Fiscal Year 2017 - 2nd Quarter MAPPs in Executive Review

The following MAPPs have been recommended for review by University of Houston Subject Matter Experts. To review the proposed changes, please select each policy name to view the linked document and send your comments, if any, to palevy@central.uh.edu by February 7, 2017 (Tuesday).

The column titled "Proposed Changes" briefly explains the updates that have been submitted. The column titled "Review Comments" indicates the comments/suggestions received during the Campus Review of the policies listed below.
MAPP Number and Name
Proposed Changes Review Comments
MAPP 02.02.06 - Workers' Compensation Made Corrections to links and titles as applicable Added references to
Section VIII. Modified Accident Forms and non-disabling illness/injury definitions in Section III. Made minor redlines in
Section V.A.2. Added process fro written statement in Section V.A.3. Added current process for accident-related lost time documentation in Section V.B.5.d.

Campus/Executive Review Comment:
In Section III.A, Accident Forms is not phrased as a definition. Suggested wording: "Forms that are filled out in order to record details of an unavoidable event that occurs while on the job."
Response: Change incorporated.
Comment: In Section III.M, Non-disabling illness/injury, to keep the definitions consistent, the following suggested wording: "An illness or injury that, although possibly requiring first aid and/or medical attention, does not prevent the employee from returning to regular work or job assignment following the illness/injury."
Response: Change incorporated.
Comment: In Section I.A.2, should this section actually document: "In order to receive compensation for an occupational injury or disease, a claim must be filed with the Texas Department of Insurance - Division of Workers' Compensation (TDI DWC) within one year of the date of injury or within one year from the date the injured employee knew or should have known the injury or disease may be work-related. The form (DWC-41) is sent to the employee directly from the TDI-DWC"?
Response: Change incorporated.
Comment: In Section V.A.3, remove "infection," since the word is not needed. Is the "written statement" from the employee? Whom does it go to? Who is capable of documenting the test result? Is it just a letter from the employee, or should the information be from the physician?
Response: The written statement is from the employee and it should go to the supervisor or Risk Management. The test results are documented by a medical provider. This documentation has been added.
Comment: In Section V.B.5.d, it says "Accident-related lost time should be documented on a leave request, with copies sent to RM." This statement does not comply with the current PeopleSoft system, so what is the proper procedure?
Response: The supervisor codes in either sick time, vacation, or leave without pay, depending on the employee's election regarding utilization of sick and annual leave. Documentation has been added.
Comment: Additional redlines incorporated by the Office of Legal Affairs and General Counsel.

MAPP 02.03.05 - Background Checks for Employees Changed title from Security Sensitive Positions to Background Checks For Employees, and rewrote process to emphasize criminal background checks. New requirement for all positions to receive a background check, and the process to be done by use of a vendor instead of the previous UHDPS process. The responsibility is assigned to Human Resources and the Office of Faculty Affairs for completion, retention, and destruction of obtained documents. Added Section XIII for references.

Campus/Executive Review Comment:
In Section I, last sentence, the statement "The Division is responsible for the costs of criminal background checks conducted on employees hired by the division" does not agree with Section IV.A, saying all applicants under final review will receive a criminal background check.
Response: Changed the sentence in Section IV.A to read "All final applicants are subject to a criminal background check and should be so informed during the interview process."
Comment: In Section II.A, "the university shall obtain criminal background check information related to applicants for all university positions," is not consistent with Section IV.A, saying all applicants under final review will receive a criminal background check.
Response: Changed the sentence in Section IV.A to read "All final applicants are subject to a criminal background check and should be so informed during the interview process."
Comment: This policy appears to leave the decision of whether a person's record is sufficiently "criminal" to bureaucrats who can apply whatever logic they wish to decide on a person's employability. This is not fair. There should be set rules about what constitutes a legitimate reason for denying employment. The policy should list the offenses that can be used to deny employment. In particular, anything other than a felony conviction is a stretch for denying someone a job, outside of a law enforcement position. An exception is a DWI for someone whose job involves driving State-owned vehicles on official business.
Response: There are basic tenets applied in the evaluation of the information obtained as a result of the criminal history background check. The most important factor is whether the behavior resulting in the conviction represents a behavior that is considered an increased risk to the safety/security of the University, the students, or the employees. With our new background check vendor (HireRight), information from the last seven (7) years is presented for review on each hire. HR and/or General Counsel evaluates the background reports and makes a decision on the risk posed to the University, the students, and the employees. Much thought and consideration goes into the review of each background check that is returned with criminal activity. Our goal is to reduce the potential risk of harm to our campus, students and employees based on the information presented to us via the background check. An additional factor we look at is job-relatedness. As indicated in your e-mail, someone with a DUI probably could not be hired to drive vehicles for the campus because their past behavior indicates they may increase risk for the University. Someone with a theft conviction would require further review of whether the position they are applying for gives them access to property, personal belongings, etc., again because their past behavior indicates they could pose an increased risk. Our goal is not to prevent someone from being hired; but rather to protect the University, students and staff from unnecessary and known risks based on information presented via the background check.
Comment: There should be a specified time for how far back the check goes. It is unreasonable to punish someone for a mistake made 10 or 20 years ago. If the person served his time and had maintained a clean record, we should not deny them employment. I believe the norm is 7 years. Why not specify a time?
Response: The most important factor is whether the behavior resulting in the conviction represents a behavior that is considered an increased risk to the safety/security of the University, the students, or the employees. With our new background check vendor (HireRight), information from the last seven (7) years is presented for review on each hire. HR and/or General Counsel evaluates the background reports and makes a decision on the risk posed to the University, the students, and the employees. Much thought and consideration goes into the review of each background check that is returned with criminal activity. Our goal is to reduce the potential risk of harm to our campus, students and employees based on the information presented to us via the background check.
Comment: 1) For clarification as to the role of the Office of Faculty Affairs in administering this policy, it may helpful to add in re-numbered Section IV. B. 1st sentence (Policy Provisions): "The Human Resources Department and the Office of Faculty Affairs with respect to faculty positions, are responsible for ensuring that a criminal background check is conducted."
Response: The current language reads as follows: The Human Resources Department is responsible for ensuring that a criminal background check is conducted for staff positions. The Office of Faculty Affairs is responsible for ensuring that a criminal background check is conducted for faculty positions. This information will be maintained by the aforementioned offices and will not be released or otherwise disclosed to any other person or agency except as provided in this policy/procedure or by law.
Comment: 2) The last sentence of re-numbered Section VII. B. (Recommendation of Employability) should be reviewed and clarified. The statement reads: "The evaluation will determine if the candidate may be recommended for employment in spite of the positive criminal background check, based on an absence of 'justifying business necessity for refusal to hire.'" The phrase "based on an absence of justifying business necessity for refusal to hire" is confusing. The sentence should be rewritten so that its meaning and intent are transparent for administration purposes.
Response: The last sentence of the first paragraph of Section VII.B reads as follows: The evaluation will determine if the candidate may be recommended for employment in spite of the positive criminal background check.

MAPP 02.06.02 - Staff Tuition Scholarship Program Removed Section III.A on College Release Time; courses taken for this program must involve a degree program at University of Houston. Removed information on career paths and Grade Poiont Average in Section III. Added Grade Point Average information in Section IV.F. Removed Section V.A on credit courses. Revised total for maximum scholarship amount from $1,200 to $2,000. Removed composition of Staff Tuition Scholarship Committee in
Section V.B, and added task to review applications and select award recipients. Revised links and titles as applicable.

Campus/Executive Review Comment:
In Section III.C, instead of the second sentence, could this sentence be used instead? "Requests to use the scholarship for courses taken at other universities, including other system components, will not be approved."
Response: Change incorporated.
Comment: In renumbered Section V.B, the revised statement reads: "A Staff Tuition Scholarship Program Committee will be appointed to evaluate the program each year to determine its success and establish the actual dollar amount paid allotted for funding." It appears a word may have been ommitted. Review whether it is correct as stated or correct if needed.
Response: Removed the word "paid" from the sentence.

MAPP 04.01.03 - Vouchers

Updated titles and links as applicable. Updated Section VI.K to emphasize local, non-federal funds, and indicate the President may be reimbursed for more than 20% gratuity based on actual expenditures.

Campus/Executive Review Comment:
What documentation allows for the President to be reimbursed for more than 20% gratuity based on actual expenditures? Why is this guidelines only for the UH President?
Response: The President must host very high profile guests at business meals and, depending on the circumstances, it may be necessary to pay more than 20% gratuity. We do not expect that the President will need to pay more than 20% gratuity on a regular basis; but if the need arises, she/he should have the flexibility to do so and get reimbursed for the full amount. The rule for gratuity corresponds to the rule for business meals, in which the President is allowed to spend more than $100 per person on business meals, when needed, including meal, tax, and gratuity.
Comment: In Section III, Definitions, G. For Federal Funds, the URL for a list of UH Fund codes, including federal funds, does not work and displays an error message. The URL should be corrected.
Response: URL corrected.

MAPP 04.04.01A - Contracting - General

Added information to Section II.C on delegation of authority being made in writing and filed with the OCA by September 1st of each fiscal year. Updated titles and links as applicable. Added Section IX, References.

Campus/Executive Review Comment: All of the URL links which appear in the Addendum A's Delegation of Authority Table (links are displayed in Column 2 - Required Administrative Prerequisites) should be reviewed and corrected. The majority, if not all, are not functioning.
Response: The Delegation of Authority Table is on the Office of Contract Administration's web site. Their office needs to be contacted to update the Delegation of Authority Table.
Possible Addition to Text (from Risk Management): Section V.J needs an additional comment about Certificates of Insurance (COIs). Risk Management needs to be able to verify contractors have the coverage and proper endorsements as stated in the contract. Please make the following modification to Section V.J.: "Insurance Provisions: The originating unit must confirm all insurance provisions with the Office of Risk Management prior to submitting a contract to OCA. Unless a waiver is granted, a Certificate of Insurance (COI) must be secured from the contractor to verify coverages.
Response: Change incorporated. Change will also be made to the Contract Management Handbook.

MAPP 05.02.02 - Official Functions and Discretionary Expenditures

Updated titles and links as applicable. Added Section III.G definition for gratuity, indicating that the President may be reimbursed for more than 20% gratuity based on actual expenditures.

Campus/Executive Review Comment:
What documentation allows for the President to be reimbursed for more than 20% gratuity based on actual expenditures? Why is this guidelines only for the UH President?
Response: The President must host very high profile guests at business meals and, depending on the circumstances, it may be necessary to pay more than 20% gratuity. We do not expect that the President will need to pay more than 20% gratuity on a regular basis; but if the need arises, she/he should have the flexibility to do so and get reimbursed for the full amount. The rule for gratuity corresponds to the rule for business meals, in which the President is allowed to spend more than $100 per person on business meals, when needed, including meal, tax, and gratuity.

MAPP 05.04.07 - Monthly Cell Phone Allowance

Added Section III.E regarding the new process for using the Cell Phone Allowance Verification Form. Revised Section III.F regarding documentation requirements for managers and department Heads. Removed
Section III.F.2 on determining source of funding, and added note that the allowance will be changed to the same cost center as the employee's regular salry. Updated links and titles as applicable.

Campus/Executive Review Comment:
Response:
MAPP 06.01.01 (No Longer 07.03.01) - Emergency Management Policy

Applied revised MAPP template and added new Revision Log. Revised text to reflect current operating requirements. Deleted all Addendums and Index Terms.

NOTE: MAPP number will be going back to MAPP 06.01.01 based on reorganization of DPS into two divisions (Campus Safety and Police/Security).

Campus/Executive Review Comment: The new Emergency Management Policy removes faculty, staff, and student representation from the response management team ("Executive Operations Team"). The FS President used to be a member of the now-deleted "Emergency Management Team," as was the Staff Council and Student Government Association Presidents. Now, the proposed EOT includes only "the Vice Chancellors/Vice Presidents of the President's Cabinet." I'm also unclear how faculty, staff, and students are involved in the planning, either, specifically on the "Emergency Planning Committee," which appears to be an entirely new committee. The constituency of that committee is vaguely described as "representatives from various departments and divisions who are responsible for providing support and giving direction within their area of expertise in the emergency planning process." There is no description of who will lead that committee or select its members.
Response: In November 2015, the decision was made that the Emergency Management Team (EMT) would officially be dissolved, and the Executive Operations Team (EOT) would take on the role previously held by the EMT.
Because students, faculty and staff hold a critical role in effective emergency planning for the University, a representative from Faculty Senate, Staff Council, and SGA was requested from each area to serve on the Emergency Planning Committee (formerly known as the "Emergency Operations Committee"). This is the committee who actually develops and annually reviews our emergency plans. Doing this requires input and feedback from our students, faculty and staff and it was at this level we felt these three groups would be most effective.
As a reminder, students, faculty and staff are represented on the Executive Operations Team by the VP for Student Affairs, Senior VP for Academic Affairs and Provost and the Senior VP for Administration and Finance.
For additional clarification, the Emergency Planning Committee is not a new committee. This group was originally chartered in June of 2012, but was originally named the Emergency Operations Committee. The name of the Committee was changed to "Emergency Planning Committee" at the May 2016 meeting in order to emphasize the Committee's focus on improving emergency planning, and to provide distinction from the Executive Operations Team (EOT). In the Emergency Planning Committee meetings held this year, the Presidents of each organization or their designee have attended these meetings. Per the UCC's comments, I propose that we refine the membership of the Emergency Planning Committee, as well as include who serves as the Chair.

MAPP 06.05.03 - Motor Vehicle Record Evaluation Revised Motor Vehicle Request Form and updated link. Updated titles and links as applicable. No additional changes were made by the Subject Matter Experts (SMEs).
FULL REVIEW CYCLE due to four (4) years between review cycles for document.

Campus/Executive Review Comment:
Response:

MAPP 08.01.01 - Sponsored Research Activities

Added Section II.F on Pricipal Investigator responsibilities for regulatory compliance approvals. Added link to Research Admininstration Certification Program (RACP) in Section II.C. Updated responsible party's title.

Campus/Executive Review Comment:
Response:
MAPP 09.06.01 - Key Control Policy
(New MAPP)
This document establishes the guidelines for the campus key control process, establishing a recorded chain of accountability and access for all credentials, key holders, and locations.

Campus/Executive Review Comment: With the Department of Public Safety reorganized slightly, the portion reporting to AVP Malcolm Davis is now called Campus Safety. Could this be changed on Page 3, Section VII, Number 8?
Response: Change incorporated.
Comment: In Section III, Definitions. The AccessUH URL for Definition E does not function properly and displays an error message. The URL should be corrected.
Response: URL corrected.



*Please note that the policies contained in this section are not official.  The changes have been submitted to the University Policies and Procedures and are currently under review.  To view official Manual of Administrative Policies and Procedures documentation go to http://www.uh.edu/af/universityservices/policies/mapp/index.htm.





Contact Us


Policies and Procedures Coordinator
Peggy Levy
713-743-6636

uhpolicies@uh.edu