ESD and Absence Reports (9/7/17)
Purpose: Remediation Web Ex Session notes for ESD and Absence Reports.
Audience: College Staff/HR Staff
Topic: ESD and Absence Reports
Meeting Date: September 7, 2017
Meeting Facilitator(s): Brian Lanier
Key HCM Modules Involved
Brian: So today we’re talking about ESD updates and then we’ll talk about the leave reports because that’s an urgent item we need to get knocked off. With ESD they are following the WAC, the 151.667 comes from the WAC. So we are pretty sure the ESD calculation is correct but Staff Months was not. Staff Months is used for PTF, but in legacy PTF had contract units or a parameter if there were no contract units. Updating PTF Job Data every quarter to have the contract units you all said you couldn’t do, so SBCTC came up with just using the parameter table (like legacy used to without contract units). Spokane was already using the parameter table, but for Tacoma they were using some contract units. Is using the parameter instead of contract units for PTF ok with everyone?
Melody: Explain to me the 151.667 That’s based upon a full time load, and that’s not the case with faculty.
Brian: That’s 35/11 weeks, etc from WAC. Let me pull up the WAC.
Sherrie: Can we update the ticket that I originally submitted on this ticket?
Brian: We will update the ticket but we need clarification and agreement. Once we have approval we can update the ticket.
Melody I’m trying to find the copy of the WAC. We had gone back to legacy and that’s where we got the 151 from.
Melody: I just want to make sure it’s 11 weeks.
Lynn: It’s 11.
Melody: We don’t have the time go through line by line and we’ll proceed with what you’ve come up with because something is better than nothing.
Brian: So the parameter table 1105, it lists the monthly hours for a part time faculty. The state board came up with an average of 120. Spokane was using 140, Tacoma was using the 60 default. SBCTC wants us to use 120 coming forward based on looking at the contracts. How do we feel about that from a college standpoint? 140 was on the high end (35 hours in the week), but 60 was too low to default. Some schools use 160, 60, 157, but SBCTC wants have standardized reporting to ESD and the 120 is the common number.
Melody: As long as we can defend the number then we agree. I’m good with the 120 to get them at the correct base. 140 was probably a bit much. Spokane is ok with the 120.
Brian: I got an email from John B. so you can see John’s reasoning. Tacoma how do you feel?
AP: I have lots of questions. On the surface, yes it makes sense but I want to know more about 151.667.
Sanjiv: For the PTF we have 35 hours of working per week. 35hours*52weeks/12 then gives you the monthly factor (151.667)
Brian: This went into effect in 2007 in legacy. Remember AP you sent me something awhile ago making sure it’s in the system. This is what started the ESD investigation. It’s the WAC broken down into a number.
AP: So supposedly on our end it looked at contract units, but how did this parameter table show 60 hours? I think those hours came from the teaching time only. I think that’s how we came up with 60 hours initially.
Brian: Ok so I’m with you, but from the state board standpoint that’s an outdated number and we need to look at it with a new approach. If you use 60, you actually double their staff months and come up with much higher number. It makes a big difference in the hours being reported to ESD. If you take the actual hours and divide by 60 vs Spokane who divides by 140, Tacoma will always get a much bigger number. We want a standardized denominator.
AP: I agree that consistency is needed.
Brian: So I will find that WAC and send it out to show how the state board came up with 151.667. And everyone is ok with the 120 parameter. We’ll make those changes and resubmit to ESD as soon as possible.
Melody: I sent it to you so don’t worry about sending it to me.
Brian: So can I use today to get an ok for 120?
Tacoma and Spokane: Yes.
Brian: I’ll hand this off to Sanjiv and Josie to talk about leave reports.
(Leave Balance Report was presented to the colleges and they agreed that taking out the 2 accrual field and the 1 YTD sick leave field would be acceptable. So long as the sick leave YTD information would be available in the Sick Leave Buyout report.
The issue regarding whether to clear out CSL on termination was brought up and it was decided that Spokane and Tacoma should bring it up as a common process decision at PPMS or at the Common Process Workshop in October. Spokane said they wanted to be able to participate by webex and we said we would put them in contact with Rueth at SBCTC.
The other item was the student employment sync which is going wrong in production right now, Spokane asked if that could be folded into remediation. Brian said we would look into it, but that if it was not under remediation then it would fall under ERP. Ticket #37532.)