Public universities in Illinois will retain the authority to exempt certain skilled jobs from the civil service system as a result of a nearly unanimous decision Jan. 30 by the University Civil Service Merit Board.
The 11-member board, comprising trustees representing the state's nine public universities, voted 8-2, with one abstention, to shelve a proposed rule that would have given future job classification exemption authority to the director of the State Universities Civil Service System.
If it had passed, the measure would have gone before the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, a state legislative oversight and review body.
The decision followed months of discussion, a public hearing in January and a public comment period at the Jan. 30 meeting.
"I'm a little disappointed," said SUCSS Executive Director Tom Morelock after the vote. "This has been a topic in my entire tenure in this role. I don't know what the next step is."
The rule-change proposal was a response to recent audits by SUCSS showing that a large percentage of employees were being misclassified as "principal administrative appointments" (called academic professionals on the U. of I. campuses) at every state university. The audit indicated about 60 percent of audited academic professional jobs on the UIC campus should be reclassified as civil service; on the Urbana campus, reclassification was recommended for 122 of the 200 audited positions.
Prior to the merit board vote, Morelock had argued for returning exemption authority to his agency. That authority was taken away about 15 years ago, prior to his arrival, amid complaints the agency's review process was contributing significantly to hiring delays at universities.
He said he supported the concept of employers making the exemptions, but that the audits had proven the universities were not abiding by the rules.
"Unfortunately, that high standard of accountability ... has not been consistently attained," he said. "(Exemption authority) should never be construed as an employer right."
Morelock said SUCSS is more capable of handling the workload than it was a decade ago, when he took over as the agency's head.
"We're just simply not the same civil service system as we were," he said.
The merit board's decision leaves the exemption and audit process seemingly at odds with one another. University officials, including those from the U. of I., say they never stopped following SUCSS job-classification guidelines and feel audit criteria have changed; SUCSS officials say the audit process has not changed and that university officials are abusing their exemption authority at the expense of the civil service system.
There have been discussions to bring the two sides together, including through a working group assembled by Morelock earlier in January that included stakeholders in the discussions, but not members of the merit board or faculty representatives.
"I thought it would be a knock-down, drag-out fight," Morelock said. Instead, it was "enlightening and positive" and led him to hope that progress toward a workable solution had been made.
But he said those hopes were dashed a few days later after participants backtracked on some of the issues he thought had been advanced.
He also indicated that recent work with UIC officials had led to a more efficient and fair system and should be emulated at the other universities.
Morelock defended the SUCSS system and the audit processes, saying both were designed to be transparent and ensure checks and balances throughout. He said the agency had "remodeled" its procedures guides twice in the last four years in an effort to improve the process.
The disparity in the audits is proof, he said, that "something is out of whack right now. There's a process issue here. I'm a little offended that people are pointing to the audit process."
Merit board chair Joanne E. Maitland, an Illinois State University trustee, admitted the board's action did not provide a solution addressing the disparity between the agency's and universities' audit and exemption processes.
But she said the discussions started at the working group should continue.
"I don't want it to fall now between the cracks," she said. "I want this conversation to continue. The problem is still there and it does need action."
Board member Robert D. Webb, an Eastern Illinois University trustee, made a similar statement prior to the vote.
"Regardless of what we do, there is a need to improve communication," he said. "The process is very scattered and confusing."
Board vice chair James D. Montgomery, a U. of I. trustee, said all sides needed to work harder to find a breakthrough leading to greater trust.
"There is a need to have a common language," he said, noting uncertainty over the metrics being used in the audit obviously had caused confusion among those being judged by it.
The public comment period at the Jan. 30 meeting included testimony from several U. of I. officials lobbying against the principal administrative appointments rule change. Most stated that the loss of exemption authority at the "local" level would hinder hiring and hamper research.
Maureen Parks, the director of university human resources at the U. of I. and a member of the SUCSS human resources advisory committee said, while "we are very committed to the (discussion) process," the audit and reclassification issue had turned into a costly and time-consuming process.
While discussions at the working group meeting were welcomed, she said, the executive director had failed to invite merit board members or faculty representatives. She said he also had invited "special interests" that shouldn't have been at the table.
"There were grave concerns about the wording" of the new rule, Parks said. "It placed the human resources directors in a challenging position. That language needs to be as close to perfect as possible."
She said knowing the mathematical formula SUCSS used as a measurement in the audit process might help officials better understand how to meet its requirements. Updated job description criteria, some of which she said were created prior to 1997, also would likely lead to improved audit results.
"We are asking for clarity," she said. "We're happy to be held to a standard, we just want to know what it is we are supposed to do."
She supported more talks on the issue to find "language that all stakeholders can embrace. Continuing discussion can only help us."
Karen Hasara, a merit board member and U. of I. trustee, said future talks should include merit board members.
Morelock said he thought Hasara would be present at the meeting but didn't invite the full board because of "public meeting requirements."
"I didn't feel welcome because I wasn't invited," Hasara said.
Morelock said he also had "asked for a senate audience" on the Urbana campus, but to this point the two groups "haven't been able to hook up."
Speaking in favor of transferring exemption authority back to SUCSS were local union representatives, a U. of I. ironworker and a member of the SUCSS civil service advisory committee.
Jeff Bigelow, the regional director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said audit results were proof that the universities are not playing by the rules and trying to circumvent the civil service system.
"It's crystal clear from the evidence," he said. "Each campus has demonstrated a level of arrogance and contempt for the process and the situation has not gotten better. They're trying to erode the numbers of people eligible for collective bargaining. This demands a change."
Phil Martini, a representative for the Service Employees International Union, said the U. of I. specifically had put in "hardly any effort" in correcting the "gross misclassifications" shown in its audit.
"We must not forget the true meaning of AP," which he said is a position involving highly specialized workers assisting researchers. He said the positions were not meant to last for years, but to be temporary for accommodating research work with tight schedules.
"When did this position evolve into a monster?" he asked. "The fox is watching the chicken coop."
Ironworker Gary Fry said the problem has existed since the exemption authority was handed to the universities.
"It's been eroding civil service positions for 15 years now," he said. "The audits have shown what's wrong."
