Human Resources - November 17, 2003

Madison Metropolitan School District Madison, Wisconsin Art Rainwater, Superintendent
BOARD OF EDUCATION Minutes for Human Resources November 17, 2003		Doyle Administration Building 545 West Dayton Street, Room 103 Madison, Wisconsin

The Human Resources Committee meeting was called to order by Chair Ray Allen at 6:10 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Ray Allen, Bill Clingan, Shwaw Vang

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

OTHER BOARD

MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Carstensen, Bill Keys, Juan José López, Ruth Robarts

STAFF PRESENT: Jane Belmore, Mary Gulbrandsen, Bob Nadler, Roger Price, Joe Quick, Art Rainwater, Barbara Lehman – Recording Secretary

1. Approval of Minutes

It was moved by Shwaw Vang and seconded by Bill Clingan to approve the minutes of the Human Resources Committee dated September 8, 2003 as distributed. Motion unanimously carried.

2. Public Appearances

There were no public appearances.

3. Announcements

There were no announcements.

4. Human Resources Policies and Procedures

(The Human Resources Polices and Procedures manual had been sent in a previous Board packet mailing. A copy is attached to the original of these minutes.)

There was some discussion about the next set of Board policies up for review in the 8000 category. Mr. Allen asked for the date on which these policies could be expected to come from Legal Counsel for review.

Mr. Allen stated that the previous discussion with Local 60 covered the process by which the district moves positions from represented to non-represented positions. Mr. Nadler noted that, since that time, the administration has made a modification to policy that any movement from one unit to another would be included on the Board agenda from now on.

There was some discussion about getting electronic access to the Human Resources policies. The new system would allow Board member access but internal policies are not usually made a part of the web site. If changes to Board policy conflict with internal policies, changes are made to the internal policies to bring them into alignment. The Board was concerned about not being able to see how the policies are implemented.

FOLLOW UP: Provide on-line access to all district policies and procedures.

In response to a question about how re-classes are done, Mr. Nadler described the process noting that most come from individual employees and forms are sent out to the district's consultant. The consultant analyzes the job and makes a recommendation to the district for placement. Union positions go to a committee. Non-union positions still have a committee but there is no union representation. Supervisors go through the same process. There was concern about making substantive changes so that the jobs become new and there is no subsequent competition. When a job moves up 2 or 3 classes, there should be a chance for others to apply. Additional duties were given to the current employee in the prior case. District has to have flexibility to choose the person whose skills most closely align with the job duties. It was noted that the district goes through about 15 re-classes per year; 80 percent from individual employees. Other people then react to the result of a re-class; very sporadic. State system is similar but only allows certain incremental steps. It was opined that the registrar position should have been posted. As jobs are eliminated and people take on additional responsibilities; question are raised about loyalty to existing staff. Only a few are initiated by administration. Goal is to have a fair and equitable procedure.

It was asked whether it would useful to ask for comparisons at state or county levels as to ratios of new jobs vs. added responsibilities and for a threshold. It was stated that it would be dangerous to get into a position where people will not take on additional duties because positions can be reclassed putting them out of work. Issue was raised about using management experience vs. neutral criteria. At the suggestion of using a consultant to make these decisions, it was argued that management is in the best position to know how the jobs function.

The issue was raised about the practice of not coming before the Board to negotiate Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). MOUs are addenda to the contracts. Discussed how the La Follette Four Block MOU was treated. It was suggested that the Board should set some criteria for those items that should come before the Board and those that do not. Policy will need to be changed by the Board.

5. Other Business

No discussion.

6 Adjournment

It was moved by Bill Clingan and seconded by Shwaw Vang to adjourn the meeting at 6:56 p.m. Motion unanimously carried.

BOE Minutes	BOE Home Page
Other Minutes:
Previous: 2003-09-08 \|\| Human Resources \|\| Next: 2005-02-07