Senate Bill 10-11-55
| Bill ID: | 10-11-55 |
| Name: | Making UMD a Great Place to Work Initiative |
| Proposed: | 04/08/2011 |
| Sponsor: | Stephen McDaniel |
| Proposal: | University administration often stresses the institution's obligations to our various constituencies (e.g., our students, the surrounding community and the state). However, one group that rarely receives top consideration in UMD priorities is university employees. Our university, its colleges and departments are very concerned about national rankings as it pertains to academics (as this helps with marketing to students and donors). However, one ranking we don't seem overly concerned about at UMD is being ranked as one of the top places to work. In a recent study published in the "Chronicle of Higher Education," we didn't even make the list of best universities to work in the Atlantic coast region, being bested by our neighbors: George Mason University, Georgetown University and University of Maryland, Baltimore County. <a href="http://chronicle.com/section/Great-Colleges-to-Work-For/156/" target="_blank">http://chronicle.com/section/Great-Colleges-to-Work-For/156/</a> Nationally, Vanderbilt recently made "Fortune Magazine's" 100 Best Places to work. Likewise, the University of Michigan has instituted its own internal program to do on-campus research and consulting as part of its Top Place to Work initiative: <a href="http://www.hr.umich.edu/greatplaces/why.html" target="_blank">http://www.hr.umich.edu/greatplaces/why.html</a> Last fall, President Low did acknowledge his concerns over faculty morale and the importance of human capital at UMD. However, at an institution that places a premium on faculty governance, there never seem to be any systematic attempts to gather data, whereby our faculty (and staff) can inform an institutional initiative to improve morale and make this a more attractive place to work (as is the case at Michigan). |
| Active? | No |
Status
| Status: | Completed |
History
| Status: | Complete |
| Reviewer: | Senate Executive Committee (SEC) |
| Received: | 2011-10-24 |
| Actions: | No further action was taken on the proposal. |
| Related Files: |
| Status: | Complete |
| Reviewer: | Dr. Stephen McDaniel |
| Received: | 2011-10-28 |
| Next Step: | SEC Review |
| Related Files: |
| Status: | Complete |
| Reviewer: | Senate Executive Committee (SEC) |
| Received: | 2011-08-31 |
| Decision Date: | 2011-10-24 |
| Decision: | The SEC voted to send a status letter to the proposer, Dr. Stephen McDaniel |
| Actions: | At the October 24, 2011 meeting, the SEC agreed that many of the goals outlined in the proposal were currently being explored for various constituencies on campus. Specifically, the Staff Affairs Committee was reviewing issues related to non-exempt staff and whether the HR Working Group Report addresses the concerns raised by this constituency (Senate Doc. 10-11-57). In addition, the Senate and Provost were establishing a joint task force to review issues related to the non-tenure track faculty population. The ADVANCE program had also surveyed the tenured/tenure track faculty population on work environment and released their report on October 25, 2011. The Senate Faculty Affairs Committee intends to review any areas of concern raised in the ADVANCE report. |
| Next Step: | Send status letter to proposer |
| Related Files: |
| Status: | Complete |
| Reviewer: | Chairs of the Campus Affairs, Staff Affairs, and Faculty Affairs Committees |
| Received: | 2011-08-08 |
| Decision Date: | 2011-08-15 |
| Decision: | To suggest a number of items for consideration by the SEC when developing a potential charge for a joint Presidential/Senate Task Force. |
| Actions: | The Chairs of the Staff Affairs, Faculty Affairs, and Campus Affairs Committees met and discussed both the "Request for Non-Exempt Staff Issues and Development Review" letter from Staff Affairs and the "Making UMD a Great Place to Work Initiative" proposal from a faculty constituent. The Chairs also discussed the fact that the Director of University Human Resources was recently charged with leading a review of three anonymous letters sent to administrators in the spring of 2011 by employees from Facilities Management. An HR Working Group was created to review these letters, as well as a "Workers Rights Report," which was submitted on May 27, 2011, by the Black Faculty and Staff Association (BFSA). The letters and report under review cited alleged mistreatment of staff in several departments on campus. |
| Next Step: | SEC Review |
| Related Files: |
| Status: | Complete |
| Reviewer: | Senate Executive Committee (SEC) |
| Received: | 2011-04-15 |
| Decision Due By: | 2011-05-12 |
| Actions: | At the May 12, 2011 SEC meeting, the SEC voted to ask the Chairs of the Faculty Affairs, Staff Affairs, and Campus Affairs Committees to review the proposal alongside Senate Doc. # 10-11-57 (Request for Non-Exempt Staff Issues and Development Review) and propose elements for a charge. |
| Next Step: | Review by the Chairs of the Campus Affairs, Staff Affairs, and Faculty Affairs Committees |
| Related Files: |