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:
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.
http://wilsontxt.hwwilson.com/pdfhtml/01879/2xvlj/bs0.htm
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.
Marcia
Betsy
_____________________________________________
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 >>