Resources

Staff constitute human resources, and they need adequate financial and physical resources to meet University expectations. Physical resources such as facilities and computing equipment are discussed in Chapters 10 and 11. Computing and office equipment did not appear to be concerns in the Staff Survey.

Administrative Structure and Human Resources

The creation of the position of the Executive Vice President and Provost in 1992, combined with the elimination of two vice president positions, has led to a centralized "chief operating officer" model. An advantage of this structural change has been improved communication among administration, faculty, staff, and students through the integration of administrative and academic units under one executive vice president. The Executive Vice President and Provost meets semiannually with all academic units and annually with all other administrative units.

The staff is divided into several categories: executive managerial, professional, technical, clerical/secretarial, skilled crafts, and service/maintenance (see Table 17). Presently, some staff are represented by one of three unions (see "Collective Bargaining"), and we will refer to them as "unionized staff." Exempt managerial and professional staff and a limited number of nonexempt support staff are not unionized, and we will refer to them here as "professional staff." Current organizational charts for administrative and academic departments are available in the Resource Room [3.1A].

The number of regular, full time (at least .75 FTE) staff has increased by 17.9% from 644 in 1988 to 759 in 1996. However, staff has increased in some categories and declined in others (see Table 17). Professional staff have grown substantially while technical and clerical/secretarial have declined. Growth in professional ranks is due in part to growth in Information Technology and graduate programs, and also to some reclassifications from clerical/technical to professional. The lack of growth or decline in other staff categories strains staff resources in responding to growth in the number of faculty, researchers, and graduate students.

TABLE 17. Staff by Classification.

Category	1988	1996	Change
Executive Managerial	44	51	+7
Professional	180	304	+124
Technical	61	58	-3
Clerical/Secretarial	206	180	-26
Skilled Crafts	37	41	+4
Service/Maintenance	116	125	+9
Total	644	759	+115

Source: Institutional Analysis (Fall Headcount - Full-Time).

Collective Bargaining

The clerical/secretarial group is represented by the United Auto Workers (UAW), the skilled crafts/service/maintenance group is represented by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the public safety officers are represented by the Police Officers Association (POA).

In 1992/93, the Mail Services staff accreted into the AFSCME unit. Also in 1992/93, the UAW Technical unit decertified, which left only the clerical unit represented by UAW. In that same year, the professional staff voted against unionization.

Hiring and Promotion

In 1991, Affirmative Programs developed the Hiring Guide [1.5B2], which was distributed to all departments on campus. Updated in 1994 and 1996, this guide provides detailed information on all policies and procedures that govern the hiring process. The MTU hiring philosophy mandates that no hire can be approved if the candidate has not met all of the posted requirements for the position. Human Resources works with departments before they post a position to define essential functions and develop appropriate, related requirements. Managers establish the requirements as they relate to the current needs of each unit. Before an approval of hire is granted, the Affirmative Action Officer verifies that these requirements are met.

One frustration that has been identified by the staff is the lack of a career path within many units of the University. The institution has many small, often highly specialized departments. Larger departments, like Information Technology and the Library, have more opportunities for career paths. One solution to this problem has been for the employee to move to a different department; while this can be disruptive to the continuity within a department, it does offer the advantage of broadening employees' perspectives.

Diversity

Diversifying the staff has been a goal of the administration since 1988. We have an Affirmative Action Plan [2.5D] to monitor hiring and set goals for protected class members at the University. The plan uses various legally defined factors to determine availability of qualified prospective applicants. Along with the current utilization analysis and the expected openings for the coming year, goals for all departments, including staff, are generated. Progress reports on these goals are shared with the President annually. In 1996, women constituted 47.2% of the total 759 full-time staff, which included 25.5% at the Executive Managerial level. Total underrepresented group representation for full-time staff was 3.6% in 1996. The staff classification with no representation for underrepresented groups is "Skilled Crafts." The highest level of representation is in Executive Managerial with 5 of 51, or 9.8% in 1996 (See Table 4, Chapter 1).

In addition to diversifying staff, multiple initiatives have been taken to increase staff's understanding of diversity issues. Educational Opportunity offers programs specifically designed to increase diversity and cultural understanding for all areas of the University. In 1991, Michigan Tech staff members attended off-campus National Coalition Building Institute (NCBI) workshops that addressed prejudice and effective methods to counteract it. In 1996, 13 staff, 3 faculty, and 8 students were trained to lead NCBI workshops on our campus. Several workshops have now been offered. In 1991, President Tompkins established the PCW (Presidential Commission for Women) and the PCD (Presidential Commission on Diversity). In 1994, the PCW produced "A Study of the Climate for Women at Michigan Technological University" [5.5C]. Findings and recommendations of the study were presented to the administration and the Board of Control. By using these recommendations, each department on campus developed plans to improve diversity. One recommendation which has been implemented is the resurrection of the Keweenaw Personnel Directors, a group of local Human Resources directors, to share job vacancies, job descriptions, benefit packages, and salaries in order to work toward spousal accommodation.

Governance

Staff participation in the governance of the institution has grown significantly since 1988. One of the first serious efforts to include staff in the governance of Michigan Tech was begun in 1989 by the Vice President of Operations and Finance. Large sessions were organized across campus to educate the Operations and Finance staff about participative management. Reactions were mixed—from excited acceptance to staunch resistance. Over the years, understanding of the roles and acceptance of the greater responsibilities of shared governance have evolved.

In 1990, the Staff Council was formed to advise the administration, including the President, on issues of interest and concern to staff. Since the Faculty Senate represented some, but not all, professional staff, an effort was initiated to consolidate representation of all professional staff under the Senate. Following a public hearing hosted jointly by Staff Council and the Faculty Senate, an election was held, and professional staff overwhelmingly voted to seek additional representation by the Senate. Under the new Senate constitution, approved by the Board of Control in 1997 (see Chapter 6), professional staff representation increased significantly from three to nine representatives to include representation for nearly all non-unionized staff.

At the departmental level, staff involvement in departmental governance has been minimal and inconsistent. In departmental self-studies [2.6], most departments do not indicate how staff are involved in governance issues, but a few did express how staff are involved in decision making. Examples of staff involvement in both academic and administrative departments range from self-directed work teams to departments where staff have full voting rights on most issues.

TQE (Total Quality Education) initiatives also involve staff in governance (see "Quality Service Education").

Financial Resources

Since 1988, compensation administration has undergone extensive revision. The UAW successfully organized the clerical and technical employees in January of 1991; their campaign highlighted compensation and pay practices. This led the administration to review the compensation/classification system. In 1990, Hay Group consultants were retained to create a system that would address University needs. As a result, in 1992 staff salaries were restructured around implementation of the Hay compensation system [2.6H8]. Since then, market pressures and the nature of our specialized departments have influenced us to tailor our compensation system to meet our needs. The objectives for the MTU compensation program are to

• retain valued employees,
• attract qualified employees,
• motivate individual performance, and
• treat employees fairly. [2]

The bargaining units use local markets to drive their compensation plans. Two units with pressing pay issues are the UAW and the POA. In consultation with the administration, five-year pay plans have been developed to address those wage concerns.

Benchmarking revealed that many universities have considered outsourcing the services provided by staff in order to save money. Outsourcing issues are of great concern to staff, although the administration has not pursued this option.

NEXT