Professional Staff Organization

Functional Area Review Group

Observer Committee Report

November 2004

Committee Members

Debra Lybyer (Chair), Donna Callahan, Pat Clyde, Chet Herbst, Diane Johnson, Jim McCracken, Karan Morscheck,

Preface

It was with enthusiasm that we entered this annual planning process. By design, the process provides an avenue for input leading to decision-making.  It also provides an opportunity for individuals to hear, learn, question, and interact with colleagues to develop a deeper understanding and greater awareness of one another’s needs.  In many cases, it was eye-opening and assumption-reducing for the members of our committee. Each member is grateful for the opportunity to participate in the process at this level.

Observations

Our goal in this process was two-fold.  First, we tasked ourselves with viewing each UAP initiative through the implicational scope of professional staff.  Second, we considered the big picture, attempting to concern ourselves with the larger needs of the College as a whole.  Our observations are summarized in a few common themes, though they contain no great surprises.  In fact, as noted below, they are all but one supported by current Presidential Program Guidance items already in place. 

Strategic Retention (PG 05-08) Retention is a pervasive concern and high priority throughout the campus and College.  Though it is generally assumed that the term, “Retention”, refers to that of current students, our discussion revolved around the broader implications of this concept.  Retention of students, leading to higher enrollment, impacts staff in many ways.  Retention of students requires, among many things, exceptional treatment and service by individuals with whom they interact.  Employees function at their best when their basic needs are met. Each of the following explanations impact retention and surfaced as the greatest concerns from the professional staff perspective. Our recommendation is that additional funds available for FY06 should be directed toward the following efforts, in priority order:

Workload (PG 05-11) It was clear, through the presentations we observed, that this is an issue of paramount concern to the College as a whole. For many employees, high stress, long hours, and growing levels of responsibility are becoming increasingly prevalent. Though this PG is primarily focused on faculty and classified staff workload evaluation, we believe that professional staff workloads should also be included in the analysis that will take place.

Compensation (PG 05-09) Higher wages for professional staff are of continuing concern.  LCSC has a low employee turnover rate and can maintain this rate by adequately compensating its employees.  It is clear that keeping excellent employees is always more frugal than hiring and training new employees. As an on-going process, the study and comparison of LCSC staff salaries to other institutions and individuals is of high priority to professional staff.  We applaud these efforts and are eager to review the results of the LCSC Compensation Review Committee (CRC) in February of 2005.  In addition to increasing compensation levels of current employees, a supplementary issue was raised as an area of consideration.  This is the issue of employees on “soft dollars”.  Many grant funded programs (hence, employees) are in financial jeopardy from one year to the next.  Those positions and programs that are deemed valuable to the College should be considered valuable enough to fund, at least in part, through appropriated dollars.

Space (PG 05-30) The issue of adequate space allocation arose in every functional area group session.  With each new initiative, grant award, and position LCSC acquires, space becomes tighter.  Staff and faculty morale, student confidentiality, and general service to students are compromised by difficult space allocation issues.  We see this as a concern for the campus as a whole and strongly support the study of space management at LCSC.

Safety and Security Though this emphasis area is not supported by a Presidential Program Guidance item, it surfaced as a concern in many FARG meetings.  The issue of security on campus via officer coverage is a campus-wide concern for both employees and students.  It is of significant concern both that the part-time campus security officers seem to be sorely underpaid and that main campus is left “uncovered” when a call takes the evening/weekend officer off campus.  Our campus has historically been considered a safe place to work and live.  It is our desire to ensure that this continues to be the case.  In addition, with the new Activity Center opening, we believe that there will be a much greater need for more security staff assistance on our campus.

Summary

Professional Staff Organization and its representative members support and encourage the campus initiative to increase enrollment of students through retention efforts.  We further support retention efforts of staff who directly serve, and help retain, these students.  We believe the best use of allocated funds should be spent in the following four areas:

• Workload evaluation and adjustment;
• Compensation equity issues;
• Space allocation and management;
• Safety and security.

LCSC is a special place to attend and to work.  It is an intimate environment where people are valued for who they are and what they offer to one another.  We continue to believe that our best resources and the most deserving of fiscal consideration are the employees of our institution and the students we serve. This is the emphasis that PSO is pleased to encourage and support.