Approved Minutes For Meeting On October 18, 2006 | Administrative Professional Staff Council | SIU

Date: October 18, 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, Patty Cosgrove, Paulette Curkin, John Davis, Brad Dillard, JP Dunn, Jon Geiger, Charlotte Gibson, Gabriele Hoffmann, Heidi Jung, John Massie, Don Patton, Karen Reynolds, Sandra Rhoads, Allison Sutphin, Donnell Wilson.

Proxies: Steve Buhman for Phil Bankester, Josah Powers for Cordy Love.

Members Absent: Mary Stammer.

3. Minutes

It was noted that in the minutes of September 20, 2006, under the fourth paragraph of item 3, it is not clear the enumerated items are actually concerns that were raised. A suggestion was made to reformat the paragraph so that each item (i-v) is indented. The minutes for the meeting on September 20, 2006, were approved with the format change.

4. Adoption of Meeting Agenda: JP Dunn moved to approve the agenda; seconded by S. Rhoads. Motion carried.

5. Reports

5.1 Chair 
C. Gibson reported: i) the constituency heads met on October 5. Only C. Gibson and the USG president were present. The agenda for the upcoming Board of Trustees meeting was reviewed; ii) her individual meeting with Chancellor Wendler was rescheduled.

5.2 Board of Trustees 
C. Gibson reported on the October 12 committee meetings: i) in the Finance Committee, it was reported that the University is considering the option of joining a "consortium" of educational institutions to purchase electricity at a reduced rate. Electric rates with Ameren are expected to rise 30% beginning January 2007. Last year, the University spent $10 million on electricity; ii) in the Academic Matters Committee, Vice President Haller reported on the assessment that all SIU programs are required to undergo periodically. Each campus has developed a briefing paper on "The Role of Assessment in Student Learning." Associate Provost Calhoun presented ongoing planning for the Saluki Way Academic Building. Students and faculty from the SIUC School of Architecture are actively involved in these plans.

C. Gibson reported on the formal Board meeting: i) Chairman Tedrick reported he met recently with Vice Chancellor McCurry regarding the Capital Campaign. He reported that $63 million of the $100 million goal has been raised. Endowed accounts have increased from $45 to $72 million. It was noted that $4.6 million has been raised from University employees; ii) Chairman Tedrick announced that Trustee Sanders and his wife have established a $100,000 endowed fund for scholarships to be awarded to low income graduates of Benton High School and/or Rend Lake College; iii) President Poshard expressed his thanks for the events held in his honor for the inauguration. He also reported that higher education has established a presence in Springfield, and for the first time, university presidents around the state now have a role in the budget process; iv) all items on the omnibus motion were passed. Item P pertaining to the SIUE Varsity Athletic Complex was approved, with Trustee Simmons abstaining; v) under the public comments portion of the meeting, the USG representative voiced opposition to the restructuring of that group. Also, two individuals commented on funding the GLBT budget, and two individuals protested the expulsion/suspension of several African American students because of an attack on a white student during the Homecoming weekend. Faculty Senate President David Worrells presented a resolution by that group on pending budget cuts. The resolution asks that academic units be spared from any further budget cuts. Finally, a USG representative commented on the rising tuition and fees at SIUC.

5.3 Human Resources (HR) - None.

5.4 Representatives to University Committees

5.4a Judicial Review Board - Carlos Del Rio 
C. Del Rio submitted his written report: Only one grievance was filed with the Board this year. This grievance expired as the involved parties sought a different avenue for resolution. Also, it is his understanding that new members have been selected for the Board, whereas another member has taken a position at a different university. This person must be replaced, and all the membership must have training over the Board's role and functions. This training should be forthcoming.

JP Dunn noted that a member from the Staff Welfare Committee needs to be appointed to the Board for this year. D. Wilson agreed to serve in this capacity. JP Dunn indicated that D. Wilson should contact C. Del Rio about setting up training for the Board members.

5.4b Honorary Degrees - Paulette Curkin 
P. Curkin reported the committee met last month and was given its charge. The committee is receiving nominations and will be meeting in two weeks to make its recommendations.

5.4c Search Committee, Director of University Housing - JP Dunn 
JP Dunn reported he received a letter from Vice Chancellor Dietz stating that, pending approval by the Chancellor, President and Board of Trustees, Julie Payne will be hired and will begin her position the first of December. He thanked the members of the committee for their involvement and good work, noting that all three candidates the committee forwarded were terrific and interviewed well. JP Dunn indicated the search committee never met to discuss the candidates after their interviews and submitted no final report from the committee. Members did screen the candidates before the interviews and had lunch with them, but the committee was never asked to meet. When several members of the committee expressed concern, they were told that "things are done differently in Student Affairs." JP Dunn noted the letter from Vice Chancellor Dietz does refer to the process as a search, rather than a screening committee. B. Dillard asked about the chronology of events. JP Dunn responded that the first time the committee met, they screened 27 applicants. Three top candidates were pulled, plus three in a reserve pool. The next communication was an e-mail giving three dates for lunch with the three top candidates and indicating those were the dates if any committee members wanted to have lunch with the candidates. Committee members were never directly notified of the open sessions with the candidates. T. Ashner asked if it would be worth having C. Gibson again raise this issue with the Chancellor. The consensus of the Council was to have C. Gibson instead send a letter raising the Council's concerns to Vice Chancellor Dietz, with a copy to the Chancellor.

5.4d Search Committee for Dean of Liberal Arts - Patty Cosgrove 
P. Cosgrove reported the committee met with Provost Dunn, who specified that it is a search and not a screening committee. He encouraged committee members to recruit as much as possible people within the University, as well as outside the University. Provost Dunn realizes there are many qualified people on campus and wants the committee to encourage them to apply if they are interested. P. Cosgrove reported the committee met a second time to approve the ads. Approved ads will be sent to the Chronicle of Higher Educationand various other publications, as well as to all the department chairs in the College of Liberal Arts to forward to listservs their respective disciplines. The position will begin July 1, 2007, and applications are due January 1 or until the position is filled.

5.5 Standing Committees

5.5a Executive Committee 
JP Dunn reported the committee met on October 5. Some changes were made to the minutes of September 20, as well as to the agenda for the October 18 meeting.

5.5b Committee on Committees 
J. Massie presented for approval the nomination of Barb Elam, Student Health Center, to complete the term of Ryan Reed on the Judicial Review Board. It is a two year term. Nomination was approved. J. Massie reported that he just received a request from Provost Dunn for two or three names to be submitted for the Search Committee for Assistant Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management. Provost Dunn would like the names by November 3, which means those names that are forwarded will not be approved until the Council meets on November 15.

5.5c Constituency Relations 
C. Gibson congratulated the committee on the success of the constituency luncheon. T. Ashner expressed thanks to committee members and also commended guest speaker Mario Moccia on his presentation. In other business, T. Ashner reported a meeting has been scheduled with her committee, Kevin Bame and the other members of the Excellence Through Commitment Awards Committee. She will report back to the Council once she has more information on how that process is going to work.

5.6d Operating Paper - No report.

5.6e Staff Benefits - No report.

5.6h Staff Welfare 
JP Dunn reported he and P. Bankester met and discussed the University disclosure form that many A/P have to complete if they work outside the University. The rules are unclear about who is supposed to fill out that form. B. Dillard believes only those people whose outside work conflicts with their University duties need to complete the form. JP Dunn indicated the committee would like to clarify the policy because there are some supervisors who are making their staff complete the form regardless.

6. Old Business

6.1 T. Ashner asked about the status of the College of Science Dean search. C. Gibson responded that the position is being re-advertised, and the Provost is using the same search committee. It was noted that the Council's representative is scheduled to report in November. B. Dillard asked about the status of the College of Education and Human Services search. T. Ashner indicated she could report on that search in November as well.

6.2 P. Curkin read the listserv posting by Bill Stevens (NMR Facility) regarding the Chancellor's "hijacking of the A/P Outstanding Service Award" and his belief the Council should make a stand in opposition on behalf of the constituency. He further expressed concern about the continued erosion of shared governance and the looming prospect of unionization should the Council fail in its attempts to be representative of the constituency.

P. Curkin believes that B. Stevens raises some good points. She has been concerned for years about the erosion of shared governance. C. Gibson noted the Chancellor has, across the board, taken control of whatever awards are currently being given. B. Dillard indicated the Council was concerned that it would not have final say in who was selected for the award. However, the end result is that A/P will still make the selection. T. Ashner indicated that the way the Chancellor is stating it is that yes, the Constituency Relations Committee will be part of his excellence committee and that he did not believe his second excellence committee would overturn the decision. B. Dillard expressed his belief that what was actually stated was that A/P would have the majority. P. Curkin responded that that is not the case. There are the four members of Constituency Relations; the other members are Executive Director Kevin Bame (coordinator of the A/P award process), two faculty representatives, one civil service representative and an additional A/P representative. C. Gibson pointed out that K. Bame is counting himself as A/P (as opposed to administration), so he will argue that A/P still have the majority. B. Dillard indicated this is different from what came out of the last discussion. He believed there was agreement as long as A//P kept the majority block on the committee.

During Council discussion, additional concerns were raised that the Chancellor did not go to constituency groups to propose the new process; he presented it after the fact. In addition, it does not appear that the process has been well thought through. For example, the award recipients are supposed to be kept confidential until the evening of the announcement. How can it be a surprise if the other nominees are not invited?

J. Massie asked what the purpose is of the upcoming meeting between the Constituency Relations Committee, K. Bame and the rest of the excellence committee. S. Rhoads believed it was to discuss the guidelines and the time line. J. Massie asked what the odds are that the Chancellor will overturn or veto a selection. T. Ashner responded that after the first excellence committee--of which her committee is a part--makes its selection, the recommendation goes to another committee for approval. Some Council members expressed concern about this, not realizing there was a second committee that has final approval. T. Ashner noted that it is this second committee Constituency Relations fears will overturn the first committee. C. Gibson indicated that A/P is supposed to have representation on the second committee as well. T. Ashner commented that C. Gibson will need to ask about that at her next meeting with the Chancellor. B. Dillard indicated the Chancellor had informed the Council that it was free to give another award, as long as it was after his awards dinner. C. Gibson noted the Chancellor agreed to continue funding the $500 award only.

H. Jung believed the Council needed to respond to B. Stevens about his concerns. J. Davis noted that the wonderful thing about this country is the opportunity for people to express their disappointment to those that have disappointed them. The key question is whether the Council is disappointed in itself to the point that it should revisit the question. If so, then the Council should discuss the issue further. If not, then it should thank B. Stevens for his letter. P. Curkin agreed that the Council should respond to B. Stevens, noting that in the course of the conversation with the Chancellor, it was agreed the process would be tried for a year. H. Jung suggested including that the Council has thought these issues through and that it agrees with his concerns; however, it was felt that a compromise was needed. C. Gibson commented that B. Stevens is not aware of the numerous meetings she has had with K. Bame regarding the Council's concerns.

J. Davis suggested the Council respond to B. Stevens that it strongly believes in shared governance and that it will continue to be vigilant in the future. C. Gibon indicated the response to B. Stevens should be a thank you for bringing the issue forward and letting him know that his concerns echo the concerns that were expressed by many, if not all, Council members.

7. New Business - None.

8. Announcements - None.

9. Adjournment