Skill Sets & Training

May 23

The subcommittee met to review the campus communication being drafted, subgroup reports, and discussion of the meeting schedule for the summer. Discussion points included:

  • The campus communication being circulated between all subcommittees was closely reviewed and edits were suggested based on the viewpoint of this subcommittee.
  • The new chair and new committee members were introduced and there was discussion of the viewpoints and expertise brought to this group by these members.
  • Discussion included a review of the financial positions and roles being reviewed and a need for proper training.
  • Research Administration has been working on skill sets needed for awards through review of body of knowledge training as well as training on CSU’s system, fund types, etc.  They are working on a 2-level program with pre and post award level basics.
  • Human Resources is awaiting the final recommendations from hrQ. Their recommendations will provide direction for all subcommittees.

Apr. 24

The subcommittee met to review subgroup reports, research with ongoing work product areas, and to discuss the proposed communication plan from the main task force as it would apply to this subcommittee.

Discussion points included:

  • Members reported on discussions around budgeting experience for business officers. Much training can be done by close supervision (1:1) in the first year of the position, laying out a cycle and what happens during the course of the year. Report familiarity makes a significant difference in ability to budget. Discussion about various fund and account types and best practices for management. There are concerns that strict experience criteria could run the risk of excluding good candidates and that this should be handled on case by case basis. Business-oriented background with accounting could provide foundation but since responsibilities are specific to CSU, the budgets department would provide training opportunities. Currently, training is not required, but could be.
  • Members reported on discussions about fiscal responsibility roles and training for account supervisor and fiscal officer. Business and Finance have done some limited training on this, which is offered as optional training to campus. Covers some of the oversight roles – fiscal, account supervisor, and account manager. Clarification on what those three roles mean will be needed. Business and Finance representation on the subcommittee would be helpful.
  • Discussion about what training should be required before CSU employees are given access to various systems. Right now, there are no training requirements before they are given access. Training could be the responsibility of the department or KFS or both. In-house training would likely be a better option rather than classes that cost money. Structure committee could impact this discussion and could depend on type of account access. Could require discussion with best practices subcommittee regarding internal controls.
  • Discussion regarding research administration subcommittee’s career development plan. There is a degree requirement. Working with federal funds is a different skill set than other positions; there’s an expanded scope of knowledge needed. Research administration skill sets should be considered by this group. Members identified potential other people for addition to the research administration subgroup. Clarifying required skill sets would preclude automatically promoting someone.
  • Discussion on potential timeline for work during summer months.
  • Review of communication plan and input for relevant identified FAQs for the task force website that is in development.

Outcomes or next steps for the subcommittee:

  • Finance subgroup- No more conversation needed on budgeting. No minimum qualifications would be recommended- potentially move focus to preferred qualification, or an appropriate substitute.
  • Chair to identify lead on research administration subgroup.

Mar. 6

The subcommittee met to review subgroups work and determine what other help may be needed to round out the scope of the deliverables.

Discussion points included:

  • Review of decentralized processes in research administration. Focus should be on areas that hold the most risk for the university. Additional members may be needed in subgroups or the subcommittee.
  • The human resources subgroup is researching basic roles, formal training needs, and institution-specific training, and will then present to the subcommittee. Moving forward, core knowledge may need to be used as key elements for job descriptions. The subcommittee will also need to make a recommendation current employee training as needed based on core knowledge required for the job.
  • There is a new learning management system that will be shared in the near future with significant functionality that may be a useful platform for unit training.
  • Discussion of business officer body of knowledge and formal training regarding internal controls and budgeting. While internal controls may require more formal classroom training, budgeting likely only needs experience as a prerequisite. Discussion about needing input about what kind of budget experience should be required.
  • Discussion of what finance roles the subcommittee should focus on next. While the structure subcommittee has not yet provided guidance on specific potential roles, this subcommittee can assume there will still be a fiscal officer type role and a processor type role.

Outcomes or next steps for the subcommittee:

  • Subcommittee members will speak with the Budget Office and other stakeholders for thoughts on the appropriate level of budgeting experience for business officers.
  • Chair will work to recruit more members for the research administration workgroup.
  • Subcommittee members will discuss fiscal responsibility roles with Business and Finance services and will check into training for account supervisor and fiscal officer.

Feb. 19

The subcommittee welcomed new members and reviewed the task force structure, along with an explanation of the four separate subcommittees that will report findings and opinions back to the task force.

Discussion points included:

  • Discussion about the importance of this committee and how it will inform and be informed by its interactions with the three other committees.
  • Report on information and research regarding different certification and training programs available that are designed to certify knowledge of internal controls. The group discussed the various programs and models and what might work best for our system.
  • Discussion about centralized versus decentralized functions across the colleges and divisions, e.g. admin Assistants performing Oracle functions in some departments but other departments have a director of human resources. The subcommittee discussed the need to gain an understanding of human resource roles being performed in units so consideration can be given for background and training guidelines for those human resources roles.
  • There was discussion about what the university might be able to do or not do with regards to required training for incoming or existing employees from a human resources perspective.
  • Recurrent training needs were also reviewed and it was determined that this subcommittee should also address recurrent training practices.

Outcomes or next steps for the subcommittee:

The chair will work to recruit members of the human resources workgroup, and the group will then meet to determine decentralized roles that may need to be addressed. Work will begin to determine baseline body of knowledge and CSU specific training required for each type of human resources role.

Jan. 17

The subcommittee had its initial meeting to determine its scope and who could best help carry out the work. Discussion points included:

  • The subcommittee currently is heavy with accounting knowledge and members from Human Resources and Sponsored Programs would need to be added or consulted with for full representation.
  • This subcommittee’s work may have dependencies on the structure subcommittee, and there are still a significant number of things to address before any structure changes might be recommended.
  • If it is determined that employees more training within their role, it was discussed that the university would likely need to provide that training at no cost.
  • The subcommittee discussed the attestation memo that business officers or vice presidents sign. This may give the committee clarity around the scope of knowledge needed for financial services positions within a unit.

Outcomes or next steps for the subcommittee:

  • The subcommittee deliverables will be recommendations about specific background and training for theoretical and institutional knowledge and required competencies for finance and human resources disciplines.
  • Subcommittee members will begin researching academic coursework and certifications or proof of mastery of theoretical knowledge for accounting, internal controls and budgeting for the business officer role. A similar process will follow for additional finance and human resource roles.