Officers of Administration
at the University of Oregon

Six months ago, Dan Williams asked Linda to convene a group to discuss/examine employment issues for OAs. This group's recommendations will go to the Vice Presidents.

This work is the outgrowth of the past couple of years work with the OA Council, which resulted in the OA section of the Human Resources web site, sample evaluation forms, and identification of areas that need study and improvement.

Dan Williams' goal: Professionalize the OA group. Define ourselves by what we are, not by what we are not.

Progress on the OA Project is slow, as Linda is also temporarily serving as Director of Affirmative Action.

The group represents various constituencies:

• Shirien Chappell, Library
• Frances Dyke, Resource Management
• Coleen Ebert, Journalism
• Mike Eyster, University Housing
• Hilary Gerdes, Academic Advising
• Marianne Nicols, Arts and Sciences
• Donna Winitzky, EMU & OA Council

Issues on the table:

• compensation
• academic rank
• performance appraisal
• professional development

Sample performance appraisal tools are on the HR web site.

Group decided to work on:

• advancement and promotion
• compensation
• governance
• grievance process
• (and others that Linda rattled off pretty quickly)

So far, they have worked on grievance processes and professional development.

Grievances: part of the problem is lack of information about the existing faculty grievance process. The faculty grievance process is not clear about what is grievable, but timely notice is not grievable. The group is not pushing to change that. Working conditions, discrimination, salary increases (or lack thereof), and other miscellaneous unnamed items are grievable. There have been very few OA grievances. The current grievance process has the option of a review committee. The group suggests that this peer review should be largely OA peers, and clarifying what is grievable.

Professional development looks a lot like sabbatical. There is a process in place for sabbaticals, but a lot of people don't know about it. The decision to grant a sabbatical is up to the appropriate Vice President. Discussion of examples of various sabbaticals.

DISCUSSION:

• Short term external development opportunities (conferences, workshops, etc.).
• Funding can be an issue.
• Examples from earlier instances in which the UO brought the training to us.
• ORSA can provide funding for grant administration training as cost share travel award.
• Making time available for training and development varies across campus. It was suggested that the culture needs to change to suggest that employees need a week or two per year for this purpose.
• Need to network with other institutions. Opportunities for advancement.
• If it's budgeted, it happens (Housing example).
• Opportunities to meet other OAs, bond as a group, share what we can.
• Centralizations of funding, of financial support would increase use (x leave days per year for prof. dev.) (consistent with professionalization of OA ranks)
• Inconsistencies within some departments: professionals more likely to be offered opportunities, managers less likely or not at all
• A promotion really doesn't exist. Extended review? Five year review? Tied to compensation increase or other items?
• One example of why in one department the professional group isn't enough, as this employee's issues trend across campus, not within the department.
• Sabbatical as break vs. sabbatical as work.
• Use cross-dept. list serves to provide info specific to certain types of jobs? (e.g. financial managers).
• Sabbatical as break vs. sabbatical as work.
• List of list serves (exists at University Computing)

Time line? Wrap up by end of academic year with recommendations to VPs.

Contracts? Colors? Why do OAs have annual contracts? Good question.

Salary equity? Some OAs get COLAs, some don't? VP's have provided guidelines in the past.

Salary increase? Postponed due to budget issues

Governor's day this year? Yes.