Leave Days for State Employees (Non-USM)

Professional Staff,

Please see information below. It is a response received by our PSS/CUSS representatives on September 20, 2011 in response to an employee request for an explanation of Governor O’Malley’s executive order regarding leave days for state employees outside of the USM (state sanctioned administrative time off).

 

Feel free to post feedback or discuss using our "discussion" feature.

 

Stanyell Bruce
President, Professional Staff Senate

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Response received by PSS/CUSS representatives on September 20, 2011 in response to an employee request for an explanation of Governor O’Malley’s executive order regarding leave days for state employees outside of the USM (state sanctioned administrative time off).

*name(s) of employee(s) have been removed*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is in response to the recent inquiry that you received from  [ ] regarding the Executive Order authorizing “reduction recovery days” for employees of the State Personnel System.  As  [ ] noted, the Executive Order specifically exempts the University System of Maryland (USM), and the USM has not instituted such leave days for FY 2012.  After examining the State’s reduction recovery plan in light of the circumstances that we face in the USM this year, we determined that we could not adopt a similar plan for three important reasons.

First and foremost, after three years of budget cuts, frozen salaries and furloughs--and the strains that these measures placed on our employees and institution operations--we could not ask our employees to shoulder additional workload burdens.  Our ability to maintain the level of quality that is expected of the USM already has been pushed to its limits after years of economic downturn, and that situation is unlikely to improve in the near term.  After careful analysis, we determined that the staffing  pressures  likely to result from adoption of the State’s new leave plan would  harm our ability to effectively meet our mission and, at the same time, impose greater demands on current staff and faculty.

Second, even if it were possible to add substantial leave days while maintaining quality, we are seriously concerned about the signal that doing so might send to the public.   While it is impossible to convey our gratitude with economic rewards during difficult economic times, the USM values its employees deeply.  If we were to provide significant additional leave under current conditions, we fear that we would convey a message that our staff and faculty are effectively expendable.   Put another way:  five work days is the equivalent of nearly 2% of a year’s total work time.   For the last three years, we have fought hard to avoid layoffs and keep furloughs to the minimum possible numbers of days.  At a time when public employment is under intense public scrutiny, it would be unwise for the USM to send a message that it can function easily with an effective 2% reduction in productivity.    In the current social and political climate, this would have been a mistake with real potential for harm to the interests of the USM’s institutions--and its staff and faculty.

Finally, we note that the Executive Order’s reduction recovery plan was a direct response to the heavy furlough requirements for State employees in recent years.  As you may be aware, the furlough plans of the USM’s institutions were far less onerous that of the State.  For example, in FY2011, State employees making $40,000 had eight furlough/salary reduction days, and employees making $50,000 had nine.  By contrast, at [ ]’s institution, the University of Maryland Baltimore County, employees with salaries of $40,000 had three salary reduction days, and those with $50,000 salaries had five.  We note that UMBC’s furlough plan was typical of many USM institutions, and some of our institutions required even fewer furlough days for employees with salaries less than $100,000. As such, the justification for the State’s reduction recovery plan does not apply with the same force at the USM.

We are painfully aware that USM employees have endured many burdens over the last three years, and are deeply grateful that staff and faculty have remained committed to the USM and its institutions despite these conditions.  For the reasons described above, we could not conclude that adoption of the State’s reduction recovery plan was prudent or feasible for USM institutions.  Nonetheless, we continue to look for ways to improve the status and wellbeing of our staff and faculty during these difficult times, and we welcome any insights and suggestions that CUSS may have to help us meet that goal.  Please convey our thanks to your members for their dedication to the USM and its institutions, and feel free to contact JoAnn Goedert at jgoedert@usmd.edu or 301-445-1921 if you have any further questions.  We look forward to continuing to work with you on these and other issues.