January 28, 2016
In attendance:
Susan Larsen, David Allred, Scott Allred, Merrill Worthington, Stacee McIff, Ted Olsen, Melanie Jenkins, Lisa Laird Michelle Brown, Mike Duncan, Jeff Serrine
Went over the agenda, gave David Allred time to do his part on the philosophy. He didn’t receive input from the committee but did just highlight and make a few suggested changes. Question arose regarding the Philosophy verses Policy by Stacee. Ted mentioned that he felt that the $26,000 minimum salary should be taken out because it’s too locked in. Job type also was to be re-evaluated. Dave said upon receiving input from the committee he can shorten the philosophy.
Wayne suggested that the MCC document offered good feedback and it works like a mission statement.
Wayne said that we want to be competitive per the president at least 50%
Discussion turned to using OneNote, it was encouraged that if a document was to be edited to SAVE AS with the person’s last name. Also to be sure and close out the document if you step away from it so that others can view it.
Ted referred to the last page titled “Equity Adjustment” and pointed out the second bullet “within Division” was not necessary.
Stacee asked if we had done equity adjustment in the past. Wayne stated that on department level.
Ted said it’s not been a practice and that extra monies goes back into schoolwide pr pot PBQ money not included.
Lisa mentioned she was aware of department allocations.
Wayne asked the question if merit pay be kept in as part of compensation. Lisa pointed out that if so it should be codified.
Stacee said that people who are flagged as “needs improvement” should not be considered for merit pay. If its performance pay not everyone should get it.
Wayne said merit pay is considered Quasi, 1.5%COLA, department good, 3% total, couldn’t give it equally.
Melanie asked if merit pay and performance pay should be part of the philosophy.
Ted suggested that it should all be taken out all together or have staff and faculty both receive it.
Wayne said merit pay is a big controversy that needs to be better defined. It’s policy but not Philosophy.
Lisa said to give it better structure.
Wayne asked if it was fair in reference to evaluation vs. forced ranking. It’s very arbitrary needs to be spelled out, rank/tenure, staff, one year evaluation..
Stacee asked if work load and merit crossover.
Merit pay is different for faculty and staff. Melanie said it’s very rare that it’s the same across the board. Merit pay is different.
Jeff stated that faculty and staff shouldn’t be separate when it comes to merit pay.
Workload was brought up. Supervisors determine merit.
Merit pay should be a separate section. Merit pay was put in the Parking Lot.
Ted asked about the accuracy of the PayScale data.
Jim mentioned that it’s hard to compare straight across.
Over half of the committee review is on PayScale.
David Allred will review deadline dates and milestones at the next meeting.
Jim mentioned the accuracy of title and Supervisor review.
Wayne said he would pull the report off of PayScale and put it on the share drive. Also that once a month we will go down to Richfield and meet and also that we need to meet as a whole group. Down the road grades, succession planning needs to be identified ahead of time.
