February 6, 2007 3:30 – 4:30 p.m.
Dale Moore (Chair), Dr. Michelle Visio, Dr. Wes Scroggins, Ladonna Hansen, Teresa Steele, Sara Clark
Absent: Jana Estergard
Michelle indicated that she has made the changes to the staff and faculty surveys that were suggested at the last meeting. Those attending then began looking over the amended version of the staff survey and the following changes/additions were discussed:
- Michelle mentioned that she found a definition for #22 (Trailing partner) and added it to the surveys for clarification.
- On Item #29 concerning job classification, brief descriptions of “exempt” and “non-exempt” have been added.
- It was suggested to add the word “eligible” to the parenthetical information for items #29 and #30.
- On Items #38 and #39 regarding responsibility for children and adults, it was decided to take out the word “dependent” on #38 because it might be confused with the IRS term. Item #39 is to stay as is.
- Michelle noted that the first two pages of this survey are the same as the staff survey.
- On Item #1, a question was raised whether to keep it in the faculty survey, as most faculty already have variable hours. The group consensus was to keep it included.
- There was discussion as to whether to leave #7 regarding sabbaticals and #8 regarding tenure clock extension. As the topic of tenure clock is currently being discussed at MSU, it was decided to keep them included.
A discussion began as to how to obtain demographic data, with several ideas being suggested. There will be an introduction page, and the employees will be given a chance to opt out. The page will indicate the reason for needing the information, and that it will be kept separate from the survey, so responses will be kept confidential. It is suggested that if they click the OK button to take the survey, the demographic fields will be populated from MSU databases, and the respondents will be able to change any erroneous information within the fields.
Michelle asked if a web page could be added for the respondent can volunteer to serve on a focus group, and Sara indicated that it is possible.
Dale asked if there were any items in the staff morale survey that we might want to include in our survey and whether we wanted to add an item to the faculty survey that asks about opting for more money instead of a tenure-track position. Sara asked if the group wanted to include questions concerning research-related issues. It was decided that the faculty survey still needed some work, and Wes and Michelle agreed to come up with some ideas and to share them at the next meeting.
Sara indicated that there weren’t any items that address the increased expectations of employees, i.e. to be available at all times, take to work home, etc., and shouldn’t we address these issues. Dale stated that it was obvious that there were issues the group still needed to include, and that we should meet again in two weeks to discuss. Dale then asked the group if they felt that the surveys could still be put on line by the end of the semester, and everyone thought that it could. They will need the approval of President Nietzel prior to going to IRB, and then be expedited through the IRB process.
Dale felt we should draft a memo to President Nietzel giving him a progress report of the group and asked everyone present to help with this.
Minutes from previous meeting were read and changes suggested, and the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
- Next meeting
- February13, 2007 at 3:30 in CARR 104 conference room
Executive Assistant to the Associate Vice President