Eleven-Twelths Issues

There is an existing conflict within Regents policy regarding P & A appointments and between various payroll implementation related to policy. Human Resources has suggested that one solution is to change parts of Regents policy to reflect the current . ASAC is not in favor of this solution for the following reasons.

The Benefits and Compensation Subcommittee of ASAC believes that changing the Regents policy to reflect procedure will not eliminate the conflicts, would be very costly in the long term, and will effectively punish existing "A-term" P & A employees.

Instead, ASAC strongly recommends changing the current appointment procedure because this solution is more effective, less costly, and is not punitive to current employees.

The fundamental conflict arises because Regent's policy states both: "full time (100%) twelve month (A) appointment" and "A-base appointments are eleven month appointments paid over twelve months" (Vacations, Last amended 1992).

Some current enforce the 11/12's policy. The primary example is when B-term (9 month appointments) appointments are converted to A-term appointments, the employee receives only two additional months salary, i.e., eleven months of salary. Conversely, the "appointment document", shows the new, post-conversion appointment (or any A-term appointment), as a 12 month appointment, not an 11 month appointment paid over 12 months.

The 11/12's problem manifests itself in several additional arenas. Under current , A-term appointment employees do not receive paid vacation, but rather negotiate time away from duties equal to the time they are not paid. This gives the appearance of a "benefit" being given to the employee, which it is not. Further, A-term employees on less than 100% time appointments are not eligible for "vacation" and are therefore effectively being asked to work for no pay for the one month equivalent of their annual appointment.

The problem also arises in opportunities to pursue additional salary compensation from federally sponsored University projects during unpaid time periods. 9 or 10 month employees are allowed to be paid salary from federally sponsored accounts during the unpaid portion of their appointments. 100% A-term employees are not allowed to receive additional salary from federally sponsored accounts during their unpaid month.

The current proposal to change Regent's policy to ignore the 11/12's problems does not solve either of the unpaid time problems, nor would it be cost neutral. The change would carry a cost tail requiring all future conversions from B to A term appointments to carry a full three months pay rather than the current two months of additional pay. It would also effectively deprive current A-base employees of having a month's salary equitably added to their compensation to reflect the change in policy and would continue to deprive them of the opportunity to receive additional compensation from federally sponsored projects.

Further the suggested change seems to be motivated by having policy conform to the new PeopleSoft system rather than the system reflecting a thoughtful employment philosophy.

We STRONGLY recommend that Human Resources acknowledge the 11/12's nature of A-base Academic appointments in their appointment and documents. Regent's policy language that conflicts with the 11/12's standard could be clarified. We can then reexamine "vacation and sponsored effort certification policy. Finally, we need to increase awareness of the 11/12's appointment issue among supervisors and all U of M employees.