State Capitol – 600 E Boulevard Ave – Dept. 215
Bismarck ND 58505-0230
Phone: 701.328.2960 Fax: 701.328.2961
E-mail: [email protected] Web: ndus.edu
North Dakota Board of Higher Education
Meeting Notice and Agenda
May 14, 2015
The State Board of Higher Education will meet on Thursday, May 14, 1:00 p.m. CDT, Bismarck State
College, NECE building, EGC 335, 1200 Schafer Street, Bismarck, ND 58506.
Call to Order
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Approval of Meeting Minutes
•
•
March 3, 2015 (HLC Conference Call)
March 26, 2015
Board Business
3. Minard Hall litigation update and executive session pursuant to North Dakota Century Code
sections 44-04-19.1 and 44-04-19.2, for the purposes of (1) attorney consultation and (2)
discussion of negotiation strategy and providing negotiating instructions in connection with
potential settlement of pending litigation, specifically those cases involving the December 2009
collapse of Minard Hall, a building located on the campus of North Dakota State University. An
executive session is necessary to protect the bargaining position of the State Board of Higher
Education in these cases.
The executive session shall be limited to: (1) members of the Board, including the faculty advisor
to the Board and the staff senate advisor to the Board, and Board support staff; (2) NDUS
Chancellor, NDUS Chief of Staff, and NDUS General Counsel - Fargo; (3) NDSU President,
Vice President for Finance and Administration, Budget Director, Facilities Management Director
and litigation attorney; and (4) Executive Assistant to the SBHE.
Pursuant to the cited laws, the SBHE may go into an executive session after first convening in an
open meeting and passing a motion to hold an executive session, stating the topic or topics to be
discussed and the legal authority for holding the executive session.
3(a) Reconvene and take appropriate action following executive session.
4. Approve Annual Budget Guidelines – Ms. Glatt
5. Approve Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement for The Aquatics Center on BSC campus
6. Approve Motion to approve the 2015-16 tiered budgets as recommended by the student financial
assistance advisory board as follows:
• Four-Year Public Research Universities $20,166
• Four-Year Public Universities
$17,515
• Two-Year Public Universities
$14,055
• Tribal Colleges
$14,055
• Private Institutions
$25,992
The North Dakota University System is governed by the State Board of Higher Education and includes:
Bismarck State College • Dakota College at Bottineau • Dickinson State University • Lake Region State College • Mayville State University • Minot State University
North Dakota State College of Science • North Dakota State University • University of North Dakota • Valley City State University • Williston State College
Board Policy
First Reading
7. Policy 803.1 – Purchasing
8. Policy 602.3 – Job Applicant/Employee Criminal Background Check
Second Reading
9. Policy 806.3 – Moving Expenses
10. Policy 918 – Alcoholic Beverages
11. Policy 820.1 – Employee Tuition Waivers
12. Policy 907 – Building Plaques
Policies Under Review
• 302.2 – Audit Committee
• 340.2 – Foundations
• 350.2 – Workforce Training Boards
• 514 – Due Process Requirements
• 605.1 – Academic Freedom and Tenure; Academic Appointments
• 607.1 – Legal Representation
• 611.10 – Employee Responsibility and Activities: Theft, Fraud, Abuse and Waste
• 701.1 – Early Retirement
• 802.8 – Internal Audit Charter
• Section 400 – under review by VC for Academic and Student Affairs
• Section 500 – under review by VC for Academic and Student Affairs
13. Public Comment
Board Discussion Concerning Assessment of Meeting and Potential Future Agenda Items
Adjourn
Future Board Meetings
• June 24 and 25 - Meeting and Board Retreat
• September 3 – WSC
• October 1 – DSU
Contact Kristie Hetzler (701) 328-2966 or [email protected] prior to the scheduled meeting date
if auxiliary aids or services are needed.
3
Summary of Proposed Action
SBHE Meeting – May 14, 2015
1. Issue: Requested executive session concerning Minard Hall, NDSU.
2. Proposed motion: The proposed motion is:
Move to meet in executive session pursuant to North Dakota Century Code
sections 44-04-19.1 and 44-04-19.2, for the purposes of (1) attorney consultation
and (2) discussion of negotiation strategy and providing negotiating instructions
in connection with potential settlement of pending litigation, specifically those
cases involving the December 2009 collapse of Minard Hall, a building located on
the campus of North Dakota State University. An executive session is necessary
to protect the bargaining position of the State Board of Higher Education in these
cases.
The executive session shall be limited to: (1) members of the Board, including
the faculty advisor to the Board and the staff senate advisor to the Board, and
Board support staff; (2) NDUS Chancellor, Chief of Staff, and General Counsel –
Fargo; (3) NDSU President, Vice President for Finance and Administration,
Budget Director, Facilities Management Director and litigation attorney; and (4)
Executive Assistant to the SBHE.
3. Background: The collapse of Minard Hall in December 2009 led to the following
lawsuits, all venued in Cass County District Court, Fargo:
• North Dakota State University, Plaintiff, vs. State Fire and Tornado Fund of the
North Dakota Insurance Department; Johnson Laffen Galloway Architects, Ltd;
Heyer Engineering, P.C.; Northern Technologies, Inc.; Meinecke-Johnson
Company and Earth Developers, Inc., Defendants;
• State of North Dakota by and through the North Dakota State Board of Higher
Education and North Dakota State University, Plaintiff, vs. Johnson Laffen
Galloway Architects, Ltd.; Heyer Engineering, P.C.; Northern Technologies, Inc.;
Meinecke-Johnson Company and Earth Developers, Inc., Defendants;
• Grant’s Mechanical, Inc., Plaintiff, vs. State of North Dakota, North Dakota Board
of Higher Education and North Dakota State University, Defendants.
Parties are engaging in mediation and settlement discussions. The executive session
will provide an opportunity for the SBHE to provide settlement guidance to the NDUS
General Counsel – Fargo, and NDSU litigation attorney.
4
4. Financial implications: To be determined by the SBHE in executive session.
5. Academic implications: N/A
6. Legal/policy issues: Pursuant to N.D.C.C. 44-04-19.1 and 44-04-19.2, the SBHE
may meet in executive session after first convening in an open meeting and passing a
motion to hold an executive session, stating the topic or topics to be discussed and the
legal authority for holding the executive session. The executive session will be
recorded and all participants are reminded to limit their discussion during the executive
session to the announced topic. Any collective decision, collective commitment, or other
final action by the governing body must occur after it reconvenes in an open meeting,
unless final action is specifically required by law to be taken during the executive
session. The prohibition on taking final action during the executive session does not
apply to providing guidance or instructions to the attorney or negotiator.
7. Review Process:
• Christopher Wilson, NDUS General Counsel - Fargo
• Murray G. Sagsveen, Chief of Staff and Director of Legal Services
8. Enclosures: None.
9. Key contact person(s) concerning issue: Christopher Wilson, NDUS General
Counsel - Fargo, 701-231-7215, [email protected].
10. Chancellor’s Recommendation: Recommend approval.
5
6
7
3 |A
North Dakota University System
2015-16 Annual Budget Guidelines
Salary Guidelines:
NDUS entities should prepare their 2015-16 payroll budget consistent with their
campus/entity approved salary administration plan, and within the following guidelines:
 Campus/entity-wide average salary increases be a minimum of 3% for
permanent employees beginning with the month of July 2015.
 Compensation adjustments are to vary based on documented performance,
market, equity and other factors such as promotion and changes in workload
and responsibility, and are not necessarily to be the same percentage increase
for each employee.
 All permanent employees whose documented performance levels meet standards are
eligible for a salary increase.
 Probationary employees are not eligible for the general July 1 increase; however, in
unique circumstances, a probationary employee may be eligible for a market or equity
adjustment to address internal or external equity on July 1. In addition, once the
employee is off probation, they may be given all or a portion of other increases, at the
discretion of the appointing authority.
 Health insurance monthly premiums will increase from $981.69 to $1,130.22 on July
1, 2015
 May also use other salary administration tools, including one-time pay adjustments.
 Are authorized to adjust full-time equivalent positions as needed, subject to the
availability of funds.
Strategic Investments
The 2015-2020 NDUS strategic plan includes the following goals, followed by examples of
actions to attain the goals:
 Deliver degrees that are the best value in the nation (Adaptation of open education
resources; exploration of more business and industry contributions; work within
legislative guidance/limitations on tuition)
 Provide programs people want, where and when they need them (Implementation
of new programs based on workforce needs; increase enrollment in STEM
disciplines:
 Equip students for success (Implementation of predictive analytics; increase
retention rates)
 Maximize the strengths of the unified system (Increase collaborative enrollments;
explore administrative collaboration opportunities)
As part of the annual budget document, campuses should specifically identify targeted
investments (dollar amount and the source of funds) to support the attainment of the goals set
forth in the 2015-2020 strategic plan.
Carryover:
HB1003-Section 23 permits the carryover of any unexpended appropriations from 2013-15 to
the 2015-17 biennium. Annual budgets should disclose the estimated carryover and
proposed uses. Campuses must track and report to subsequent appropriation committees on
A
8
3 |B
the amount and use of these funds, as required per Section 54-44.1-11 of the ND Century
Code.
Tuition:
The final legislative appropriation included a 1.5% “inflation factor” which did not
specifically fund the total state share of the cost to continue FY2015 salary increases, 201517 salary (3% per year), health and utility increases. Column 2 reflects the FY2016 tuition
rate increases that would be necessary to fund the student share only, based on the following
targeted state/student shares that have been assumed for the past several biennia:
UND/NDSU 60/40%; four-year 70/30%; and, two-year 75/25%. The included a student cost
share for the cost to continue of: UND/NDSU 40%; four year 30%; and, two-year 25%).
Column (1)
Campus
Column (2)
Rate Increase
to Fund
Student Share
Column (3)
Maximum
Increase per
HB1003
Column (4)
Requested Annual Tuition
Increase for FY2016 (based on
30 cr. Hrs.)
Dollars
Percent
$66.60
1.9%
$63.94
2.0%
$81.20
2.5%
$89.90
2.5%
$82.52
2.5%
BSC
LRSC
WSC
NDSCS
DCB
1.9%
2.0%
4.5%
3.0%
2.8%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
DSU
MaSU
MiSU
VCSU
4.0%
3.1%
3.9%
3.3%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
$122.28
$120.25
$123.55
$126.10
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
UND
SMHS
NDSU
3.7%
3.7%
2.4%
2.5%
N/A
2.5%
$159.70
$817.83
$158.50
2.5%
3.0%
2.4%
Connect ND Fee
Approve continuation of the current Connect ND fee of $66 per semester, with no increase in
2015-16.
Mandatory Fee Increases
NDCC 15-10.3-03 limits mandatory fee increases to no more than 1% of the latest available
average full-time, resident, on-campus, undergraduate tuition rate at that institution, unless
the state board determines that an exemption from the requirements of this section is
necessitated as a result of:
1. Student demand, as evidenced by a campus-wide student election or formal action
by an institution's student governing board or committee.
2. Before mandatory fees on students may be increased to support the construction
or renovation of a campus building valued at more than $1 million, the use must
be approved by a majority of the students voting on the question at a campus-wide
election. This subsection does not apply to any construction or renovation for
which the use of mandatory fees was authorized before 7/1/13.
B
9
3 |C
Approve the mandatory increases, and exemption from the requirements of this section for
WSC (Attachment 1)
Extraordinary Repairs
HB1003 Section 38 requires that institutions “shall provide two dollars of matching funds
from operations or other sources for each one dollar of extraordinary repairs funding. An
institution may not use a transfer from the deferred maintenance funding pool to provide
matching funds under this section.” As part of the annual budget, campuses should disclose
the amount of match, and source of funds, planned for FY2016. If the source is state general
fund operating, a request for a line item transfer (from operations to capital assets) should be
included on Schedule 1 of the annual budget document, as allowed per HB1003 Section 32.
Annual Budget Document and Timelines
The Board’s approval of the 2015-16 annual budget guidelines includes the following:
 2015-16 salary guidelines
 Carryover authority and reporting requirement
 2015-16 approved tuition rate increases – Column 3 above
 2015-16 ConnectND fee of $66 per semester
 2015-16 total mandatory fee increases and exemption from 1% limitation at WSC
 Provide the Chancellor the authority to approve the annual budgets within the
guidelines set forth by the Board; however, any line item transfers from operations to
capital assets line item must be approved by the Board.
As part of the annual budget, campuses and related entities shall:
 Include descriptions and amounts of targeted investments and allocations that will
assist with carrying out the goals set forth in the Board and campuses strategic plans.
 Include descriptions and amounts of reallocations/reductions and the corresponding
effect on ability to carry out Board and campus strategic plans.
 Include a brief explanation of other significant changes in the budget, not specifically
addressed otherwise.
 Disclose 2015-16 tuition rate increase.
 Disclose 2015-16 overall average salary increase and a brief description of related
salary increase policy for FY16.
 Disclose estimated 2013-15 carryover, and the proposed use of these funds.
 Disclose base extraordinary repairs match and source of funds for FY16
Campuses shall submit annual budget schedules to the NDUS Office by no later than June
23, 2015. The Chancellor shall review and approve the annual budgets consistent with the
guidelines established by the SBHE.
g:\cathy\worddocs\annual budgets\fy16\draft annual budget guidelines to bfc.docx
C
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Summary of Proposed Action
SBHE Meeting – May 14, 2015
1. Issue: Second Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement dated April 15, 2008,
between the State Board of Higher Education and Park District of the City of Bismarck,
involving “Bismarck State College Community Aquatic and Wellness Center” on
Bismarck State College campus.
2. Proposed motion: Approve the proposed changes to Joint Powers Agreement
(JPA) dated April 15, 2008, which are set out in the Second Amendment of the JPA.
3. Background: The Parties entered into the JPA in 2008 for the purpose of
constructing a community aquatic and wellness facility on the grounds of BSC campus.
The JPA currently provides for the establishment of a Facility Advisory Committee to
receive input from the Parties, and other interested groups and individuals, on matters
regarding the scheduling, operations and management of the facility. Parties to the JPA
agree that the Facility Advisory Committee is no longer the best and most efficient
means of obtaining this input, and further agree that better means of obtaining such
input is as now set out in the Second Amendment to the JPA.
The changes as set out in the Second Amendment affect sections 5.i and 12 of the
JPA. The changes terminate the Facility Advisory Committee and direct the Park
District to obtain or receive input from designated representatives of the Parties and
from other designated groups and individuals, regarding the scheduling, operations and
management of the facility; and to then make decisions regarding use of the facility
based on that input. The Park District has already reviewed and signed the Second
Amendment.
(Note: this matter involves a Second Amendment, because the JPA also has a first
Amendment, dated June 19, 2008, which addressed a change to paragraph 7 of the JPA,
involving ownership of the improvements located on the BSC campus at the time the JPA
is terminated.)
4. Financial implications: No financial implications.
5. Academic implications:
None
6. Legal/policy issues: None
7. Review Process: NDUS Office of General Counsel – Bismarck Office
8. Enclosures: Second Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement, State Board of
Higher Education and Park District of the City of Bismarck.
9. Contact person: Cynthia Wagner Goulet, General Counsel, 701-224-2584.
10. Chancellor’s Recommendation: Approve
25
Summary of Proposed Action
SBHE Meeting – May 14, 2015
1. Issue: Approve the recommended ND State Grant budget tiers.
2. Proposed motions:
Motion to approve the 2015-16 tiered budgets as recommended by the student financial assistance advisory board as follows:
Four-Year Public Research Universities
$20,166
Four-Year Public Universities
$17,515
Two-Year Public Universities
$14,055
Tribal Colleges
$14,055
Private Institutions
$25,992
3. Background:
NDCC 15-62.4-04 creates the student financial assistance advisory board for the purpose of providing advice to the SBHE regarding
the student financial assistance program and to act as a liaison between the SBHE and the institutions of higher education participating
in the program.
The North Dakota student financial assistance program advisory board met on May 1, 2015. The advisory board recommends
establishing the following budget tier for 2015-16 for purposes of establishing eligibility for the need-based state grant awards. The
increase from 2014-15 to 2015-16 represents a 2.5% increase. The 2.5% adjustment is justified based on estimated tuition increases
of 2.5% (public institutions) within the state and a minimal 2013 Consumer Price Index adjustment of 1.015.
Institution Type (By Budget Tier)
2014-15 Budget Amount 2015-16 Proposed Budget Amount
Four-Year Public Research Universities
$19,674
$20,166
Four-Year Public Universities
$17,088
$17,515
Two-Year Public Universities
$13,712
$14,055
Tribal Colleges
$13,712
$14,055
Private Institutions
$25,358
$25,992
The Sixty-fourth Legislative Assembly made significant changes to the state grant and the NDUS is in the process of making necessary
adjustments to software and to NDUS Procedure 500.1 to accommodate these changes. The following summarizes the changes:
•
Budget: Increased appropriations from $21,245,679 to $25,634,276.
•
Award amount: The legislature set the award for the next biennium at $975 per semester or $650 per quarter. Prior to this,
the advisory board made recommendations to the SBHE for increases each year.
•
Year-round awards: Language referring to fall and spring was removed from statute. This opens the possibility to summer
awards in this and other state grant and scholarship programs. The NDUS will begin considering summer awarding in 2016.
•
Part-time awards: Statute was updated to include reference to part-time awards, which had been previously approved.
•
Student eligibility criteria: The most impactful change was to exclude North Dakota residents who
o Do not hold a high school diploma from this state; or
o Do not hold a GED from the ND Superintendent of Public Instruction; or
o Have not completed a program of homeschooling in this state, or
o Have not graduated from a bordering state school pursuant to chapter 15.1-29.
The NDUS estimates that 1,600 students who were the neediest North Dakota residents in 2014-15 received the ND State
Grant but due to a high school diploma being earned out-of-state, will not qualify under the new regulations.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Financial implications: None.
Academic implications: None.
Legal/policy issues: None.
Review Process:
•
State Grant Advisory Board – Recommendations made at the May 1, 2015 meeting.
•
Notice of changes emailed to Chancellor’s Cabinet and to the NDUS Financial Aid Directors.
8. Enclosures: None.
9. Contact person: Brenda Zastoupil, NDUS Director of Financial Aid, 1815 Schafer St. Ste. 202, Bismarck, ND 58501; 701-2242541; [email protected]
10. Chancellor’s Recommendation: Approve
26
Summary of Proposed Action
SBHE Meeting – May 14, 2015
1. Issue: Proposed revisions to Purchasing policy 803.1 to further define commodities
and services; modify purchasing dollar thresholds and associated bid and
documentation requirements; and restructure under a policy governance model.
2. Proposed motion: Approve proposed changes to SBHE policy 803.1-Purchasing,
including delaying the effective date to January 1, 2016.
3. Background: A recent follow-up audit at DSU raised questions that suggested
further policy clarification was needed to address definitions and documentation
requirements. It provided an opportunity for wholesale review and re-structuring of the
policy and procedures to align with the policy governance model.
The following major changes are incorporated into the revised policy and corresponding
procedure:
• Updates definitions of commodities and services. For services the policy is
clarified that “services” means the furnishing of labor, time or effort by a
contractor, not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports
that are merely incidental to the required performance.”
• Restructures and clarifies bid and documentation requirements as follows:
Purchase Price
Goods - Current
Less than $25,000
$25,000 or more
Services - Current
Less than $100,000
$100,000 or more
Quote/Bid
Requirement
Documentation
Requirement
Informal quotes or proposals
from a minimum of three
vendors should be solicited,
when feasible
silent
Must be purchased from
formal bid.
Required
Purchased by negotiation,
telephone, or informal
quote. When feasible,
should be from more than
one vendor.
Must be purchased from
formal bid.
silent
None
Informal quotes or proposals
from more than one vendor
should be solicited, when
None
None
Required
Goods - Proposed
$5,000 or less
More than $5,000 but less
than $10,000
27
From $10,000 but less than
$50,000
$50,000 and over
feasible
Informal quotes or proposals
from more than one vendor
should be solicited.
Must be purchased from
formal bid process or a
Request for Proposal (RFP).
Required
Required
Services - Proposed
$10,000 or less
More than $10,000 but less
than $50,000
From $50,000 but less than
$100,000
$100,000 and over
•
•
None
Informal quotes or proposals
from more than one vendor
should be solicited, when
feasible.
Informal quotes or proposals
from more than one vendor
should be solicited.
Must be purchased from
formal bid process or a
Request for Proposal (RFP).
None
None
Required
Required
Realigns policy and procedure consistent with a policy governance model.
Establishes a common form to be used across the NDUS for purchasing
exceptions.
4. Financial implications: Minimal, as more documentation will need to be
maintained.
5. Academic implications:
None
6. Legal/policy issues: None
7. Review Process: Administrative Affairs Council, Chancellor’s Cabinet, legal
8. Enclosures: Revised SBHE policy 803.1
9. Contact person: Laura Glatt, VC for Administrative Affairs, 701-328-4416,
[email protected]
10. Chancellor’s Recommendation: Approve
28
Summary of Proposed Action
SBHE Meeting – May 14, 2015
1. Issue: Update SBHE policy 602.3 related to Job Applicant/Employee Criminal
Background Check.
2. Proposed motion: Approve recommended changes to SBHE policy 602.3 effective
July 1, 2015.
3. Background: Proposed policy and procedure revisions are the result of: 1.)
requested review of “consistent” practices related to faculty positions, including student
teachers, from Academic Affairs; 2.) simplify and clarify current policy/procedure; 3.)
FY14 financial statement audit recommendation on student employee access to
PeopleSoft; 4.) update policy to adapt to current practices at many campuses; 5.)
ensure consistency across the NDUS; 6.) re-structure policy/procedures to “policy
governance” structure.
The substantive changes in the proposed revision are:
• Add “University Police Dispatcher/Call Center Operator to required FBI Check list
• Expand provisions to require Criminal History Records Check (CRHC)/Sex
Offender Registry (SOR) for all benefited positions
• Expand provisions to require CHRC/SOR for non-benefited positions, including
volunteers who (italicized items note major additions) :
o have access to confidential or proprietary information;
o have master keys;
o have access to cash, credit, debit or other financial transactions
o are resident hall and apartment manager, directors or assistants;
o are child care employees and other employees who have unsupervised
contact with minor children;
o are responsible for or with access to controlled substances and other
drugs, explosives or potentially dangerous chemicals and other
substances;
o are instructional faculty and staff, including graduate teaching
assistants; and,
o are counselors and coaches;
• Adds required Sex Offender Registry (SOR) check in addition to CHRC.
• Would require a CRHC & SOR for re-hires, transfers and promotions within the
same institution, if have not been previously subject to a CRHC/SOR. However,
would not apply to promotions when moving from one faculty rank to another
faculty rank.
• Would require a CRHC & SOR for transfers of employment between NDUS
institutions.
• Provides limited exception to completion of checks prior to employment start date
in the event that an urgent situation exists.
29
Separate from the proposed policy changes, the HRC will be pursuing a request for
proposals for a possible single CRHC vendor.
4. Financial implications: The current cost per CHRC ranges from about $45 to $75
each, depending on the vendor utilized. The NDUS campuses use three primary
vendors: Evans, Castlebranch and Sterling.
Current
Annual
Avg. # of
Exp.
annual
hires
subject
to CHRC
BSC
$13,350
267
LRSC
$3,547
76
WSC
$3,000
45
UND
$42,600
890
NDSU
$21,843
590
NDSCS $5,402
304
DSU
$6,074
88
MASU
$6,810
111
MISU
$7,600
123
VCSU
$4,000
85
DCB
$2,553
44
TOTAL $116,779
2,623
Proposed
Annual
Avg. # of
Exp.
annual
hires
subject to
CHRC
$15,750
315
$5,360
115
$6,000
60-70
$76,000
1,600
$40,095
987
$5,402
304
$10,999
163
$8,300
140
$9,750
158
$4,600
100
$3,300
60
$185,556
4,001
Net Change
Annual
Avg. # of
Exp.
annual
hires
subject to
CHRC
$2,400
48
$1,813
39
$3,000
15-25
$33,400
710
$18,252
397
$0
0
$4,925
75
$1,490
29
$2,150
35
$600
15
$747
16
$68,777
1,379
Administrative Council members, some of whom supported the policy changes and
some whom did not support the policy changes, expressed concern about the added
financial cost and administrative work associated with the added number of required
CRHC. Further, there was concern about continued or increased potential
inconsistencies between campuses, should some campuses opt to require CRHC
background checks for 100% of all employees (this is not required by the proposed
policy changes).
5. Academic implications: Will require CHRC/SOR checks for all benefited and nonbenefited (adjunct) instructional faculty and staff, including graduate teaching assistants.
Currently, all campuses complete a CHRC for all benefited instructional staff hires.
Currently, for non-benfited instructional staff two campuses (BSC & DCB) complete a
CHRC, five (NDSU, DSU, MaSU, MiSU, WSC) do not complete a CRHC, and three
complete for a limited number of employees. Both UND and NDSU do not currently
complete a CHRC on graduate teaching assistants, unless they fall into another
mandatory category.
6. Legal/policy issues:
None
30
7. Review Process: Human Resource, Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, & Admin.
Affairs Councils, Chancellor’s Cabinet
8. Enclosures: Proposed policy 602.3 revisions
9. Contact person: Laura Glatt, VC for Administrative Affairs, 701-328-4416,
[email protected]
10. Chancellor’s Recommendation: Approve
31
Summary of Proposed Action
SBHE Meeting – April 30, 2015
1. Issue: Proposed revisions to Employee Moving Expense policy 806.3 to provide, at
the discretion of the institution, reimbursement or a lump-sum payment to the employee
for moving expenses for new hires or current employee relocations.
2. Proposed motion: Approve proposed changes to SBHE policy 806.3-Moving
Expenses.
3. Background: Current SBHE policy permits reimbursement of certain actual moving
travel, and living expenses based on receipt. The revised policy would permit either
reimbursement of certain actual moving travel, and living expenses based on receipt
OR a negotiated lump sum amount for relocation expenses for new employees. There
would be no change for relocated employees due to current statutory restrictions.
The changes are intended to: 1.) provide added flexibility to tailor moving payment to
each individual position and/or employee location; 2.) to eliminate disincentive inherent
in current policy for the employee to perform some or all of moving preparations, instead
of outsourcing those to external provider; 3.) with lump sum payment option, reduce the
amount of administrative overhead due to reduced number of receipt and expense
audits; 4.) with lump sum option, provides a fixed moving cost amount for both the
employer and employee upfront at time of hire for budgeting purposes; 5.) with lump
sum option, reduces employee frustration about which expenses are reimbursed and
which are not reimbursed and at what level.
4. Financial implications: Depending on the option chosen by the institution at the
time of hire, the moving cost could be more or less than current costs, depending on the
negotiated lump sum amount. However, it is anticipated that the institutions will
generally choose the negotiated lump sum approach.
5. Academic implications:
positions.
Would apply to faculty positions, as well as staff
6. Legal/policy issues: None
7. Review Process: Controller’s/Accountants, Human Resource Council,
Administrative Affairs Council
8. Enclosures: Revised SBHE policy 806.3
9. Contact person: Laura Glatt, VC for Administrative Affairs, 701-328-4416,
[email protected]
10. Chancellor’s Recommendation: Approve
32
Summary of Proposed Action
SBHE Meeting – April 30, 2015
1. Issue: Proposed amendments to SBHE Policy 918 – Alcoholic Beverages.
2. Proposed motion: Motion to approve the proposed amendments to SBHE Policy
918 for a second reading at the next board meeting.
3. Background: Policy 918 was adopted in 1994, then amended several times to
address specific issues at individual institutions. The proposed amendments would
generally prohibit alcoholic beverages on a campus, unless specifically authorized by
the president.
4. Financial implications: No significant financial implications.
5. Academic implications: N/A
6. Legal/policy issues: The proposed amendments would delegate to the presidents
and dean the authority to allow alcoholic beverages on the campuses for specific
purposes.
7. Review Process:
• Chancellor’s Cabinet
• Chancellor’s Senior Staff
• Student Affairs Council
• Administrative Affairs Council
8. Enclosures and links:
• Current Policy 918
• Proposed amendments to Policy 918 in redline format
• Policy 918 (if amended)
9. Key contact person(s) concerning issue: Murray G. Sagsveen, Chief of Staff
10. Chancellor’s Recommendation: Recommend approval.
33
Summary of Proposed Action
SBHE Meeting – April 30, 2015]
1. Issue: Proposed modifications to employee tuition waiver, effective Fall 2015.
Revisions are intended to standardize the benefit across the NDUS, simplify current
practice for ease of employee understanding and campus administration, while
maintaining, to the extent possible, current employee benefits. Based on current
usage patterns, almost 90% of the employees would see no change or an increase
in benefit, and about 10% would experience a reduction in benefits.
2. Proposed motion: Approve recommended changes to SBHE policy 820.1, with an
effective date of June 1, 2015.
3. Background: In June 2014, the SBHE adopted changes to expand the employee
waiver to provide for an additional employer assistance payment for on-line and other
distance delivery courses, with a minimum of 50% of tuition paid by the employing
campus and the balance paid by the employee. Differences between campuses under
the waiver and assistance provisions and policy definitions created confusion and
administrative challenges.
Currently proposed changes include:
• A policy which is based on where, not how course is offered. If course is
offered by employing institution, employee receives 100% tuition waiver. If
employee takes a course at another NDUS institution, payment exchanges
hands with 50% of tuition paid by the employer and the balance paid by
employee.
• Establishes standard eligibility criteria across the NDUS
• Provides a standard application/approval form for use by all NDUS
campuses.
• Provisions would be standardized across all campuses, so nothing more or
less than the prescribed policy and procedure provisions can be provided to
employees, creating a standardized benefit across the NDUS.
The March 20, 2015 SAO Tuition Waiver Performance Audit report notes: “SBHE policy
establishes an employee tuition waiver. However, rather than identifying all criteria for
the employee tuition waiver, the policy requires each institution adopt their own policy
defining circumstances under which the institution will waive or pay for the courses. We
identified institutions were not establishing the required policies and inconsistencies
exist. Inconsistencies may lead to employees at one institution receiving a different
benefit than employees at another institution. To ensure consistency in what is required
by state law to be a unified system of higher education, SBHE should establish all
criteria regarding specific waivers authorized. The criteria should address the areas
institution policies are recommended to address. A SBHE policy could eliminate the
need of resources being expended at all institutions for establishing and maintaining 11
separate policies.”
34
4. Financial implications: Based on AY14-15 usage statistics of 529 employees, the
impact of the proposed changes would be as follows:
• 78.5% (415 employees) will have the same level of benefit under the proposed
changes
• 10.8% (57 employees) will have an increased benefit under the proposed
changes
• 6.4% (34 employees) will have a reduced benefit under the proposed change
• An additional 4.3% (23 employees) will have a unique reduced benefit under the
proposed change. These employees are currently receiving an additional benefit
due to certain institutions which go beyond current policy. These institutions
waive 100% of tuition for other campus employees taking non-traditional courses
at their institution. Employees in this group will see a decreased benefit as all
institutions will be required to adhere to the 50% tuition assistance policy.
The increased benefit for 57 employees is due to the proposed policy which changes
the waiver percentage from 50% to 100% for distance classes taken at the campus of
employment. The decreased benefit for 34 employees is due to the proposed policy
which changes the waiver percentage from 100% to 50% for traditional classes taken at
a campus other than the campus of employment. The additional unique decreased
benefit for 23 employees is due to required adherence to the 50% proposed tuition
assistance policy; campuses will no longer be authorized to go beyond SBHE minimum
policy.
5. Academic implications: None
6. Legal/policy issues: None
7. Review Process: Admin. Affairs Council, Human Resource Council, Chancellor’s
Cabinet; Statewide Staff Senate, Council of College Faculties
8. Enclosures: Proposed policy revision, and tuition and fee matrix
9. Contact person: Laura Glatt, VC for Administrative Affairs, 701-328-4416,
[email protected]
10. Chancellor’s Recommendation: Approve
35
Summary of Proposed Action
SBHE Meeting – May 14, 2015
1. Issue: Adopt new policy requiring all newly constructed or acquired buildings, newly
constructed major building additions over 1,000 sq. feet and newly constructed major
public improvements costing in excess of $500,000 to be memorialized with a plaque.
The plaque shall include the names of the SBHE members and other dignitaries and
officials who were in office on the date the SBHE provided authorization to proceed with
the project.
2. Proposed motion: Approve proposed new SBHE policy 907 related to Building
Plaques.
3. Background: Up until 2012, building plaques were required in new buildings.
Current procedure permits, but does not require plaques in new buildings.
4. Financial implications: Cost of the plaque and placement considered minimal.
5. Academic implications: None
6. Legal/policy issues: NDUS procedure 902.5 will require modification to remove
references to building plaques. The current procedure permits, but does not require, a
plaque for new buildings. The necessary revision to 902.5 will be incorporated into
comprehensive 900 section policy and procedure changes currently under
development.
7. Review Process: Administrative Affairs Council, Chancellor’s Cabinet
8. Enclosures: Proposed policy 907
9. Contact person: Laura Glatt, VC for Administrative Affairs, 701-328-4416,
[email protected]
10. Chancellor’s Recommendation: Approve