Michael Chamberlain
Staff Writer
University of Houston staff employees spoke out against a UH security screening policy during a public forum Tuesday. Opponents of the policy said it targets the staff, as it does not apply to faculty and upper administrators, and explained that it may be used to punish employees for seeking job advancement.
The forum is a bi-annual meeting between the staff and UH President/UH-System Chancellor Arthur K. Smith and his cabinet. On the panel with Smith were Sybil Todd, vice president for institutional advancement; Dennis Wray, associate director of the physical plant; Dennis Duffy, general legal counsel for UH; and Robert Herrington, assistant vice president for human relations.
Of the many issues discussed, the security clearance policy evoked the greatest concern. Many staff jobs at UH require clearance. These are typically jobs that involve handling money or providing access to student records. An outside agency conducts the investigation and submits a report to the UH administration of any criminal convictions, from traffic violations up to serious felonies. The administration then decides to grant or withhold clearance based on the seriousness and relevance of the record to the job in question. Failure to pass the security screening means an applicant will not be hired.
Current employees with years of faultless service and employees seeking a transfer or promotion into a "security-sensitive" job must also pass the security screening. Employees whose positions did not require a clearance when they were hired must also pass the security screening if it is now required for new applicants for that position. Failure to pass could result in an employee's termination.
A security screening process is necessary to protect the students, faculty and staff at UH, Herrington said. "I'd hate to be the HR director who hired someone with a criminal record ... and then have an incident, perhaps even a tragic incident, happen involving that person," he said.
Some staff members are concerned, however, that this policy will create a chilling effect on career advancement. They also object to what they see as unfairness; neither faculty members nor senior administration members are required to undergo screenings, even if their jobs put them in contact with student records.
Herrington said he would pull together a task force, an ad-hoc committee, to review complaints and consider changing the current present policy.
Staff member Juanita Jackson brought up the issue of part-time employees at UH. She asked a policy for staff members similar to the Voluntary Modification of Employment enjoyed by faculty members. Under the VMOE, a retired faculty member may sign a contract with the university to work part time - perhaps to teach one class. Jackson suggested a similar program could allow a staff member who had completed 30 years of service to return to work at UH part time. The university would gain from the individual's experience and would not need to pay benefits ,other than those already covered in the retirement plan.
Herrington said the university had no problem with retirees returning to work on a part-time basis. In fact, he said there are several current cases in which that has been done. "But we won't issue a staff member a contract," he said. UH staff members are considered to be "at will" employees, meaning that they can be fired at the university's discretion. Providing returning retirees with a contract would give them a protection that other staff employees don't enjoy, he said.