Office of the Vice President

for Administration
Professional Advisory Council

Minutes – July 11, 2012

The meeting was convened at 2:30 p.m. by Mr. Garbini

PAC members present were:





Paul Pusecker


Monty McKee


Charles Garbini


Stefanie Baxter


Anne DeCaire




Gerald Hendricks




Paul Hengesteg




Members excused: Glen Loller #6, Mike Parisi #8, Doris Miklitz #11, Suzanna Stanley #12, Nancy Smallwood #14

Others Present: Patty Fogg, Hannah Messner, Jerry Cutler


The meeting was called to order at 2:30 p.m.

The minutes from May 9, 2012 were approved as written.   


Mr. Hendricks introduced Allen Prettyman, Director of the Nurse Managed Health in the School of Nursing.

Dr. Prettyman spoke to the PAC members about the Transforming Healthcare Clinic in the School of Nursing. This is the only clinic of its type in Delaware, but there are many around the country, always run by a School of Nursing affiliated with a university. UD’s facility has been in operation for about two years and is currently located in McDowell. They are currently open Monday through Thursday from 8:00-5:00 and from 8:00-12:00 on Fridays. They are looking at the feasibility of being open evenings and weekends as well. The facility is open to all employees with a copay set by your insurance company, however BCBS considers them an urgent care facility so it’s an additional $5 (total of $25).

More information can be found at:

Old Business

Constituent concern from last month regarding the Blue Lot parking fees has been addressed with Parking Services. According to Richard Rind, Director, Transportation and Parking Services, they are waiting for Executive Committee approval of 2012-2013 permit prices. An extensive communication will be implemented when they receive approval. There was some confusion as to whether or not the Blue Lots will be going away and replaced with Red Lots. Mr. Hendricks will check with Richard Rind for clarification.

New Business

PAC elections will be done at the September meeting. There are several openings on the Grievance Hearing Board (2 year commitment) open that will need to be filled. PAC representatives should send a note out to their constituents asking for volunteers to serve on committees so that they can be voted on in September. Tom Lapenta will send out a description of what the board does. It was noted that the committee is different than the Grievance Advisory Board, which is comprised of PAC members.

Notices have gone out to all even numbered districts regarding elections of representatives.

Constituent Concerns

Mr. Garbini reported that there were several concerns among his constituents about the new job titles that were given to employees without the job descriptions associated with those titles. Jerry Cutler explained that there is some confusion as to the difference of job description and classification.  A job description is a unique set of job duties for each person’s job. The class specification is a generalization of types of jobs. No job descriptions were changed during the process. He felt that what most people are actually looking for is the class structure. They are still in the process of refining those before they are released. The entire process was supposed to go live in January 2012, but because they are so short staffed it was delayed. They felt it was in the best interest of the university to at least start with the new titles going into place on July 1 and are following as quickly as they are able to with the rest of the information. They are hoping to have more information online by August 1, 2012 and will continue to hold forums and have dialogs with employees to explain the changes.

Mr. Garbini voiced concern that after meeting with personnel in Mr. Cutler’s Classification and Compensation office he was told there is no appeal process for those who feel the classification is not correct. There are many instances where the new title appears to be a demotion, even though it is not. Mr. Cutler advised that anyone who feels their title is incorrect should first try to discuss it with their supervisor, but noted that his office are willing to discuss this if they are contacted. Mr. Garbini pointed out that it is difficult to appeal when there are no guidelines to compare. It is important to recognize, according to Mr. Cutler, that no salaries were affected by the new titles. With that being said, there is time to address concerns about titles once the guidelines are released. The intention of these changes was not to demoralize people, so they will be working to find ways to address situations where new titles appear to be lower than an employee’s previous title.

Mr. McKee asked what the process for appeals will be. Mr. Cutler repeated that his office will accommodate issues both from supervisors and employees. However, the senior leadership of each college and/or unit was consulted during the early stages of the process and had input in determining the new classification of employees. Compensation guidelines are currently being vetted with senior staff.

There was a question about positions that require licensing and if HR took that into consideration for positions other than nurses. Mr. Cutler said that was not the case. They reviewed market values and determined that both IT and Development were very competitive and in higher demand so adjusted their career ladders accordingly. However, he pointed out, that could change in out years depending on market demands.

Ms. Greco asked why they received a letter first from Mr. Cutler’s office and then a letter from their Director indicating their new salary which included their merit raise and adjustment. There was a concern that they could not tell how much of a merit raise they received with it clumped with the adjustment. Mr. Cutler wasn’t sure why it was sent out that way but explained that they could see the difference by comparing their previous salary with the current minimum salary in their classification to find out the adjustment amount.

Ms. Baxter asked what the difference was between a reclassification and promotion and how it relates to the career ladder advancement. Mr. Cutler explained that a reclassification is not technically a promotion. It is a review of the duties in the current job to see if it is classed correctly. Ms. Baxter asked if there is a policy that says at least 20% of duties have to be changed before a reclassification can be made. Mr. Cutler was not aware of such a policy but noted that a minor change that is significant could result in a lateral move in the new structure that would increase the salary.

Ms. Baxter asked if there are “science tracks” for researchers. Mr. Hendricks responded that The College of Agriculture and Natural resources has two career ladders, one a science track, the other one for the Extension Service. There are about four other career ladders on campus as well. The promotion process is similar to a faculty tenure track in that it includes submitting dossiers and meeting minimum requirements. He also noted that many extension employees were all reclassified into one title of “Extension Agent”. Will the new structure override the current career ladders? Mr. Cutler explained that career ladders are almost automatic promotions. His office is planning visits to Georgetown and other sites to discuss the salaries and Mr. Cutler responded that there are none at this time. They are reviewing the process and possible changes for next year. His office will compare salary information of other institutions annually and make adjustments as needed. There are only 110 employees at UD over the maximums for their level. UD does not want to do anything to incentivize them to leave because commonly they are the most valued employees. Any policy with red line limits would be given with at least a year of prior notice.

Ms. Baxter brought several concerns from her constituents about the lack of correspondence from Public Safety to employees about the recent S.W.A.T. team exercise at Penny Hall. Although there was a UDaily article and mass messaging from Public Safety, many on-sight employees were given mixed messages and miscommunication. The concern will be forwarded to Public Safety to see if more can be done with communication efforts during future exercises.

Mr. Hendricks brought forth a concern that with the new restructuring, Professional Advisory Council is no longer a correct title. He asked the group to consider other possibilities in how the group could function more efficiently and effectively and possibilities for a new name. SSAC has indicated that they are not interested in combining the two councils.

Ms. Baxter reported a constituent’s frustration with the renovations being done in the Employee Fitness Center. When employees signed up for laundry service and lockers in July they weren’t told that the area would be closed for renovations for a month. They would like some sort of compensation consideration for the time they are not able to use lockers or laundry.\

Meeting adjourned at 4:20.