Notes of the

CAMPUS WELFARE COMMITTEE

Meeting of December 4, 2001

 

The Campus Welfare Committee met on December 4, 2001 at 2:00 pm in room 481 McHenry Library.

 

Present: Leslie Sunell (chair), Julian Fernald (staff), Mark Traugott, Marty Chemers, Christina Valentino, Bill Ladusaw, Jean Marie Scott.

 

Absent: Barry McLaughlin, Janelle Marines, Frank Talamantes, Ed Titus, Line Mikkelsen.

 

Guests: Willeen McQuitta, Barbara Brogan.

 

1) Results of the work-life focus groups (Fernald)

Julian Fernald presented the results of the work-life focus groups sponsored by the CWC. Highlights of the presentation include:

 

In 1998 UC sponsored a system wide human resources retreat that focused on work-life issues. One of the recommendations that resulted was that each of the Chancellors form a taskforce to investigate work-life issues on her or his campus. Upon its inception last year the CWC subsumed the responsibilities of the UCSC taskforce, and during the Winter of 2001 a working group of the CWC convened to develop a strategy for conducting focus groups to study campus work-life issues.

 

Focus groups were conducted during the summer and fall of 2001. The purposes of the focus groups were to:

·        gain a better understanding of the issues that contribute to satisfaction and morale, and by extension recruitment and retention among a broad cross-section of UCSC employees;

·        help the CWC identify directions the campus might take with regard to work-life policies; and

·        inform CWC’s recommendations to PAC.

 

Three groups of six to nine participants each consisted of: 

·        Campus Joint Operations Group (CJOG), and mid-level managers (i.e., Asst. Deans, Unit Heads, CAOs, etc.);

·        Administrative Assistants/Administrative Analysts; and

·        Physical Plant (Maintenance/Grounds/Lock Shop etc.)

 

Faculty focus groups proved difficult to convene; staff conducted individual interviews with two Full Professors and one Assistant Professor.

 

Summary findings:

 

·        Participants felt that a “satisfied employee” is one who:

-        Feels that work is purposeful, meaningful, connected to mission;

-        Has opportunities to be challenged, to grow, and to be creative;

-        Has opportunities for training, development, support and mentoring;

-        Has some degree of independence/autonomy/flexibility;

-        Is compensated appropriately and fairly;

-        Has adequate space and tools;

-        Has a manageable and reasonable workload; and

-        Has input into decision-making process.     

 

·        Participants most liked about working at UCSC:

-        Physical setting/Beauty/ SC-Bay Area

-        People: Colleagues/Co-workers/Supervisors

-        Interacting with students (and faculty)

-        Pro-active environment on social issues

-        Informal atmosphere

-        Academic/Intellectual environment

-        Cultural events (SSC, Art shows, Lectures, etc.)

-        Opportunities to be challenged and to learn

 

·        Concerns of the staff:

-        The greatest and most consistent concern among the staff was that there are inadequate opportunities for career development and that the reclassification system is cumbersome, unclear and unfair.

 

Other aspects of UCSC employment that were of concern to staff included:

-        Increased workload/understaffed units

-        High staff turnover

-        Cumbersome bureaucracy

-        Inadequate space/lounges/break rooms/ Lack of privacy

-        Disrespectful co-workers/ supervisors/faculty

-        Inadequate pay relative to high cost of living

-        Parking availability and cost

 

·        Concerns of the faculty:

-        Inadequate resources for teaching (classrooms, facilities, TAs)

-        Housing costs

-        Inadequate support for research (funding, facilities, time)

-        Spousal hiring policies (or lack thereof)

-        Unresponsive administration that consults narrowly

 

There was an overwhelming desire among virtually all participants to feel that the administration would listen to employees, try to understand their positions, make hard decisions, be honest about the decisions, and explain them.

 

 

·        Suggested possible campus responses:

 

-        Develop career track programs and train supervisors to mentor career development

-        Make increasing salaries a true priority

-        Tangible and meaningful rewards (extra vacation, incentives, merit pay)

-        Sliding scale parking permits – limit student cars on campus.

-        More campus supported housing programs – Build housing for staff as well as faculty.

-        Hire more faculty and TAs

-        Improve teaching facilities (larger and more classrooms)

-        Improve spousal hiring policies

-        Grow incrementally in a way that leaves time for infrastructure to keep pace.

 

Following the presentation, the CWC discussed which issues would be appropriate for further CWC consideration at this time, and identified career development as a priority.   With the hiring freeze currently in effect, the CWC felt that increased attention to retention, internal recruitment and advancement is essential to campus welfare in the immediate and for the long run.

 

The CWC also agreed that discussion of these findings with the Chancellor and Campus Provost would be beneficial.

 

The CWC will continue discussion of these issues at the next meeting on January 15, 2002.   Members were asked to give thought in advance to the following:

 

·        How this information might help shape the CWC agenda for the rest of the year;

·        Possible actions/recommendations the committee might take/make in light of this information; and

·        What CWC would like to present to/discuss with the Chancellor and Provost when we invite them to a meeting to discuss these results.