From: Betsy Simpson

Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 4:43 PM

To: Brian Keith; Rick Donnelly - LL; Beth Layton - HCL; Angela Stewart; Jim Stevens; Lori Driscoll; Robert Shaddy; Laurie Brennan

Subject: Background info for Staff Structure Reorg Committee

Lori, thanks for the info you sent us!


I pulled together some key documents from the committee's deliberations last year. Those of you who participated then may want to make additional comments and/or forward other material.


Below is Denise's final communication with the committee, including her update report to the directors and Dale's response. Denise's e-mail to the committee did not include the attachments. The first four I've pasted below, but I'm not sure about the Proposed Mapping document. I believe it is a document that shows individuals and salaries, information Denise didn't feel comfortable distributing widely.







Although Denise indicated in her e-mail to the directors that the committee had tentative recommendations for mapping to new lines, it's my recollection that the committee was still reviewing the various drafts and had not fully addressed outstanding issues to its satisfaction such as the following, all of which I believe we touched on this morning.


         Should we consider mapping current lines to LTS1, LTS2, Coord1, Coord2, and Coord3 instead of LTS1, LTS2, LTS3, Coord1, and Coord2? Under the current plan, Archivists would map to LTS3, a non-exempt line, even though Archivists are exempt. Maybe it would make more sense to map Archivists to Coord1. In Denise's original draft proposal to Library Council, Archivists were mapped to Coord1.

         What will happen to staff who don't meet the minimum educational requirement of their new line?

         How will we handle situations where staff map to lines out of sync with their job duties?

         How will salaries be affected by the mapping? Which staff will be below the minimum salary for their new line and how much money will it take to bring them up to the minimum?


We also shared examples of work performed in our areas at the different levels, which Denise compiled into the following document:

Classes 2-283

Marcia Alden, who was the inspiration behind the committee's LTS1, 2, and 3 charts, sent the committee the following e-mail with a link to a relevant article. I can't find any info on the other articles she found.

From: Marcia E. Alden

Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 11:24 AM

To: Denise Bogart; Lori Driscoll; Betsy Simpson; Rick Donnelly - LL; Beth Layton - HCL; Kerstin Rao; Jim Stevens

Cc: Marcia E. Alden

Subject: Article mentioned during this morning's meeting


Hello all

Here is the link to the article I mentioned during this morning's meeting.

I searched Library Literature & Information Science Full Text on WilsonWeb and found several articles that were interesting.

I'm looking forward to working with all of you on this.






From: Denise Bogart
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 12:41 PM
To: Rick Donnelly - LL; Beth Layton - HCL; Angela Stewart; Kerstin Rao; Jim Stevens; Robert Shaddy; Betsy Simpson; Marcia E. Alden; Lori Driscoll; Jim Stevens
Subject: FW: classification study committee


Committee, Here is Dale's reply to the work that was done on the titles. I would suggest that to prevent this work from dying you elect a chair from your group and have that person take up the project. Thank you for a great start and I hope that you continue to pursue this effort.


-----Original Message-----

From: Dale Canelas

Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 5:13 PM

To: Denise Bogart

Cc: Bill Covey; Martha Hruska; John Ingram; Carol Turner

Subject: RE: classification study committee


Denise: We think that this is a good beginning. Please thank the committee for its work on this. We like eliminating the archivist category but we aren't equipped to say if "coordinator" is the right category for these employees. Is this an extant category and are there specs for it already? We would like to see a set of specifications written for each of the library specialist and coordinator categories so that we can understand the cognitive differences in the requirements for each level. We do understand that you cannot eliminate current USPS positions unless the people holding them agree to move to a TEAMS position. That shouldn't be considered an impediment -- we understand that it may take some years to move entirely to the new structure. What is more important to us is having a flexible structure that we can build on for the future. Again, thanks to you and the committee for this beginning. Dale


-----Original Message-----

From: Denise Bogart

Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 9:20 AM

To: Dale Canelas; Martha Hruska; Carol Turner; Steve Shorb; Faith Meakin - HCL; Kathleen Price - LL

Cc: Bill Covey

Subject: classification study committee


Directors, the Classification Study Committee has developed these draft class specifications for the proposed titles of Library Specialist 1, 2 and 3 and Coordinators. The committee would like your feedback on the format and the tentative proposal before they go further with preparing a document that may eventually be submitted to University Human Resources.


<< File: LTS1chart2.doc >> << File: LTS2chart1.doc >> << File: LTS3chart1.doc >> << File: Coordinators.xls >>


The group has tentatively proposed that all Archivist be mapped to Coordinator 1 and that Senior Archivists be mapped to Coordinator 2. Those who are currently Coordinator 1 might be mapped to Coordinator 3.


This proposal would eliminate the problems with exempt employees being placed in non-exempt positions but would not eliminate current USPS employees being placed in TEAMS positions. As we discussed the positions of those employees who do not want to participate in this project would be flagged, and once those employee lines were vacant the position would be appropriately reclassified. Of course all of this would have to be discussed with Class and Comp and is merely a proposal.


Attached is a draft version of the mapping process for the Archivists, Senior Archivists and Coordinators based on this option:


<< File: Proposed Mapping.xls >>