Thank you for the comment. Severance packages has been added to 4.G.2.

Thank you for the comment. This has been revised to align with updates to USHE Board Policy and remove reorganization from this policy and place it in its own policy and procedure.

Thank you for the comment. No changes made.

Thank you for the comment. Removed "their".

Thank you for the comment. Removed "difficult" and returned to "unusual" which is in the current adopted policy statement.

Thank you for the comment. Budget Plan including a Reduction in Force Without the Declaration of Financial Exigency is defined in 4.G.1. as the need to reduce or shift expenditures to address a budget deficit, shortage, or legislative mandate.

Thank you for the comment. This is already addressed in 3.E.

Thank you for the comment. This is defined in Personnel Definitions.

Thank you for the comment. Revised to ensure consistent reference to Board of Higher Education.

Thank you for the comment. Updated to reflect: Tenured faculty reduction in force procedures will follow the SLCC Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility, and Tenure policy.

Thank you for the comment. No change. While there is no set timeline, USHE Board Policy 482 outlines the steps the College must take.

Thank you for the comment. Added clarification: "listed in no particular order."

Thank you for the comment. This is referencing reasonable alternatives to a RIF itself.

Thank you for the comment. Other relevant factors are considered in the plan to ensure continuing college operations.

Thank you for the comment. The intent is that the prioritization principles apply to all RIFs.

Thank you for the comment. We are restoring the definition for "employee of key importance" to the Personnel Definitions. The definition aligns with USHE policy R482, and the SLCC RIF policy has been revised to reflect this terminology.

Thank you for the comment. Revision accepted.

Thank you for the comment. If an interim role is eliminated, the employee would return to their primary role, assuming that position has not been eliminated as part of the proposed budget plan.

Thank you for the comment. We will follow the prioritization as outlined in the faculty handbook.

Thank you for the comment. This policy prioritizes the maintaining of full-time positions.

Thank you for the comment. The president may meet one-on-one or with all parties together. The purpose of the meeting is for the Senate and Association leaders to provide comments to the president prior to submission to USHE.

Thank you for the comment. Changed to Criteria for Determining Position

Thank you for the comment.

Thank you for the comment. As the president prepares the budget plan, they will work with leadership across the college.

Thank you for the comment. The college has made the choice to prioritize the employment of full-time employees.

Thank you for the comment. Any decision regarding faculty will follow SLCC Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility, and Tenure policy and the Faculty Handbook.

Thank you for the comment. Faculty actually receive more notice than 28 days given to regular full-time staff and administrators.

Thank you for the comment. The policy has been revised to state, "Part-time, temporary, or probationary employees are not eligible for automatic reinstatement."

Thank you for the comment. This gives priority to laid off employees in filling vacant positions for which they may be qualified. Changes made to this section removing the employee must apply and be selected.

Thank you for the comment. This gives priority to laid off employees in filling vacant positions for which they may be qualified. Changes made to this section removing the employee must apply and be selected.

Thank you for the comment. This gives priority to laid off employees in filling vacant positions for which they may be qualified. Changes made to this section removing the employee must apply and be selected.

So what's happening to severance pay? And why is it so stripped back compared to what was there before? Feels like something is going on that we should be concerned about.......

Adjunct professors are some of the first to be cut....I AM "just an adjunct." :(

I think it's time to stop looking at full-time employees like they are the most productive and vital people to the programs that they work in. Part time and adjunct shouldn't have to feel like they will be the first to be let go if cuts need to be made. I am part time staff and I know how hard I work and how productive I am. I also know full time employees that feel like they are safe in their jobs because they are full time, and they don't contribute nearly as much as some of the part time employees. I think we need to look at productivity and not full or part time employment status as a reason to let people go.

This piece,

If an employee is laid off under this policy, the college will undertake reasonable efforts to place the affected employee in a vacant open position, subject to the following limitations:

1. the affected employee must apply for the vacant position and be selected by the supervisor;"

Leaves it open to bias. Do the affected faculty get priority over outside hires if they meet the qualifications of the position? If the person isn't selected, do they get to know why?

• Section 1: Clarify "President or Designee," grammatically, either remove "their" or use parentheses (President or designee). In addition, parameters should be set on who can serve as designee, e.g., "designee from Cabinet Core."
• Section 1: Replace the subjective word "difficult" with a financial term of art that better conveys financial strain. Clarify if this is adequately defined in procedures.
• 3.B Financial Exigency: Add a definition for "non-financial exigency." Clarify what triggers non-financial exigencies in Section G.
• 3.E Reduction in Force: Clarify grammar by stating explicitly that it applies to both financial and non-financial exigencies.
• 3.F Regular Staff Member: Define the probationary timeline (six months).
• 3.F Regular Staff Member: Add Salt Lake Tech employees as continuous employees. Provide a definition for Salt Lake Tech faculty, who are non-tenured.
• 4.A Reduction in Force: Ensure consistent reference to "Board of Higher Education" throughout the policy.
• 4.A.3: Current text: "This policy does not supersede SLCC's Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility, and Tenure Policy."
  • Suggested: "Tenured faculty reduction in force procedures will follow the SLCC Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility, and Tenure Policy." Reason: Avoids negative construction ("does not supersede") and provides a direct instruction.
  • Another Suggested: "Tenured faculty reduction in force procedures will follow the SLCC Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility, and Tenure policy" because "Does not supersede" is too mushy by using a negative construction: "does not." Committee noted that it's better to use a directive, "will follow."
• 4.B.1-2 Declaration of Exigency: The tracked changes show an odd break; clarify whether "22" belongs there.
• 4.B.2 Declaration of Exigency: Include a clear timeline for implementing a reduction in force.
• 4.B.2 Declaration of Exigency: Clarify whether listed factors are prioritized in order. If not, specify that the list is non-ordered. Consider using bullets instead of numbers to avoid implying prioritization.
  • Faculty note that tenure would otherwise appear at the top of the list if ordered.
  • A non-ordered list is more functional because each RIF is different.
• 4.B.2.f Declaration of Exigency: "Other relevant factors" is unclear at this level of hierarchy. Clarify whether market demand and analysis are criteria for eliminating positions; if so, move to position section.
• 4.B.2.e Declaration of Financial Exigency: Clarify whether "reasonable alternatives to financial exigency" are alternatives to declaring exigency or to a RIF itself. State how alternatives are discovered.
• 4.B.4 Prioritization: Previously applied only to financial exigency; now applies to all RIFs. Confirm intent that prioritization principles are the same for both.
• 4.B.4.2 Actions will be prioritized:
  • Clarify whether part-time employees can be considered "vital" and retained. If so, how is "vital" determined?
  • Note that Salt Lake Tech employees should also be recognized if they are continuous.
• 4.B.4.a.3 Prioritization: Replace "or" with "and" in "part-time, temporary, or probationary."
• 4.B.4.a.3 Prioritzation: How are employees determined "vital" and what if that vital employee is part-time?
• 4.B.4 Prioritization General: Acting/Interim Positions: Clarify how these are handled. If the original position is eliminated, are incumbents protected? If the interim role is eliminated, do they return to their prior role?
• 4.B.4 Prioritization General: Faculty Reference: Reinstate mention of faculty in the prioritization. Also clarify prioritization for continuous Salt Lake Tech employees (defined in new handbook as 3 years continuous). Mentioning them explicitly would aid clarity.
• 4.B.4 Prioritization General: Full-Time vs. Part-Time: Address concern that full-time positions could be replaced with multiple part-time roles. (e.g., can a full-time faculty position be eliminated and replaced with two adjuncts? Clarify those protections.).
• 4.B.5 Shared Governance Meeting: Is this one on one or a meeting with all parties?
• 4.B.5 Shared Governance Meeting: Are these recommendations for USHE or for the president to revise the plan before it gets to USHE?
• 4.C (E?) Determination of Which Positions Should Be Eliminated: Suggested revision: Rename section to "Criteria for Determining Positions."
• 4.C (E?) Determination of Which Positions Should Be Eliminated: Change language from "factors may be evaluated" to "factors will be evaluated" for consistency with 4.B.2.c and to remove discretionary language. Ensure elements of 4.B.2.c are fully reflected here.
• 4.C (E?) Determination of Which Positions Should Be Eliminated: This should read, "C. Criteria for determining positions: In the event of a reduction in force, the following factors will be evaluated". This aligns it with 4.B.2.C. and does not allow parties below the president the wiggle room of "may." In fact, the elements of 4.B.2.C. should be fully reflected in 4.C.
• 4.C (E?) Determination of Which Positions Should Be Eliminated: Who makes these evaluations? Direct supervisors? Department directors?
• 4.C (E?) Determination of Which Positions Should Be Eliminated: The policy does not explicitly address how layoffs may impact marginalized or vulnerable employee groups. e.g. Many lower-level college employees—such as custodial staff, food service workers, and part-time support staff—often come from marginalized or vulnerable populations.
  • Empirical studies show these roles are disproportionately filled by individuals from low-income backgrounds, racially minoritized groups, and those facing systemic barriers to stable employment. This makes equity considerations essential when evaluating policies that may lead to layoffs or reductions in force.
• 4.C.1.b Notice of Layoff Resulting in RIF: Is there a reason we can't just make the 28-day notice policy for ALL employees?
• 4.D.1.a.3 Timeliness of Notice: This needs to be much more clear under which positions a faculty member, particularly a tenured faculty member can be reorganized out of a job.
• 4.D.2 Reinstatement: Why can't part-time employees be reinstated to a part-time position? Wouldn't this be easier for the school than to go through a long hiring process?
• 4.F. Reassignment of Employees: What does this look like? In my head, I am imagining them giving employees the link to our jobs page. This is great sentiment, but there is nothing here. All employees still have to go through the hiring process the same way.
• 4.F. Reassignment of Employees: Doesn't this introduce bias? If I'm qualified, but the supervisor doesn't select me, do I get to know why?