1.d. the word “employee” begins to be used for the “recipient”. I think there needs to be consistency throughout the document. 5) In B.2.b. it appears that an employee can designate a “recipient” to receive the donation; however, in E.3. the employee/recipient needs to apply for the donation.
I polled many Ohio institutions quite a few years ago on their sick leave banking policies and passed the information on to Classified Senate. If I remember correctly, we had one year of sick leave banking and then the policy was removed. This (as proposed here) is not a good substitute.
I understand the idea is to aid someone who is facing major surgery, long-term care, etc. but their are folks with chronic illness that might need assistance once in awhile. We should be able to see the balance, but I don't think we should see who has made a donation or who has received a donation. Not carrying over from one fiscal year to the next is crap (sorry for the language).
Obviously, I would prefer the donation of sick leave rather than vacation because when you retire you are paid for the full vacation balance. However, when you retire you only receive a portion of your sick leave. However, I've heard that our sick leave is really owned by the State and not the University, thus eliminating that donation. I would like to see a monitoring system put in place that would ensure that the people getting the donations are truly deserving, and not people who had used their sick time as they earned it and are now facing a medical emergency with no sick leave balance at their own fault. Also, I feel that you should need to be an Ohio University employee for at least five years before you would be given this opportunity. I also feel that the medical condition does need to be taken into consideration as well. I myself have several health issues that could easily qualify me for disability, but I come to work each day and sometimes struggle, but I've learned to manage and make it work. Obviously, cancer or heart issues would be a no brainer, but some other illnesses could be a stretch. These are just some of my concerns.
I would be more inclined to donate time off to a specific individual, rather than a pool - ESPECIALLY since any balance to the pool on June 30 is eliminated and a new call for donations will be done after July 1. I think this is just a way to get around the sick leave donation issue from a few years ago, while simultaneously relieve the university of the risk accumulated time off poses to the overall university budget.
I like the idea of donating to a specific individual, but at the same time I see the benefit of using a pool. Could there be room for both options?
I think employees should have say on who their time goes to. What if there are several people that need time, how is it determined on who is most needy for this time (i.e. who applied first, etc..)? On July 1 when the time in the pool is eliminated, I think this eliminated time be refunded to the donors.
I am all for donating leave time, but I would like to be able to donate my time to the person I chose to. As a recipient of receiving time when we had this policy before I was so grateful that the person that donated me time was allowed to specifically donate her time to me. Had she not been able to select me I may have not got the 4 weeks that I needed. I also feel it would benefit to be able to donate both sick and vacation time as people accrue sick time faster.
I think we should have the option on a per person need. I don't agree with the bank and losing the vacation if it's not used.
I don't like the idea of a "pool". I want my donation to go to the person I designate. If an employee gets sick at the end of the fiscal year there is the possibility there is no pool time left for them. If there is a pool the time should not be eliminated each July 1, let it accrue.
The idea that people have earned the time and is reflected as a benefit is now of no value and can be arbitrarily disposed of if not used; is disconcerting at best! This is a benefit that is being exploited and is only beneficial (in it's current form ) in that it is not paid out. How does that help anyone? Too many restrictions for a policy that is supposed to help employees, especially if other colleagues are willing. It appears that it's my benefit/money but I can only use it as others see fit. Why?
Why is the policy proposing vacation time donation only for sick leave purpose? Doesn't this violate policy use of vacation leave? Why would pool hours disappear at the end of a fiscal year for any reason other than lining the universities pockets with earned time off? Are "lost hours" at the end of the fiscal year a tax deductible donation to the university? Why vacation time not sick leave? Why not both sick leave and Vacation donation? Potentially the University benefits more from this than those that need the sick leave. What oversight will be in place for lost donated time? Will lost donated time be communicated to employees? Both as hours and monetary value? I want to see the generosity of my co-workers.
I would support leaving it public to all Ohio Employees, only if we can not get it changed to be able to donated to specific individuals. I would be more likely to donate if I knew the person was really in need. At no time would I consider donating vacation time.
I think this is a wonderful idea. It shows how much we care about each other.
I definitely do NOT like the July 1 "empty the bank" proposal. Roll it over! Good grief. Every employee here can roll rover sick and vacation time. If they're concerned about too much time in the bank, then close the bank for a while. I don't like the sentence ""Generally, departments and/or supervisors should not prevent an employee from using donated time." It should just reference sick leave policy and contact UHR with concerns. This sentence makes it sound like supervisors can tell a sick person to come to work. I think the donation pool should be open all year, unless UHR is concerned there is too much time in the bank. Even though employees can't donate to a particular person, they are more likely to donate when they know someone who needs time. If a one time donation is such a great idea, they should give us all our sick and vacation time on July 1 instead of bi- monthly ;) Great survey by the way!
I don't think the pool should be emptied every yearend and then deny someone that really needs it because the pool was just emptied and not returned to the person that gave it, giving them the opportunity to give it again.
as written, I would not donate my vacation time under this policy
I would support donated time, if I could choose who to donate to. I do not want my time going to someone who has "abused" their sick time prior to their "emergency." I also do not agree with the bank being "cleared" once a year. Why can't this be carried over? If too much time is "accrued" then can they just not make it where donations are no longer accepted for the time being?
Sorry....I forgot this in my original response. Faculty should NOT be part of this. They have no vacation to donate. Therefore, they should not be able to apply for or accept donated time.
this is just a rewrite of the sick leave donation policy that failed just changing it to vacation leave. The wording makes it confusing when within the policy you talk about health, sick time but you call it vacation.
I would like to see what schools other than OSU do. OSU is not the do all end all of how to do things well.
While I am for open records, the question answered previously about making the leave donation public, still needs to ensure confidentiality of the person's situation that led to the need for donated time.
End of Report
State of Ohio University Leave Donation Comparison
IUC Schools that currently have a form of “Leave Donation” policy/bank in place: Institution Type of Leave Method of Donation
Ohio State University Vacation Directed
Kent State University Sick + Vacation Directed
The University of Akron Sick Bank
Bowling Green State University Sick Bank
Central State University Sick + Vacation Directed
Cleveland State University Sick Bank
The Northeast Ohio Medical University Sick Bank
University of Cincinnati Vacation Bank
University of Toledo Sick Bank
Youngstown State University Sick Bank
IUC Schools that currently do NOT have a form of “Sick Leave Donation” policy/bank in place: Ohio University
Miami University
Shawnee State University
Wright State University
Important points to consider:
• Sick time accrues at the same rate for all benefits eligible employees. • Vacation time does NOT accrue at the same rate for all employees. • Equity is a concern regarding ability to donate. • IUC schools researched do NOT empty/erase donated time from bank or pool. Classified Senate Committees
The internal senate committees, university committees, and various campus partner groups listed below are all served by classified staff members. These members bring personal and professional experience to these groups, while also sharing the unique perspectives of the local community. This service to the university community is valuable and must be preserved within the context of our declining numbers.
Senate Committees: • Policy and Procedures Committee • Professional Development and Relations Committee • Scholarship Sales and Recognition Committee
Ohio University Standing Committees: • Committee on Committees • Diversity and Inclusion Committee • Intercollegiate Athletics Committee • Kennedy/Frontiers in Science Lecture Committee • University Library Committee • Post Publishing Board • Sorority and Fraternity Life Committee • Sustainability Committee • Transportation and Parking Committee
Ohio University Ad Hoc Committees: • Benefits Advisory Council • Budget Planning Council • Facilities Planning Council • Joint Police Advisory Council • Outstanding Administrator • PACSM ProVention Subcommittee • Performance Management Taskforce • Student Services Committee • Training Advisory Council • Women’s Achievement Dinner Planning Committee
Senate History
June 1989 The Academic Support Staff Council was created July 1989 First meeting held August 1991 First Retreat – name changed to Classified Staff Advisory Council May 1998 Name change to Classified Senate
Accomplishments
1989-1990
Improve job posting procedures Result: December 1989 – posting sent to all offices around campus Allow part-time employees to accumulate vacation Result: Policy became effective April 8, 1990 Improve insurance claim process Result: Continue minimum 4% pay raise for all promotions Result: Approved Proposed change to Sick Leave Form To eliminate the required doctor’s signature Result: Approved Discussion of Staff Professional Development Completed the first needs assessment survey Senate joined the State Employee Council of Ohio (SECO) – attended their first retreat on the Bowling Green University campus
1990-1991
Proposed need for a service award program Result: First Service Awards program began in January 1992. Sick Leave policy change Result: retirement payment of 50% of unused sick leave balance increased from 30 to 60 days effective July 1, 1991 Proposal of Spousal Educational Benefit Result: Approved, provided after employee’s 3 years of service Proposal of Employee Vacation policy change Result: Use vacation time as accrued rather than one-year of service completion Proposal for “open-range” compensation plan Result: Approved May 1991 Senate developed the Professional Development Committee
1992
Council assumes responsibility for “Outstanding Employee Award” Program
1994
Coverlet program implemented to provide scholarships to undergraduate students (April)
First two scholarships endowed (November) • Classified Senate Ohio University Employee • Classified Senate Regional Campus Scholarship
1995
Third scholarship endowed • Classified Senate Academic Scholarship
1996
Forth Scholarship Endowed • Classified Senate Non-Traditional Scholarship
1997-1998
Professional Development Initiative Result: Hosted Brown bag Summer Series in August 97” Senate Budget Increase Proposal To provide support for Chair and Treasurer’s salaries Result: Approved in October 97’’ Proposal of the Professional Development & Enhancement for Classified Employee Policy Result: Employee Service Awards Recognized 25, 30, 35, and 40 yrs. of service in November 97” Senate representation at New Employee Orientations (September) Established the “Employee of the Month” awards in November 97”
1999
Met with VP to discuss compensation and insurance plans Result:
Proposed participation in the Ohio Tuition Trust Authority through bi-weekly payroll deductions Result:
Proposed to increase the number of biweekly payroll deductions for classified personnel, from 1 to 5 for payment of undergraduate coursework fees Result:
Senate recognized at the Honors Convocation Ceremony for their 4 endowed scholarships HR recognizes Senate for 10 years of leadership and plants a tree in their honor • Senate Chair invited/attended President’s retreat
• 3 Senate members attended the CUPA National Conference in Seattle with Jim Kemper
2000
Development of the Classified Employee Handbook Reclassification Policy Change Proposal: Proposed employees who move up 2 or more classifications in a job audit to receive a 5% raise per classification. They are currently receiving a 5% increase in total. Result:
Employee Educational Benefits Form: Permission to take a class with applicability to the job Result:
Proposal of a pay increase or one-time bonus when an employee attains the Certified Professional Secretary Rating (CPS) Result:
Senate added to University Appeals Committee
2001-2002
Fifth Scholarship Endowed • Classified Senate Multicultural Scholarship for Appalachian Students Proposed the formulation of a PERS retiring/returning procedure. Result: PERS added as a deferred contribution plan beginning in 03. Proposed Birthday Day off Policy Result: declined Proposed more time off for bereavement leave Result: approved for 5 days, 3 bereavement and 2 sick Mentoring Committee developed To assist in acclimating new hires as well as those who change positions within the university Result: Jan. 2003 trail began with three intra-university transfers • Program put on hold due to hiring freeze) • Program redesigned Proposed grievance procedure – following the one for administrators Result: Developed Senate Diversity Statement and submitted to President Performance Management Team, part of new Compensation Classification Project known as ohiouniversity@work Senate added to the University Policy Development Task Force Senate added to University Parking Committee • Senate invited/participated by President Glidden to be part of the core audience for his State of the University Address
• Senate Chair invited/participated in all three University commencement ceremonies
• Senate Chair invited/attended President’s retreat
• Senate Chair invited/participated in Provost search
• Senate members attended the OSCHE meeting in Columbus
2002-03
Updated and revised classified grievance procedure (40.043) Result: approved November 2002 Looked into job abolishment and bumping rights due to budget reductions Results: Senate added to the University Policy & Procedure Committee
Employment Exit Interview Questionnaire
General Information Please check all that apply. 1. Your most recent Ohio University employment status was: ☐Full-time ☐Part-time ☐Athens Campus ☐Regional Campus 2. You were employed as: ☐Civil Service ☐Civil Service Bargaining Unit ☐Faculty ☐Administrative 3. How long were you employed at Ohio University? Years Months 4. Are you: ☐Female ☐Male 5. Are you a member of a racial minority? ☐Yes ☐No 6. Are you 40 years of age or older?☐ Yes ☐No 7. Do you have a physical or mental disability? ☐Yes ☐No 8. What was the primary reason you left/are leaving employment at Ohio University? Check one. a. ☐ To accept another position b. ☐ Family relocation c. ☐ Position was visiting/temporary appointment d. ☐ Personal (i.e., medical) or family reasons e. ☐ Child care responsibilities f. ☐ Retirement ☐Regular ☐Occupational disability ☐Non-occupational disability ☐Other, please explain: g. ☐ Low salary h. ☐ Unethical conduct occurring in the workplace i. ☐ Sexual preferences j. ☐ Job stress k. ☐ Lack of opportunity for advancement l. ☐ Athens/rural Ohio (regional limitations) m. ☐ Other (please describe): If appropriate, please elaborate your reason: 9. Do you feel that your termination was: ☐Voluntary ☐ Involuntary ☐ By Mutual Agreement 10. If you have accepted a new position elsewhere, please check the primary reason(s) that you took the new ☐Position in order of priority. ☐Promotion or professional advancement ☐Better salary ☐Better fringe benefits ☐Better working conditions/environment ☐More professional opportunities ☐Better geographical location ☐Career change Departmental Information 11. Were you given adequate training or orientation to do your specific job responsibility? ☐Yes ☐No If no, what could have been done to improve your orientation to your specific job responsibilities?
12. How well were you kept informed of relevant policies, procedures and information ☐Very well ☐Adequately ☐ Not very well 13. How challenged was your job? ☐Very challenging ☐Somewhat challenging ☐Not very challenging 14. In general, how fair did you feel your ideas and opinions were in your department ☐Very fair ☐Somewhat fair ☐ Almost never 15. If you had suggestions or complaints, did you feel free to discuss them with your supervisor? ☐Almost always ☐ Sometimes ☐ Almost Never 16. How valued did you feel your ideas and opinions were in your department? ☐Highly valued ☐ Somewhat valued ☐Not valued 17. How much support did you feel you received from your colleagues and co-workers in your position? ☐A great deal ☐ Some ☐ Very little 18. If you were on the faculty (in the tenure track), do you feel the promotion and tenure system was applied fairly in your case? ☐Yes ☐ No If no, please explain: 19. How satisfied were you with your overall working conditions in your department? ☐Very satisfied ☐ Somewhat satisfied ☐ Not very satisfied
University-wide Information 20. How well were you kept informed on current university policies? ☐Very well ☐ Adequately ☐ Not very well 21. Do you feel the University provide opportunities for advancement? ☐Yes ☐ No If so, were these opportunities made available to you? ☐Yes ☐ No ☐ Not Necessary 22. How satisfied were you with your overall working conditions within the University as a whole? ☐Very satisfied ☐ Somewhat satisfied ☐ Not very satisfied 23. Do you feel that you were paid fairly for the job you performed: Compared to others in your department? ☐Yes ☐ No Compared to comparable positions at the University? ☐ Yes ☐ No Compared to others in your profession? ☐Yes ☐ No If no please explain: 24. How would you rate the University’s healthcare benefits program? ☐Excellent ☐ Fair ☐Poor 25. How would you rate the University’s educational benefits? ☐Yes ☐ No 26. Did you take advantage of the educational benefits ☐Yes ☐No If no, why not? 27. How would you rate the University overall as a place to work? ☐Excellent ☐Fair ☐ Poor 28. What were the least satisfying aspects of working with Ohio University?
29. How could your working conditions have been improved?
30. What were the most satisfying aspects of working with Ohio University?
31. Would you consider working again at Ohio University in the future?
32. Would you recommended Ohio University to your friends or colleagues as a place of employment?
33. Any additional written comments would be welcomed.
If you wish to share additional comments through a confidential interview, please contact University Human Resources at (740) 593-1636 to arrange a meeting.
This questionnaire is being used to obtain information about y our experiences at Ohio University. Please be open and honest so that we may better serve our employees in the future.
Please return this questionnaire to: Ohio University Human Resources Human Resources & Training Center 169 W. Union St. Athens, OH 45701
Thank you for your time and cooperation!