Approved Minutes For Meeting On September 20, 2006 | Administrative Professional Staff Council | SIU

Date: September 20, 2006

Program:

1. The meeting was called to order by the Chair, Charlotte Gibson. Visitors and guests were welcomed and introduced.

2. Roll Call

Members Present: Tuesday Ashner, Phil Bankester, Patty Cosgrove, Paulette Curkin, John Davis, Brad Dillard, JP Dunn, Jon Geiger, Charlotte Gibson, Gabriele Hoffmann, Cordy Love, John Massie, Sandra Rhoads, Mary Stammer, Allison Sutphin, Donnell Wilson.

Proxies: JP Dunn for Heidi Jung, Rhonda Seeber for Don Patton.

Members Absent: Karen Reynolds.

Visitors and Guests: Jake Baggott, Kevin Bame, Valerie Brooks, Jeff Goelz, Sue Kohler, Jeff Myers, Jacqueline Scolari, Marge Selinger, Tammy Weston.

3. Guest

Chancellor Wendler discussed the A/P Excellence Concept Team report, stating the general thrust of all these efforts is to find better, more consistent and reliable ways to recognize and reward excellence and merit among faculty and staff. He indicated both the Civil Service and A/P Concept Teams discussed at length the evaluation processes and merit. Both reports suggested, and he accepted, changes to their respective evaluation forms, which has generated a need to train both supervisors and employees on the new evaluation instrument and process. The evaluation form for A/P will be shown during the training sessions. Although it is in a slightly different format than what the committee proposed, the content is parallel to what was proposed. Chancellor Wendler reported that he was asked by the Board of Trustees to make a presentation to their Executive Committee on the Concept Team reports, the process, its motivation, etc.

During Council discussion, P. Curkin recollected that the last two years when the A/P Staff Council was asked to submit its proposals for salary increases, both times the Council indicated it supported and agreed with merit pay; however, it had reservations until such time there was an adequate evaluation tool in place. T. Ashner commented that merit pay would likely be easier to enact for A/P because they are the only group that is not unionized. Despite her belief in a merit pay system, she does not believe supervisors would embrace such a system. Chancellor Wendler agreed, noting that it is not possible that everyone is meritorious. If supervisors look carefully, there will be people, for various reasons that in a given period of time do not do a very good job. Supervisors will have to have what it takes to identify those people; that is why there will be extensive training on the process.

J. Baggott indicated the Concept Team discussed merit at length, noting one of its charges was to distinguish between expected behaviors and meritorious behaviors. One of the comments he shared with the Chancellor when the report was submitted was that it is important for people to see results as an outcome of the committee's efforts. J. Baggott expressed appreciation to Chancellor Wendler for making something actually happen, even if it does not meet everyone's expectations.

There was discussion on the Chancellor's new guidelines for the Excellence Through Commitment awards. Several concerns were raised, including:

i) the Concept Team's recommendations on recognition and rewards did not mention changing the selection process. Chancellor Wendler expressed his belief that there are a lot of good people across campus, and there is not enough notification and involvement [when it comes to recognizing excellent employees]. He wants to make it known that the University is committed to recognizing excellence across the campus. That, in a sense, drove the process to be changed;

ii) why do the awards have to come from the administration. The way the process is set up, all the decisions are always made from the same place, by the same people, and no one else has a voice. Chancellor Wendler did not believe that was the case, noting that the committee being proposed will include Council involvement. C. Gibson indicated the most recent composition that was discussed included the four Constituency Relations Committee members, with some additional A/P for diversity;

iii) the administrative committee will have the authority to veto nominations. Chancellor does not believe that will happen. C. Gibson expressed the hope that the committee will recognize that [A/P staff] take their jobs seriously and would not put forward someone who is not worthy of the award. She believes the committee should be more of a rubber stamp. Chancellor Wendler agreed that it would be. He meets weekly with his executives, and by having them monitor the awards process, he can in turn monitor the process to make sure the committee is getting good numbers in terms of nominations. If they are not, he can either create more publicity for the awards or put pressure on the executives to build the pool of nominations. There are too many good people on campus, and he wants the process to be competitive;

iv) will there be recognition of all the nominees (something the Council has always done). Chancellor Wendler believes this is something to keep in mind, possibly an event after the recipients are announced. He noted that the new process does not preclude the Council from holding its own event. The primary goal is to get people nominated;

v) there is a lack of trust, which leads to the perception that the recipients of the award will be administration favorites. Chancellor Wendler noted this was a criticism that was levied about the past system, that it was an old boy network. There is always a certain cynicism within universities, but he does not believe it is particularly exaggerated here. He believes the campus does not have so much of a lack of distrust as it does a self-image problem, i.e., of not being worthy. One of the things he would like to do is create an archive of award nominations so that 30 or 40 years from now people will be able to go to the library archives and be able to see what happened and who was nominated; then, when the time comes for their retirement, they will be able to see what their accomplishments were. It is building an institutional culture that values its own kind; it is a lot more than excellence in a few employees; it is changing the culture. Chancellor Wendler noted that the process is not fixed, and next year some things may be done differently. The challenge is to get into doing things one way and continue doing them that way. He will continue to evaluate the process, and there will be a standing committee each year that will be checking to see if the right techniques are being used or if there are other things that can be done.

P. Curkin believes the Chancellor's vision is wonderful, but that sometimes, in the rush to get there, people feel left out of the process. She believes A/P was left out of the process, which for her means shared governance. Chancellor Wendler responded that the awards process has never worked the way he thought it should--in a more global way. Over the years, he has had informal discussions with the Civil Service Council President, with J. Baggott when he was chair of the A/P Staff Council and others. His desire was to basically jump-start the process. P. Curkin reiterated that she would just ask that [the Council] be allowed to participate. Chancellor Wendler indicated that [the Council] can follow the process, and in a year from now after the process has run its course, if the belief is that it did not work well, then there can be another discussion. He believes what will happen is that the cumulative result for the University will be much more positive than the fragmented results of the past.

4. Minutes

The minutes for the meeting on August 16, 2006, were approved as presented. The minutes for the special meeting on August 25, 2006, were approved as presented.

5. Adoption of Meeting Agenda: J. Davis moved to approve the agenda; seconded by J. Massie. Motion carried.

6. Reports

6.1 Chair 
C. Gibson reported: i) she met individually with Chancellor Wendler on September 5. Discussion centered around the excellence awards. Chancellor Wendler received the Council's response the previous week and indicated verbally that he could foresee no problem in allowing the Constituency Relations Committee to serve on the selection committee. He indicated that K. Bame would be working with her regarding this matter. She again stressed to the Chancellor the Council's strong feeling that the award continue to be peer reviewed/selected to avoid diminishing the meaning and intent; ii) Chancellor Wendler agreed to attend the September meeting to discuss and/or answer questions about the A/P Excellence Team Concept Report; iii) the Inauguration Planning Committee continues to meet every week.

6.2 Board of Trustees 
C. Gibson reported: i) in the Architecture and Design Committee, Items L, M, N were discussed as a "lump" project. These items were to ask for Board approval for planning the first three buildings of Saluki Way: General Core Curriculum Classroom Building, Student Services Building, Football Stadium and Arena Renovation. The cost estimate for planning was $150,000 per project/building. Item P (Approval of Easement for Water Main and Hydrant, SimmonsCooper Cancer Institute) was removed from the omnibus motion to be voted on separately; ii) in the Academic Matters Committee, Vice President Haller reported that the recent Accreditation and Quality Assurance review resulted in all programs being in good standing. Also, Dr. Phil Medon, Dean of the SIUE School of Pharmacy, gave a presentation on his program; iii) at the Board meeting, President Poshard reviewed his political contacts in recent weeks. He has had at least 10 meetings with various state senators, the Governor, representatives, etc., since the last Board meeting. Items discussed ranged from stem cell research to energy policy, rural health care to Connect SI. Chancellor Wendler's report included SIUC's declining enrollment this fall and the marketing plan being developed. He reported that additional recruiters have been hired; iv) all items on the omnibus motion were approved. Item P pertaining to the SimmonsCooper Cancer Institute was approved, with Trustee Simmons abstaining.

6.3 Human Resources (HR) - None.

6.4 Representatives to University Committees

6.4a Search Committee for Director, International Programs - Jacquie Scolari 
Search Committee for Director, International Programs - Jacquie Scolari J. Scolari reported the committee, chaired by Dean Osborne (Engineering) has met twice. Members have reviewed candidate applications, and with support from Vice Chancellor Dietz's office, the committee is in the process of checking references and clarifying candidate information. Following further discussion, the names will then be submitted to Vice Chancellor Dietz. Ideally, a director will be in place in early 2007.

6.4b Search Committee for Dean, College of Education and Human Services - Tuesday Ashner 
T. Ashner reported the committee interviewed its last candidate on September 11-12. The committee's recommendation has been forwarded to Provost Dunn.

6.5 Standing Committees

6.5a Executive Committee 
JP Dunn reported the committee met on September 7. Some changes were made to the minutes of the special meeting on August 25, as well as some minor changes to the agenda for the September 20 meeting. The committee discussed the October 12 luncheon with the Board of Trustees.

6.5b Committee on Committees 
J. Massie reported that the committee's initial nominee to the Dining Services Advisory Committee is unable to serve, so he would like to present for approval the nomination of Natalie Branca, Aviation Management and Flight. He has contacted her, and she has agreed to serve. JP Dunn moved to accept the nomination; seconded by C. Gibson. Motion carried. J. Massie welcomed all those new committee members in attendance.

6.5c Constituency Relations 
T. Ashner reported the invitations for the fall constituency luncheon have been mailed. She reminded Council members that its regular October meeting will be held immediately following the luncheon in the Mississippi Room.

6.6d Operating Paper - No report.

6.6e Staff Benefits - No report.

6.6h Staff Welfare - No report.

7. Old Business

7.1C. Gibson reported she talked with Carmen Suarez (Associate Chancellor Diversity) regarding Ron Caffey's Affirmative Action Advisory Committee report earlier in the year. C. Suarez indicated that it is standard operating procedure that the Affirmative Action Advisory Committee review the Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Complaint Procedures because the membership changes each year. When R. Caffey reported that the committee reviewed the procedures, he only meant that the committee familiarized themselves with it, not that changes were going to be made. Also in his report, he indicated that the policies were not acceptable to the Office of Civil Rights because of the time frames involved in the investigations and that Dr. Bryson charged the committee with continuing to work on that issue. C. Gibson reported she talked with Marcia Phelps from the Affirmative Action Office, and she has confirmed that the policy is now complete with the time frames and is on the web (http://www.affact.siu.edu/).

8. New Business - None.

9. Announcements - None.

10. Adjournment