Staff Additional Assignment Policy

This policy was posted for public comment from September 8 – 23, 2025

Responses

3. Definitions

The definitions are well-written and provide clarity. However, the ACA defines supervision responsibilities in a way that can push employees toward exempt status. The policy should more clearly define the qualifications for who is considered an FTE and who is not, and clarify what "exempt" means.

A Full-Time Employee is defined by SLCC as an employee who works at least 75% of a full-time (40 Hour/Week) position.

The definition of an exempt employee has been updated: Exempt employee is a worker not covered by the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), meaning they are not eligible for overtime pay. To qualify as exempt, an employee typically must receive a minimum predetermined salary and primarily perform duties classified as executive, administrative, or professional.

4.A. Scope and General Rule

4.A.1.a(2) This section is confusing because it lists part-time employees as both exempt and non-exempt. Many supervisors are interpreting this to mean that part-time employees cannot take on any additional work, which has led to denials for adjunct opportunities, even when the work would be within the time requirements.

The reference to exempt and non-exempt part-time roles has been removed.

4.A.1.b. The policy states that it does not apply to full-time non-exempt employees. This phrasing suggests that non-exempt employees can take on additional assignments, which directly conflicts with Section 4.A.4, which states that they cannot. This contradiction should be clarified.

Section 4.A.1.b. has been updated to provide clarity for faculty and non-exempt staff.

4.A.2.c The statement "grant funds cannot be used to compensate" is confusing. What happens if a grant-funded position prohibits a person from working in other positions? The Office of Sponsored Projects would need to be consulted if soft-funded employees want to take additional assignments as well.

Section 4.A.2.c(2) has been streamlined and requires approval from the OSP director.

4.B. Process to Obtain Additional Assignment Authorization

4.B.1 The Additional Assignment Authorization form should be directly linked in the policy.

Thank you for this suggestion. The form has been linked in the procedure.

4.B.1 It is unclear who qualifies as the "first-level supervisor." The term "second-level supervisor" should also be defined, as it is not a standard title currently in use. The policy should specify whether the form is submitted by the employee, the supervisor of the current position, or the supervisor of the new position.

First-Level supervisor has been updated to primary/direct supervisor, second-level supervisor has been updated to the supervisor of the employee's primary/direct supervisor.

4.C. Full-Time Staff Exempt Employees Hired to Teach course(s) as an Adjunct Faculty Member

This section should clarify whether part-time employees are eligible to teach as adjuncts. The policy could be revised to say, "Qualified employees teaching adjunct courses, including full-time exempt and part-time employees," or "Qualified employees hired to teach adjunct courses."

Thank you for the comment. Procedure changed to "Full-time exempt staff and part-time employees...."

4.D. Interference of Additional Assignment or Adjunct Faculty Teaching Assignment with Primary Responsibilities

One of the stated requirements is that the additional assignment must be outside of an employee's job responsibilities. The section on primary assignments and job duties could be simplified by defining "Primary Assignment" as the employee's main job, and "Additional Assignment" as anything outside of that. The wording on managing primary assignments is also confusing. It first states that employees must complete their primary job, but then allows for flexible scheduling if they are unable to do so.

Thank you for the comment. No changes made to this section.

4.D.1 - The policy should clarify whether an employee must complete the Additional Assignment Authorization form every semester. Requiring a new form each semester could create an unnecessary burden for administrators, particularly for employees who have been teaching the same course for several years.

Thank you for the suggestion. The procedure has been updated to clarify that employees should submit the authorization each term.

4.D.3 – If an employee is not meeting their primary job expectations, this should be handled through the existing corrective action policy, not through revoking additional assignments.

Thank you for the feedback. The main focus of this section is not directly related to meeting job expectations, but rather issues and scheduling related to the additional assignment.

4.D.3.a – The policy allows a supervisor to revoke assignments mid-semester, but states that only adjunct teaching cannot be revoked until the end of the semester. The committee recommends removing this sentence entirely or adding parameters around supervisors of the employee's primary assignment.

Suggestion accepted. Section removed entirely. Since each additional assignment needs to be approved, primary supervisor can simply not approve future additional assignments if there is an issue.

4.D.3.a – "Negative student impact" is vague and could be interpreted in multiple ways. Even allowing revocation at the end of a semester could cause disruption. Other additional assignments may have a detrimental impact on students. This section should be reconsidered.

Suggestion accepted. Section removed entirely.

4.E. Compensation

The policy currently states that the Compensation Director will determine "appropriate" compensation (4.E.1.a). The word "appropriate" should be removed to avoid subjective interpretation, leaving only "compensation." In the section on adjunct teaching, it is unclear whether the supervisor determines pay alone or whether other offices have discretion (4.E.2). The term "appropriate" should also be removed here.

Thank you for this suggestion. The word appropriate has been removed. Additionally, adjunct pay is a standard amount set by the Office of the Provost, not by individual supervisors.

4.F. Reporting

The reporting section should clarify how adjunct hours are equated in the quarterly and annual reports. Are these determined through payroll records or by the individual schools?

Thank you for the comment. The quarterly and annual reports show total additional compensation for employees beyond their primary role, and do not include a breakdown of hours.

Comments Received

Definitions: The definitions are well written and provide clarity. However, the ACA defines supervision responsibilities in a way that can push employees toward exempt status. The policy should more clearly define the qualifications for who is considered an FTE and who is not, and clarify what "exempt" means. Does it mean exempt from overtime, or something else?
4.A.1.a(2) Scope and General Rule: This section is confusing because it lists part-time employees as both exempt and non-exempt. Many supervisors are interpreting this to mean that part-time employees cannot take on any additional work, which has led to denials for adjunct opportunities, even if they would be within the time requirements.
4.A.1.B. The policy states that the policy does not apply to full time non-exempt employees, but that phrasing makes it sound like non-exempt employees could take on additional assignments, which directly conflicts with section 4.A.4 where it states that they cannot. This contradiction should be clarified, the policy does apply to full-time non exempt employees, and prevents them for engaging in additional assignments.
4.A.2.c Grants: The statement that "grant funds cannot be used to compensate" is confusing. What happens if a grant-funded position prohibits a person from working in other positions? Office of Sponsored Projects would need to be consulted if soft-funded employees want to take additional assigments as well.
4.B.1 Additional Assignment Authorization Form: The Additional Assignment Authorization form should be directly linked in the policy.
4.B.1 Additional Assignment Form:. It is also unclear who qualifies as the "first-level supervisor." The term "second-level supervisor" should also be defined, as it is not currently a standard title. The policy should specify whether the form is submitted by the employee, the supervisor of the current position, or the supervisor of the new position.
4.C Full-Time Staff Exempt Employees Hired to Teach: This section should clarify whether part-time employees are eligible to teach as adjuncts. The policy could be revised to say "Qualified employees teaching adjunct courses, including full-time exempt and part-time employees," or "Qualified employees hired to teach adjunct courses."
4.D Interference of Additional Assignment with Primary Duties: One of the stated requirements is that the additional assignment must be outside of an employee's job responsibilities. The section on primary assignments and job duties could be simplified by defining "Primary Assignment" as the employee's main job, and "Additional Assignment" as anything outside of that. The wording on managing primary assignments is also confusing. It first says that employees must complete their primary job, but then allows for flexible scheduling if they cannot.
4.D. Interference of Additional Assignment with Primary Duties: The policy also allows a supervisor to revoke aassignements mid-semester, but states that only adjunct teaching could not be revoked until the end of the semester. Other additional assignements may have a detrimental impact to students. The committee recommends removing this sentence entirely, or adding parameters around supervisors of the employees primary assignment.
4.D. Interference of Additional Assignment with Primary Duties:The policy should clarify whether an employee must complete the Additional Assignment Authorization form every semester, or if standing approval is possible when all parties agree. Requiring a new form each semester could create an unnecessary burden for administrators, especially for employees who have been teaching the same course for a number of years. Finally, if an employee is not meeting their primary job expectations, this should be handled through the existing corrective action policy, not through revoking additional assignments.
4.D. Interference of Additional Assignment with Primary Duties: "negative student impact" is vague and could be interpreted in multiple ways. Even allowing revocation at the end of a semester could cause disruption. This section should be reconsidered.
4.E Compensation: The policy currently states that the Compensation Director will determine "appropriate" compensation. The word "appropriate" should be removed to avoid subjective interpretation, leaving only "compensation." In the section on adjunct teaching, it is unclear whether the supervisor determines pay alone or whether other offices have discretion. The term "appropriate" should also be removed here.
4.F Reporting: The reporting section should clarify how adjunct hours are equated in the quarterly and annual reports. Are these determined through payroll records, or by the individual schools?

SLCC Policies and Procedures