Office of the Provost
August 19, 1987

To: Presidents, State-operated Campuses

From: Joseph C. Burke

Subject: Implementation of the Arthur Young Study

Last year the Governor's Office of Employee Relations released the long-awaited Arthur Young study. The UUP had bargained into the 1982-85 Agreement a study of the promotion and classification system for professional employees in the State University of New York. The union had pushed for this study because it claimed the professional employees were dissatisfied with an outmoded classification and compensation system that was too vague to be understood by employees and administered equitably by management.

The Arthur Young study, based on interviews with professional employees, personnel officials, vice presidents and other members of campus management, concluded that the current four-grade system was indeed not working as well as it should. The four-rank structure, with its broad, overlapping salaries confused employees; and the inherent flexibility in such a schedule was not fully utilized by management. Employees failed to appreciate promotional opportunities or even recognize when they were promoted, because the official titles were too general to reflect adequately job content or level. Two titles were especially confusing. Technical Assistant and Technical Specialist titles contained more than 2,000 of the 5,400 professional employees and were slotted in several ranks. The "Assistant to" title, held by a large number of employees, also presented a problem, for its classification and salary appeared to relate more to whom an Assistant reported than to job content. In addition, the Arthur Young study also discovered dissatisfaction with campus type as the controlling criterion of classification and salary, rather than the complexity, size, and sophistication of the job.

Based on these findings, the Arthur Young study recommended that a different Classification System be devised that had more than four levels, utilized more titles that described more clearly the assigned tasks, slotted each title in a single rank, set salary and grade level based on responsibility and complexity of the job, and developed job families and career paths that clarified promotional opportunities. The Management Advisory Committee on Classification and Compensation (MACCC) was formed last summer to respond to the Arthur Young study. The 26 Committee members include campus presidents, vice presidents for academic affairs, business affairs, and student affairs, personnel officers, and Central Administration officials.

MACCC's report seeks to decentralize authority to the campus administration for placement decisions on classification and salaries for jobs within each State-operated unit. The final recommendations from MACCC (see attachment) represent significant revisions from the May 26 preliminary report These revisions resulted from the thoughtful recommendations from the campuses in response to the preliminary report and from comprehensive discussions with GOER and UUP officials. The members of MACCC wish to thank campus, government, and union officials for their helpful comments and criticism of our first draft.

Our MACCC report accepts the Arthur Young recommendation that SUNY establish more than the four current professional ranks and allocate job titles to a single rank. MACCC originally recommended a seven-level structure without salary overlap among ranks. This rather rigid structure improved the clarity of the system at the expense of flexibility. As a result of discussions with the Council of Presidents, GOER, and the UUP, and a review of the comments from the campuses, the proposed structure now includes six grades with overlapping salaries. The new structure retains the initial recommendation to assign titles to a single rank. We believe that the six-rank structure with its overlapping salary schedule fulfills the dual purpose of clarifying the structure while maintaining the flexibility that is essential in a university system as diverse as SUNY.

Developing a single classification and compensation structure that suits the diversity of the SUNY system is exceedingly difficult. The differences in size and complexity of tasks currently assigned to the same titles both on the same and on different campuses present special problems. This problem is especially evident at the director's level. The revision from a seven- to a six-grade structure will alleviate this problem by broadening the salary ranges at each of the ranks to allow the value of these titles to vary depending on the size and complexity of the assigned tasks. The problem will also be addressed by including in the point- factoring system, which determines job values, criteria such as differences in program complexity, job sophistication, number of personnel supervised, size of budget responsibilities, or other relevant considerations. MACCC will recommend a revised point-factor document that is more sensitive to the duties and responsibilities of the professional job than is the current point-factor system. The new point-factor document will be field-tested this fall and hopefully implemented early next year.

Arthur Young recommended SUNY develop a title structure that would elaborate more clearly the opportunities for promotion. MACCC's recommendation for job families and career paths is the first step toward realization of that goal. Campuses' comments endorsed the concept of job families and career paths and urged that more job families and additional career paths must be identified. MACCC will continue to develop families and paths and welcomes suggestions from the campuses.
Both employees and administrators complained in the interviews with representatives of Arthur Young about the wide discrepancy between SUNY official titles and campus working titles. In many instances, there appeared to be little or no relationship between official titles and assigned work, either in the SUNY system as a whole or within a single campus. The more than 2,000 employees called "Technical Assistants and Technical Specialists," and nearly 400 employees with "Assistant to" titles, represent classic examples of the confusion flowing from titles so broad that they have little relationship to the tasks actually performed. MACCC recommends the elimination of these titles, and the creation of many more titles, which are more descriptive of the tasks performed. The proposed titles reflect working titles on the campuses. Though many titles are proposed, MACCC recognizes that more are needed and hopes to establish additional ones as quickly as possible. Again, we encourage campus recommendations for new titles.

The MACCC report decentralizes decisions on job placement and salaries to the campuses with SUNY Central primarily playing a post-audit role. The Presidential Notification Limit, which was created to alert the Central Office when the top quarter of an existing salary range was being used by campuses, would be eliminated under the MACCC proposal. Each campus will decide the title, rank, and salary of current employees, provided no such employee is assign a position ineligible for permanent appointment. Campuses will determine salary increases and promotions for their professional employees.

Over the last 20 years or so, many of the same titles have appeared on the list of both the UUP-represented (#08) and the M/C (#13) units. Titles that are unique to the UUP unit are recommended by MACCC. GOER, the UUP, and SUNY are discussing additions and deletions to Article XI, Appendix A of the Trustees' Policies, and changes in the M/C designations. Eleven titles will be added to Appendix-A this fall. We will continue to pursue these important discussions with GOER and the UUP.

Discussions have also begun with GOER and the UUP on ways to compensate employees on impacted campuses for the disparity in the cost of living. MACCC recommends SUNY, GOER, and the UUP vigorously pursue solutions to this critical problem. The proposed classification and compensation system is based on job value. What is needed is a special addition to that system which accommodates the disparity in cost of living, to facilitate fair compensation for professionals in the New York metropolitan area.

Devising a fair and flexible classification and compensation system for such a large and diverse State University has naturally required compromises. The proposed system is far from perfect. Clearly, it has disadvantages as well as advantages. SUNY gains a clearer and more consistent classification and salary structure that relates rank and salary more closely to the jobs performed. Promotional opportunities have been clarified through the identification of job families and career paths and additional job families and career paths will be added. Eleven titles will be added to Appendix A of Article XI. Before the project is completed, more than 100 new titles will be approved for campus use. Most important of all, the MACCC recommendations move the real decisions on classification, salary, and promotion to the campus level. Of course, as in any complex endeavor, these changes exact costs. The proposed six-grade system with the inevitable reduction in salary ranges, purchases clarity and consistency at the price of some reduction in flexibility of the broad salary bands of the current four-grade system.

GOER and the UUP have insisted that SUNY implement a viable classification and compensation system before the beginning of collective bargaining for the 1988-91 Agreement in January. The mandated deadline means that all of the issues involved in devising a new classification and compensation system could not be addressed prior to the submission of our report. For example, some classification standards for positions and the revised point-factor system are not yet available. Although more work remains to be done, we believe that the importance of meeting the mandated deadline and, more important, the positive features of the proposed system require its swift adoption.

Though the proposal is not perfect, the progress made in less than a year was possible only through the cooperation and understanding of the campuses, GOER, and the UUP. The plan addresses many of the campus concerns. On balance, we believe it represents a considerable improvement over the antiquated current system of classification and compensation. Most important, it is a system that we have devised for ourselves and not one that was imposed upon us by others. It is flexible enough to allow continued refinements and revisions as it is experienced in practice….