Support Staff Minutes – May 2016

Posted on by Louise Tennant-Filkins

Announcements– Joisan Decker DeHaan-President

  • Nominations–A nomination email will be sent out. Three SSAC members will be cycling off. Please consider nominating someone or yourself if you are interested in being on the committee.
  • Jane Hoynville is looking for interested people who would like to help in the College garden one time during lunch or one time after work in exchange for free vegetables.

Joan Hawxhurst–Director of the Center for Career and Professional Development

  • Joan spoke about the task forces that looked at elements that weren’t addressed after K in preparing students for after they leave college life. One recommendation was to professionalize students on campus, create standardization and a structure. CCPD is at the stage of gathering information and plan to launch it next year.
  • Things discussed by the group and areas of concern of SSAC members were: training of supervisors who are in charge of student workers, HR’s training of student workers before they come to us, interviewing process, students reporting to work on time, students not showing up when scheduled to work, proper phone etiquette skills, respect, professionalism, lack of communication, signing an employment contract, signing a Confidentiality Form, improvement on written skills (thank you letters), business writing, networking, etc . Joan said she would be interested in seeing what forms we have created and what our procedures are now to help implement a standardized procedure for all. Please email Joan any other thoughts and concerns you would like to share.

Jim VanSweden–Director of College Communications

  • Jim graciously shared his time and insight with Support Staff regarding the W-2 Phishing Scam and the release of employee’s confidential information. He apologized for the incident occurring and for not being an expert on this topic but shared what he and his wife had done after this occurred. Some of the Support Staff had experienced their respective divisional meetings with a business office representative and the area VP; for others those meetings hadn’t occurred. Support Staff had a great deal of anxiety and concern about the College’s response to the matter, and confusion about what their responses should be. The group acknowledged and understood the shared responsibility (of the College and themselves) in responding to the incident, but they questioned whether the College had met the obligations of its share of that responsibility. Specific key points that members of the group shared were:
  • Public information suggests that in the case of breached social security numbers (as opposed to credit card information) that the standard of protection covered by the institution responsible for the breach is seven years as opposed to two years. Apart from the gap (seven years instead of two), concern was voiced that the College might be unaware (or ignoring) the actual standard.
  • There was confusion about the meaning of the College’s notification of the breach to TIAA-CREFF and Priority Health. What exactly does that mean, and is follow-up required on the part of employees? For example, one person noted that TIAA-CREFF suggested that individuals temporarily disable online access to their TIAA-CREFF accounts. Many had not heard of the possibility of social security numbers being used in medical insurance fraud and what steps we (College and individuals) should take to minimize such risks.
  • A desire for a comprehensive (yet simplified) step-by-step, risk reduction process suggested by the experts (the Business Office, attorneys, and identity theft vendors) for employees to follow. The feeling was that the College may be deferring this work to its vendors when it should be shouldering the creation and dissemination of this list itself. This information also could include a bibliography of vetted and reliable resources (FTC website, et. al.).
  • A desire for a general employee meeting to follow the divisional meetings. While grateful for the divisional meetings, the general consensus was twofold–one: questions arise after the adjournment of the divisional meeting; and two: there would be benefit from hearing questions/concerns from a larger group of affected employees. People felt a general employee meeting would be a very beneficial “step two” in the process of information sharing.
  • The question of, long term, who will be the person at the College to contact with questions and concerns.
  • Some persons expressed deep concerns about paying out of pocket for continued credit monitoring (All Clear) after the two-year period. It was shared that the two-year period is specified in the College’s insurance coverage, but some asked if our ID protection service could be upgraded to include active long term protection for those affected by the breach.
  • The question arose regarding measures to prevent breaches in the future. For example, will there be policy modifications or mandatory training for some or all employees? People want to feel more confident about the unlikelihood of a recurrence.

The next meeting will be held on Friday, June 10th, 2016.

MEETING ADJOURNED.