Approved Minutes For Meeting On November 19, 2008

Date: November 19, 2008

Program:

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

2. Roll Call

Members Present: Phil Bankester, Don Castle, Carla Coppi, Heidi Jung, Barbara Cray Lokaitis, Dana McKenzie, Barbara Nowack, Mike Reiman, Sandra Rhoads, Amy Rose, Rod Sievers, Allison Sutphin, Sharon Walters.

Proxies: JP Dunn for Jon Geiger, Mike Reiman for Patty Cosgrove, Allison Sutphin for Gabriele Hoffmann, Sharon Walters for Dave Hahn.

Members Absent: Michael Cubley, Mary Stammer.

Visitors and Guests: Phil Gatton, Cathy Hagler, Marge Selinger.

3. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting on October 15, 2008, were approved as presented.

4. Adoption of Meeting Agenda: D. Castle noted that Jake Baggott and Greg Scott were unable to attend the meeting, but will be rescheduled for next month. C. Coppi moved to approve the agenda as amended; seconded by S. Rhoads. Motion carried.

D. Castle introduced C. Hagler, who briefly discussed the Excellence Through Commitment awards. She reported that nomination packets are now being accepted for the Outstanding Civil Service Staff and Outstanding Civil Service Teaching Support awards. The deadline for submitting packets is January 21, 2009. Further information and nomination criteria can be found on the web at http://www.siuc.edu/ExcellenceAwards/AP_CC/CCHome.html.

5. Reports

5.1 Chair 
D. Castle reported: i) the Council will have a luncheon at noon at the Student Center [Kaskaskia Room] prior to its Council's meeting on December 17. The meeting will be held in the same room at 1PM; ii) at the last two constituency heads meetings, discussion has centered on signature programs. The Council's Expanded Executive Committee discussed the possibility of identifying or defining what are signature programs. A concern was raised as to whether a signature program would deserve more resources than a non-signature program. The Chancellor has not given the constituency heads much direction, but D. Castle believes there is a two-fold purpose to the dialog--one is a simple marketing proposal, and another is taking a hard look at, and possibly doing something about, programs that may not be worthy. P. Bankester commented that he has had some discussions with the Chancellor on the concept of signature programs, and he believes the issues for the Chancellor are marketing and promotion of the University-- identifying those things the University does best and can brag about. D. Castle indicated that if A/P want to have a say in the signature programs, then he can collect those comments. He noted there are two ways to answer the question of signature programs; one is to determine what kind of criteria defines a signature program; and the other is to define what are signature programs. He believes the Chancellor is attempting to collect as much feedback as he can from across campus to make the list of programs as inclusive as possible; iii) the Governor made a non-specific statement about possible give-backs with respect to the budget. The University always withholds contingency funds at the start of the year, though it is unclear whether the give-back will go beyond that pool of funds; iv) at the Faculty Senate meeting on November 18, the Chancellor announced there will be a Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance. The constituency heads have not discussed this, but he will keep the Council posted; v) the Council needs to move forward with feedback on the plagiarism policy. The policy is available on the website through the Council's October agenda. He would like the Council to take action at its December meeting. Council members are encouraged to review the policy and provide him feedback.

5.2 Board of Trustees 
D. Castle reported the Board did not meet in November. The next meeting is scheduled for December 11 in Carbondale. The differential tuition policy was to have been approved in November, but it will likely be on the agenda for December.

5.3 Human Resources (HR) - None.

5.4 Representatives to University Committees

5.4a SURS Members Advisory - To be rescheduled.

5.4b Traffic Appeals - To be rescheduled.

5.4c Plagiarism Committee - To be rescheduled.

5.5 Standing Committees

5.5a Executive Committee 
S. Rhoads reported on the November 19 meeting (see appendix 1). D. Castle noted the chancellor pre-search committee will be meeting later in the afternoon. They are reviewing the job description and how to entice candidates to apply. The committee is attempting to build a pool of candidates so that when the search is announced, there will be qualified applicants in the pool.

5.5b Committee on Committees 
A. Sutphin reported the committee was asked to submit three names for the CASA interim dean search. The following are being presented for approval: Natalie Branca, Education Student Services; Letitia Bullard, Information Technology; and Allison Sutphin, Information Resources (School of Medicine). Nominations were approved.

5.5c Constituency Relations 
S. Walters reported the material for the A/P Excellence awards will be going out shortly. Last year, there were only around eight or nine total nominations submitted. The committee would like to increase that number this year.

5.5d Operating Paper - None.

5.5e Staff Benefits 
S. Walters (for D. Hahn) reported the committee is waiting for information from M. Selinger on the term versus continuing contracts. M. Selinger noted that she is mostly finished with collecting the information and is waiting for D. Hahn to return so she can go over it with him.

5.5f Staff Welfare 
i) H. Jung reported the committee met and drafted recommendations regarding the Eco-Dawgs proposal (included as Attachment 1 to the agenda). S. Walters noted D. Hahn's concern about the proposed fee being forced rather than voluntary. P. Bankester believes a forced fee would set a bad precedent and potentially open the door for others to create a forced fee because they would see their projects as being as important.

P. Gatton explained that the Eco-Dawgs Project was drafted by a student environmental group. Last year, that group submitted the proposal to both the USG and GPSC requesting that a fee be placed upon students [to fund the project]; both groups turned it down. The students involved in the project then took it out into the public and obtained enough [student] votes to put it back on the agenda. Since that time, he has been working with the document through a task force set up by the Chancellor and chaired by Vice Chancellor Dietz. Their charge was to take the information in the document and draft a typical fee structure proposal that would go to the Board of Trustees. The [initial student group] is continuing their attempt to get the proposal back on the agenda of both the USG and GPSC. This is something the students feel strongly about; however, the issue causing the most concern is the 10% premium fee. He believes the students' perspective is if they have to pay for something and pass it on to all students, they would like to see at least some interest from the faculty and staff to do the same. P. Gatton believes there are issues in the proposal that have a lot of merit, and he does not want [A/P staff] to come off to students as unreceptive to their needs. The students are truly interested in seeing more sustainable efforts on campus. Plant and Service Operations has already implemented many initiatives that are sustainable in nature that no one knows about, but there is no central entity that is organizing their sustainable efforts. It should not just be about Physical Plant; it should be a recruiting tool. The students would like to see a Sustainability Council with a lot of involvement from students, faculty and staff. The thought is if a fee is approved, there will be the potential to do more sustainable projects and possibly promote that. P. Gatton indicated the question the task force has struggled with is how to get the Sustainability Council started and who should be involved. Obviously, not everyone will be accepting of a fee, and it is likely the only way it will happen is voluntarily. What he would like is for the Council to soften its response and encourage students to continue their participation. C. Coppi asked P. Gatton if the proposal could be revised with input from people like him who really know what is and is not feasible. She believes much of what is being proposed is "pie in the sky." P. Gatton agreed, noting the first thing that has to be done is an assessment. The University really does not have a handle on what is being done with respect to sustainability. He believes the first important element is to determine where the University is at and where it wants to go. Regardless of whether the fee is approved, the formation of the sustainability group is very important. In the short term, there is a need for people who are interested in volunteering and who have a strong interest in seeing this succeed.

H. Jung asked what the task force has been asked to do. P. Gatton responded that, as far as he knows, their only mission was to create a Board matter on a fee structure that discusses the fee and why there is a need for the fee. He indicated that the students are very concerned about passing a fee upon themselves and then not having control of that fee. They are concerned that there will be a number of individuals appointed to the Sustainability Council that do not have an interest in sustainability. They are therefore asking that they be able to interview [nominees] to see if there is truly an interest because there need to be very strong advocates for the program, or it will not be successful. Students are also concerned that the fee will go towards salary dollars for the proposed A/P position. They believe it is something the University should support. The students are simply looking for a way to kick off the proposal. He acknowledged that it is written very broadly but was written that way in order to attract students' attention. It is likely not the direction they will go. C. Coppi asked P. Gatton to assure the students that the Staff Welfare Committee is also concerned about the fee money going toward the salary for that position when it should come from isolated state dollars.

D. Castle asked if there can be an advisory board without the fee. P. Gatton responded there can be and, in fact, that is what the task force is recommending to the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor. There are already a certain number of individuals who have volunteered to serve, [and the hope is] that by the time a fee comes up for a vote by the Board, they will be aware that a council is in place. D. Castle indicated the Council would likely be in support of creating an advisory board to help administer sustainability projects. The Staff Welfare Committee was charged with reviewing the proposal, from which came the recommendations. Since there is really no formal proposal to assess A/P staff a fee, the Council does not have to act upon [the committee's] recommendation. If there is a formal proposal to create an advisory board, he believes A/P would want to have some kind of say and have constituency representation on that advisory board.

P. Bankester asked if there is a possibility that the Board matter could go to create a council without a fee attached this year. P. Gatton believes it could, noting the Chancellor has the right to create that entity without going through [the Board], and that is what Vice Chancellor Dietz has been asked to do. D. Castle asked Council members if they wanted to take any action on any part of the Eco-Dawgs proposal or if they want to just wait and see what happens. P. Bankester suggested making a statement that the Council applauds and encourages the students in this endeavor and looks forward to hearing more about it as time goes [on] since there is nothing for the Council to react to at this point. D. Castle responded the Council can generally say that, and P. Gatton could generally communicate that back; or, the Council could make a formal motion. P. Bankester suggested tabling discussion on the Eco-Dawgs proposal until a future time and letting P. Gatton convey informally the Council's discussions that Council members believe it is a laudable concept and would support it in general. R. Sievers moved to table the committee's recommendations on the Eco-Dawg Proposal; seconded by P. Bankester. Motion carried.

ii) H. Jung reported the Staff Welfare Committee was asked again to review the proposed sexual harassment policy and make any recommendations, most specifically regarding electronic sexual harassment. She reviewed the committee's recommendations (included as Attachment 2 to the agenda), which address first the Policy and then the Complaint and Investigation Procedures. H. Jung indicated the committee's recommendation for the Policy is to include phone communication in the definition of sexual harassment. The committee did not feel it was addressed at all. There was a question as to how to prove telephone harassment unless the conversation is recorded. P. Bankester noted the section refers to what constitutes sexually explicit materials; whether or not it is something that can be substantiated is another matter. Certainly, verbal comments or e- mails could constitute harassment.

H. Jung reviewed the recommendations for the Complaint and Investigation Procedures. She expressed concern about item 7, which addresses how much time a person has before s/he can make a complaint. What happens if a victim does not know who is the harasser and may not know for some time? When does the clock begin at the start of the harassment or once the harasser is known? She is unsure how this can be worded in the policy. It is a whole other avenue of harassment that is not being considered, particularly if the harasser is using electronic mail [with a bogus e-mail account]. D. Castle questioned whether a complaint has to identify the harasser or if it can be filed based on the harassment without identifying the harasser. He reminded Council members that whatever they move forward on will go to the Sexual Harassment Working Group, which is collecting comments. Individual comments have already been funneled to that group. What is being discussed now is the Council's response. Much of what has been discussed has already been forwarded, but this is the Council's opportunity to comment on the policy and move that forward to the Working Group.

H. Jung commented that under item 8, she thought it would be valuable to include some explanation on how to handle a complaint that is being investigated by the police. For example, if a victim has gone to the police because it is a [criminal] matter, and the victim is told by the police to wait before making a formal complaint on campus until they can finish their investigation. This could make things difficult if the investigation is lengthy and exceeds the Sexual Harassment Policy time limit. The victim may not [take the campus recourse], believing the police will help them, and may not understand that these are two different avenues. H. Jung questioned whether the complaint to the police could count as the start of the official time the harassment began [for purposes of the campus Sexual Harassment Policy]. D. Castle noted that just because the police ask the victim not to say anything does not mean that person cannot. JP Dunn mentioned that, at the same time, the victim does not want to derail the police investigation. D. Castle responded that victims could possibly give up rights they may not totally understand. H. Jung thought it might be something someone would understand if it was spelled out better; however, she is unsure [the administration] would be willing to spell it out in the policy.

S. Walters indicated that D. Hahn made some comments about what happens to someone who makes false accusations, particularly if, for example, [the person is civil service and past her/his probationary period]. H. Jung believes false accusations are addressed in the policy. JP Dunn added that anyone can be terminated for just cause. D. Castle noted that the recommendations are simply comments that are going forward. The Council will see the revised policy before it is enacted and will have another chance to react. H. Jung indicated if there is agreement on sending the recommendations forth, she would like to add the comment D. Castle made about at least asking the question as to whether a complaint can be made without identifying the accuser. In that way, at least the complaint is documented so that if the harasser is identified, the time line will have been met. D. Castle asked if Council members were willing to amend item number 7 of the recommendations to include the question of whether a complaint can still be filed in the event the harassment occurs anonymously so that it would meet the statute of limitations requirement; then, when/if the harasser's identity is discovered, an investigation could then be initiated. Council members agreed to this amendment. Recommendations on the Sexual Harassment Policy and Sexual Harassment Complaint and Investigation Procedures were approved as amended. [see appendix 2]

H. Jung asked what should be done about D. Hahn's comments. JP Dunn believes the comments should be clarified, as they seem to be two separate issues. D. Castle responded he could forward D. Hahn's comment to the Working Group as a separate comment. S. Walters was asked to forward D. Hahn's comments to D. Castle. D. Castle noted that anyone can forward comments to the Working Group, although he has shepherded comments on from Council members.

6. Old Business - None.

7. New Business - None.

8. Announcements

D. Castle reminded Council members about the December luncheon and indicated they should contact the Constituencies Office as to whether they will attend.

9. Adjournment