In the spring of 1998, a committee was appointed by Maxine Colm, vice president for Administration, to review the way we classify salaried staff positions at the University. The present system was put into place some ten years ago and the committee's charge was to determine if the system reflects the job functions performed by today's salaried staff. Co-chaired by Michael Middaugh (assistant vice president for Institutional Research and Planning) and Thomas LaPenta (assistant vice president for Labor and Employee Relations), the committee was comprised of Paul Anderson (Library), Julie Brewer (Library), Kevin Hart (Institute for Energy Conversion), Joyce Henderson (Employee Services), Carole Hermes (College of Human Resources, Education and Public Policy), Mary Ann Hitchens (Intercollegiate Athletics), Lisa Huber (College of Arts and Science), Catherine Johnston (College of Marine Studies), Leila Lyons (User Services), and Chris Ulrich (Employee Services).The committee has met as needed since last May.

Working in subgroups and as a committee of the whole, the group developed a framework for the review process as well as a questionnaire designed to gather data about current salaried staff job duties. In some instances, supervisors were interviewed to obtain additional information about job requirements and the technical aspects of positions. Responses to the survey, a review of salaried staff recruitment advertisements for the past two years, as well as close scrutiny of existing job descriptions enabled the committee to review the relationships between salaried staff positions within and among job families--secretarial, records, service, library and technical families. Where indicated, technological requirements were updated and a diversity statement added to current job descriptions. The language of all job descriptions are also being reviewed so that essential tasks are now reflected in each position statement as is required by current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines, and to reflect current practice.

The general finding of the committee is that the overall structure of the current salaried staff classification system is working as intended. In the main, work responsibilities and requirements for each job level were found to be appropriate, build incrementally upon each other and demonstrate a clear pattern of progressive responsibility. Major changes in job classifications are not recommended and the committee does not foresee the need for widespread reclassification of existing positions. There are, however, recommendations for each job family that the committee believes would further enhance the functioning of the present system. These recommendations follow below.

A. Secretarial Family

The committee charged with reviewing the secretarial family found that the levels within the current system are appropriately positioned relative to each other. The work requirements described for each level, moreover, are incrementally more complex. As a general recommendation, the group suggested that current secretarial family job descriptions be reviewed to assure that thetechnological skills required for each classification level are appropriately described. The committee also recommended that educational requirements for this job family be reviewed to assure that there is comparability across families, e.g., the level of education required for a level four secretary is equivalent to a level four records specialist or any other level four position.

• With the increased use of technology in secretarial positions, there is greater similarity between the work done in secretarial positions and by those holding technical secretarial positions. The committee recommends that the generic job descriptions for the technical secretarial series be merged with other generic job descriptions at comparable levels within the secretarial family, e.g., the technical secretary I (level four) should be merged with the level four secretary position.

The committee found that the job levels and descriptions for the records family--levels two throughseven--are appropriate and require no change. They suggest further refinement in the language used to describe the level eight senior administrative position to be certain that there is a clear distinction between that position and the level seven administrative assistant position. The committee notes that the project assistant, level four title is no longer used and should be removed from the records family.

The committee found that the job levels and descriptions for the service family are appropriate. The group recommends that since the senior user services specialist (level seven) is not used, the title should be removed from the service family. The group supports the proposed career ladder presented by the office of Public Safety. Under that proposal, security officers will be able to progress from the level four position to a new level five security specialist position that emphasizes community policing, training and professional development.

The committee found that, in the main, the classification currently in place for titles in the library family is working effectively. Several changes were recommended, however, because of the increasing impact of technology and changing job duties in the operation of the library. This includes:

• A recommendation that the current level four library specialist job title be eliminated and a new level five generalist position be established to better reflect the rapid evolution of the technological requirements now imposed on library employees.

 
• A recommendation that a new job title, library assistant level seven, be created to reflect the advanced technical expertise that is required for persons holding non-supervisory positions. The library conservation assistant, currently a level seven, would be integrated into this new position.

 
• A recommendation that the positions of those salaried staff who currently supervise the Morris Library Microcomputing Site be reviewed for comparability with other salaried staff positions across campus that provide such systems support.

The committee reviewed ninety-five titles across the technical family and organized most of them into six categories: graphics, audio-visual, computing, farm, technicians, and a newly created category, machinists. Job descriptions were then reviewed to determine skill progression among the different groups as job levels increased. The group concluded that, although there is a proliferation of similar titles, the skill levels within the technical family appear to be appropriate in the present classification system and there is no reason to recommend redesign. Further, the group did not find any justification for establishing a technical paraprofessional category. Several specific recommendations to enhance the functioning of the technical family follow:

• A recommendation that there be a single job description, senior machinist level seven, that would embrace the current level seven titles of machinist supervisor, master instrument maker, and research machinist.
  
  
• A recommendation that supervisors be called upon to work with the office of employee services to be certain that job descriptions in the technical family accurately reflect the skill competencies currently required for each position. This could include the development of career ladders for such subgroups as the machinists, individuals holding computing positions, etc.
  
  
• A recommendation that the office of employee services review existing job titles in the technical family so that positions with similar job responsibilities are appropriately included on the technical matrices.

In conclusion, the committee appreciates the opportunity to have participated in the review of the salaried staff classification system. We are comfortable that the current system is grounded on well defined relationships among and between positions and on accurate job descriptions. With the implementation of the recommended enhancements, we believe it will continue to function well in the decade ahead.

Page Updated: March 1, 1999
Copyright © University of Delaware: 1999