Approved Minutes For Meeting on October 17, 2007

Date:October 17, 2007

Program:

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

2. Roll Call

Members Present Tuesday Ashner, Don Castle, Carla Coppi, Patty Cosgrove, Mike Cubley, Paulette Curkin, JP Dunn, Heidi Jung, Cordy Love, Lisa McKennedy, Dana McKenzie, Sandra Rhoads, Mary Stammer, Allison Sutphin, Sharon Walters.

Members Absent: Dave Hahn, Barbara Nowack.

Proxies: Steve Buhman for Phil Bankester, Patty Cosgrove for Brad Dillard, Allison Sutphin for Gabriele Hoffmann.

Visitors and Guests Jake Baggott, Terri Harfst, Marge Selinger, Fernando Treviño.

3. Guest

Chancellor Treviño announced that the within range salary adjustment has been approved for A/P staff. It is comparable to the within range salary increase approved for civil service employees. It allows for adjustments in the cases of employees who have completed additional educational credentials, sustained exemplary job performance or who have taken on increased job responsibilities that do not warrant re-evaluation to a higher rated position. There is no set percentage for the increase; it only has to stay within the range. It was noted that the within range salary adjustment is included as part of the newly revised Compensation Plan for A/P. Chancellor Trevi¤o then answered questions and participated in discussions on several issues, including state appropriations for SIUC and SIUE; Risk Management policies; A/P's role in recruitment and retention; the Poshard plagiarism issue; and the recent letters and editorials in the Daily Egyptian.

4. Minutes

The minutes of the September 12, 2007, meeting were approved as presented. The minutes of the September 19, 2007, meeting were corrected under the Computing Advisory Committee report (6.5b) so that the first sentence reads, "P. Cosgrove reported there has not been a meeting since February." Minutes were approved as corrected.

5. Adoption of Meeting Agenda: S. Rhoads asked to amend the agenda under 6.6b to include the nomination of a person to the Peer Review Committee. P. Curkin so moved; seconded by JP Dunn. Motion carried.

6. Reports

6.1 Chair - None.

6.2 Board of Trustees 
T. Ashner reported on the regular meeting on September 20: i) it was reported that the cost of putting a student through college has risen 3%. SIU's mission is still to get middle and low income families some accessability to higher education and at the same time be a "great research university"; ii) all of SIUC's accreditations are in good order, including for the School of Medicine. There are only 125 medical schools in the United States that are given this particular accreditation; iii) the RAMP document was presented and discussed; iv) there was a 1% growth in [SIU's] budget; v) it was reported that SURS received a full pension payment; however, there are still two full pension payments needed [to fully fund SURS]; vi) a $25 billion capital improvement bill was approved by the Senate, but still needs House approval. In it there is $145 million for SIU; $43 million for the Transportation and Education Building for the College of Applied Sciences and Arts; and approximately $21 million to fund the completion of Morris Library; vii) federal student aid has seen the largest increase since the GI Bill. The minimum income to be eligible for the Pell Grant rose from $20,000 to $30,000; viii) President Poshard has directed [a committee] to put together a plan to renovate the buildings on campus.

6.3 Springfield A/P Council - None.

6.4 Human Resources 
H. Jung asked M. Selinger if all A/P have a salary range. M. Selinger responded all non-research A/P that are considered in job content have salary levels that are determined by a job content evaluation. Positions within two reporting levels to the Chancellor do not have a salary level, for their salaries are subject to SIU system-level approval. With the new compensation plan, departments are now able to hire A/P at a salary within the minimum and the maximum of the given salary level. A letter of justification to the Director Human Resources for salaries over the midpoint is no longer required. D. Castle asked if the levels have been adjusted since the new money has come into the fiscal year. M. Selinger responded that the levels remain the same for this fiscal year.

6.5 Representatives to University Committees

6.5a Chancellor's Advisory Review - Terri Harfst 
T. Harfst reported: Students found in violation and sanctioned under the Student Conduct Code by the office of Judicial Affairs may appeal their sanction. The appeal process at SIUC has two levels. The first level of appeal is either to the Provost (academic dishonesty) or the VC for Student Affairs (social misconduct). The second level of appeal is to the Chancellor's Advisory Review Board. Appeals may only be made to the Review Board if the sanction is either disciplinary suspension or disciplinary expulsion. From January 2007 to present, 18 appeals have been made to the Review Board. The Executive Committee of the Review Board determines whether the petition has merit before it is brought before the full board. The Executive Committee has recommended that the majority of the cases be upheld and the sanction applied. The Executive Committee has recommended two cases to the full board, and one is currently pending. The Review Board will continue to hear appeals through the 2008 spring semester as requested.

6.5b Judicial Review Board - Carlos Del Rio 
C. Del Rio submitted his written report: As current chair of the A/P Judicial Review Board, he reports that no grievances have been filed with the Board for the last academic year. On March 22, 2006, a training session was held for the Board's membership. New officers were selected, and he was re-elected chair of the Board, which was ratified by the A/P Staff Council appointment. Jennifer Hammonds was added to the Board's membership, and training for her should be forthcoming. During this tenure, he has recommended to appoint an ad hoc committee to develop a flow chart that would be useful in interpreting procedures and time lines pertinent to the Board's functions.

6.5c Honorary Degrees - Paulette Curkin 
P. Curkin reported the committee met last month and established the guidelines for nominating honorary degrees and distinguished service persons. Dean Peter Alexander (Law) was elected chair of the committee. The deadline for submitting nominations is October 19. The committee will meet next month to review nominations.

6.6 Standing Committees

6.6a Executive Committee 
A. Sutphin reported that a suggestion was made at the meeting that all Council members (and proxies) should sit at the table and guests in the seats around the room. It was also suggested that all handouts be given to Council members before they are distributed to others around the room. A. Sutphin reported there was a question raised regarding the issue of defining the A/P constituency that is served by this Council.

6.6b Committee on Committees 
S. Rhoads reported that since June 2007, there have been 32 new A/P staff members hired 7 of those in September. There are 11 A/P who have been contacted by mentors; the other 21 will be contacted this month. S. Rhoads indicated she met with UWPA Director Michelle Miller about the kind of mentoring program she would like to do. The Committee on Committees may want to discuss how far it wants to go with the mentoring program. Currently, it is a simple process, and it would be very easy for it to fade away if someone does not stay on top of the issue. T. Ashner questioned whether this is something that should be included in the Operating Paper. P. Curkin responded that if the program is something the Council wants to ensure, then it should be written into the Operating Paper as a function of the Committee on Committees. However, she suggested waiting a couple of years to make sure it is a program the Council wants to continue. It was suggested the committee go through a cycle first and see how it works. S. Rhoads noted there has been both positive and negative feedback.

S. Rhoads submitted for approval the following recommendations for committee appointments:

Academic Calendar Committee 
Jon Geiger, Evaluation and Developmental Center [AcA]

Peer Review 
Claudia McIntyre, School of Medicine [SOM]

Screening Committee, Director of Student Health Center 
Pat Eckert, Continuing Education [AcA] 
John Massie, Student Health Center [AcA]

Search Committee, Dean of the College of Engineering 
Robert Sims, Minority Engineering [AcA] 
Loren Graceson-Martin, Engineering Advisement [AcA]

S. Rhoads noted that only one person would be selected for each of the latter two committees.. Nominations were approved.

6.6c Constituency Relations 
P. Curkin thanked all those who participated in the October 9 luncheon. Council members agreed it was a success and appreciated meeting those who attended from Springfield. P. Curkin reported that the Constituency Relations Committee also serves on the Excellence Through Commitment Awards Selection Committee. That committee will be meeting next week to begin the process of selecting the outstanding A/P and the outstanding teaching support A/P. She suggested people begin putting their nominations together.

6.6d Operating Paper 
P. Cosgrove reported for C. Love that the Operating Paper changes would be reported at the November meeting.

6.6e Staff Benefits - None.

6.6f Staff Welfare - None.

7. Old Business

7.1 H. Jung reported the Website Ad Hoc Committee met and began looking at the website and formulating a list of questions. Anyone with suggestions can contact H. Jung, who was elected chair of the committee.

7.2 T. Ashner expressed concern about the large number of people who do not show up for the constituency luncheon after they have reserved a seat. This has been happening for at least as long as she has been on the Council. T. Ashner believes these "no shows" should be charged the cost of the lunch. There were approximately 25 people who did not show up for lunch this year, which is an approximately $300 hit to the Council's budget. T. Ashner acknowledged that there were some people who notified the Constituencies office in advance that they would be unable to attend; however, this is still a problem that should be addressed. She asked that anyone having suggestions should contact her.

8. New Business

J. Baggott reported the Compensation Plan for A/P Staff has been approved. It does make accommodations for within salary range adjustments; there is no longer a midpoint issue. Merit raises are included, although this year it was not an option. There was a recommendation, which was not included in the plan, that addressed the scenario of people who did not receive a raise if they were promoted or hired between April 1 and June 30. However, he noticed that included with the Council's minutes from last month was a document from President Poshard that stated, "The President may grant employees who were employed prior to April 1, 2007, and are still on the active payroll as of the date of BOT approval an average salary increase of 3%. At his discretion, the President may grant a salary increase to employees promoted after March 31, 2007, with a change in salary." M. Selinger pointed out that the wording in the Poshard document states effective July 1, but if the Budget office did not sign off on the increase, it was not given.

J. Baggott indicated there were several recommendations in the full Excellence Concept Team Report that dealt with the compensation plan. He believes, for the most part, they were adopted. The one recommendation that was not adopted, and which the committee struggled with, was the idea that a merit raise, if there was one, should be tied to performance evaluation. There was also a recommendation that monetary awards up to $1000 in a single year be available to employees; that in itself is not part of the compensation plan. The plan does say, however, that "one-time monetary and/or recognition awards for excellence that do not add to the base salary may be awarded to A/P employees" in accordance with the award guidelines. Several recommendations were made about the performance evaluation, including that position descriptions be reviewed every three years and that training be provided to people outside Human Resources on how the process works. M. Selinger commented that Human Resources used to provide training all the time, but it stopped because no one was attending.

J. Baggott reported that other recommendations were to develop a guideline manual to be posted online (not yet adopted, to his knowledge); to create a staff position for each vice chancellor area or equivalent officer who would have the primary responsibility of understanding the system and helping those areas work through the process; and to conduct a post implementation review of each of the Concept Team recommendations to see what actually took place. Last week, the committee began looking at evaluating the evaluation instrument. A survey will be distributed at some point asking for feedback about how it is working. The Concept Team still has a duty to review the other recommendations to see how they are working, but the group was reconvened solely for the purpose of evaluating the performance evaluation tool. M. Selinger noted that Kathy Blackwell suggested that next year A/P may again have the option of using either the old form or the new form. There are reasons for doing that, but M. Selinger believes there really needs to be training if the new form is used.

JP Dunn distributed copies of the draft survey designed by Mary Anne Osborne and her undergraduate student assistant that evaluates the performance evaluation tool that may or may not have been used last year. P. Cosgrove pointed out that the form does not say whether it is for A/P or civil service. JP Dunn responded that the committee raised that concern; however, M. Osborne did not believe it was important. The committee disagreed because the tools are different. J. Baggott indicated the intent of the evaluation system was to come up with one tool that would serve both, but the result was that it would not be a workable solution.

9. Announcements - None.

10. Adjournment