Approved Minutes For Meeting On December 17, 2008 | Administrative Professional Staff Council | SIU

Date: December 17, 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: Don Castle, Carla Coppi, Patty Cosgrove, Michael Cubley, Jon Geiger, Dave Hahn, Heidi Jung, Barbara Cray Lokaitis, Dana McKenzie, Mike Reiman, Sandra Rhoads, Amy Rose, Rod Sievers, Mary Stammer, Allison Sutphin.

Proxies: Steve Buhman for Phil Bankester, Barbara Cray Lokaitis for Barbara Nowack, Sandra Rhoads for Sharon Walters, Allison Sutphin for Gabriele Hoffmann.

Visitors and Guests: Jake Baggott, Paul Bennett, Greg Scott, Vanessa Sneed, Kim Taylor.

3. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting on November 19, 2008, were approved as presented.

4. Adoption of Meeting Agenda: M. Stammer moved to approve the agenda as amended; seconded by D. Buhman. Motion carried.

5. Reports

5.1 Chair 
D. Castle reported on the constituency heads meeting with President Poshard: i) there was discussion on the new vice chancellor position, the interim title being removed from Dr. Goldman's title, and possible changes to the interim provost title. The constituency heads were in support of any action that might lend stability to Anthony Hall. However, concerns were raised about continuing to fill positions at that level without searches. The vice chancellor position, which initially was to be a promotion for Kevin Bame, will now go to an internal search as a result of concerns that were raised by the constituency heads. It will be an internal search, with a deadline some time in January; ii) there is continued discussion on the chancellor search. [The "pre-search" committee] is working on a position description and responsibilities and is looking at individuals across the country who might make good candidates. Some of those people will be contacted in the spring and encouraged to apply; iii) the Governor's Office has asked universities to prepare for a 2.5% give-back, though there is talk of giving back as much as 8% for FY09. The President and Chancellor have indicated they do not want to give up any positions, and there will be no layoffs. There may be less funding in FY10 because the state over-budgeted and is also not getting the revenues it anticipated; iv) the constituency heads will have an opportunity to review the new marketing efforts and give input from a constituency viewpoint; v) he was asked to comment on proposed changes to the academic calendar for 2009, so there will likely be a revised calendar for next year.

D. Castle reported that at a recent constituency heads meeting, there was discussion about the Conflict of Interest Policy. Those in academic affairs may have received or been privy to a memo that came from Associate Provost Susan Logue about reporting conflict of interest activities. She is apparently attempting to take tighter constraints in implementing the policy in anticipation of changes to that policy. D. Castle indicated he has heard there is a revised policy at General Counsel and that it may have needed updating because of changes in [state] law or statutes. He is unsure whether the University is consistently enforcing the policy. H. Jung indicated that she has been reporting her activities, but there has been a recent push to have all the staff [in the library] report as well. D. Castle noted the [current] policy is online, though he believes it will change. He pointed out that there are two parts to which attention should be paid: one is how much money an employee is making at her/his outside activity; and, does it interfere with that person's primary responsibilities. It should also be noted that money is not the only factor. An employee may be doing something that conflicts with her/his job that does not make the employee any money, but could take time away from that person's job. The interpretation is that everything matters. D. Castle indicated the employee is supposed to submit their report in advance and then submit a follow-up report that explains what happened. The policy does not differentiate between academic affairs and any other area, and implementation has been inconsistent across campus. Now, this initiative is impacting a lot of people in academic affairs. He encouraged everyone to read the policy and expressed the hope that [he] will have more to report at the next meeting or two.

5.2 Board of Trustees 
D. Castle circulated the Board materials for the December 11 meeting, noting the information is also available online. He reported: i) the out-of-state tuition changes were approved for both Carbondale and Edwardsville. Beginning in the fall, those who live in certain geographic areas such as Missouri, Kentucky and Indiana can now get in-state tuition. Edwardsville changed its rate to 1.2:1 nationally and is hoping not to increase its numbers, but to attract better out-of-state students; ii) the Board approved the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance position and eliminated the [two] Executive Director levels; iii) a new board member, Bill Bonan, was seated. He is from southern Illinois and an SIU alumni; iv) some Saluki Way contracts were approved, mostly for the stadium and infrastructure; v) Evergreen Terrace, which had been under a HUD contract for many years, is now paid off and has moved into the auxiliary part of the University. This will make it eligible for bond revenue money.

5.3 Human Resources (HR) - None.

5.4 Representatives to University Committees

5.4a SURS Members Advisory - Jake Baggott 
J. Baggott distributed and reviewed a summary of the SURS Members Advisory Committee meeting on October 14, 2008 (see appendix 1). He also reported on the SURS Board meeting he attended on December 11-12 (see appendix 2). J. Geiger asked what can be done regarding the board consolidation issue since SURS is in much better shape than some of the other funds. J. Baggott responded that there is not much detail available about what it would really mean. Proponents believe it will save approximately $80 million a year, but there is no basis for that number. Until something more concrete comes forward to respond to, it is hard to say whether it is a good or bad idea. What is known is that SURS has done well with investing funds, while others have not done as well. There is likely to be more information as it develops, and there will be an opportunity to weigh in on the discussion.

5.4c Plagiarism Committee - Greg Scott 
G. Scott reviewed and discussed his report (see appendix 3). He indicated the committee's focus has been to develop proactive measures to prevent plagiarism. The thought at that time was, once these measures were developed, to "massage" them into the Student Conduct Code, the Ethics Code for Faculty and the Employee Handbook. His understanding is that the Student Conduct Code has already been reviewed and is complete. He believes that even if proactive measures are not put into those documents, having them out there to communicate to students and everyone in the University community is a step forward. His hope is that they will be shared with the constituencies as well.

H. Jung asked if the document that came from Vice President Haller (attachment 2 to the agenda) was something in which he participated. G. Scott responded that the first Plagiarism Committee developed a working guide that included the glossary of terms and definitions; then, the President's Office requested that the terminology be understandable and accurate, so a second committee was developed to review the initial work. G. Scott indicated he serves on the second committee. H. Jung asked if the document forwarded by Vice President Haller has changed. G. Scott responded that there have been no changes; the second committee's work led to the document to which she is referencing. R. Sievers asked why it was felt a separate policy was needed for the President's Office, Edwardsville and Carbondale. G. Scott responded that the separate subcommittees were given the flexibility to develop a process for how they wanted to handle the cases. He believes there is only going to be one policy. There is the policy that is basically for employees of the President's Office, and then there is the policy guide that everyone is to adhere to because it breaks down the definitions of plagiarism, the different types of plagiarism and things of that nature.

5.4b Recreational Sports and Services - Paul Bennett 
P. Bennett distributed and discussed his report (see appendix 4).

5.4c University Joint Benefits - Vanessa Sneed/Kim Taylor 
V. Sneed distributed and discussed their report (see appendix 5), noting the committee has met three times since their last report in May. J. Baggott noted that the Emeritus and Annuitant Association is a great organization and lobbies strongly for the retirement system. He encouraged employees to join. Regarding the issue of having input in benefit negotiations, D. Castle asked on what side university employees would be the union or the state of Illinois. J. Baggott responded that the unions represent employees' interests. Ideally, there would be representation for those that are not union-represented. Even on this campus, the vast majority of employees are not represented.

5.5 Standing Committees

5.5a Executive Committee 
S. Rhoads reported on the December 10 meeting (see appendix 6).

5.5b Committee on Committees 
A. Sutphin reported the committee met via e-mail to fill two committee vacancies. She presented for approval Chris Pearson (Engineering) to serve on the Search Committee for Engineering Dean; and Andrea Restoff (Education and Human Services) to serve on the University Women's Professional Advancement Committee.Nominations were approved.

5.5c Constituency Relations - None.

5.5d Operating Paper - None.

5.5e Staff Benefits 
D. Hahn reported the committee continues to explore and discuss the term versus continuing appointment issue. The committee's hope is to bring forward to the Council some solid recommendations in January.

5.5f Staff Welfare - None.

6. Old Business

6.1 D. Castle reported that after the last Executive Committee meeting, he was to draft a statement regarding the Council's stance on signature programs. He has not yet done so, but wanted to have some discussion so Council members understand where that statement might go. D. Castle explained that the Chancellor asked for comments on signature programs. He is looking for two sets of comments: one on what are signature programs; and the other is what criteria should be used to judge a signature program. The Executive Committee's first discussion on this issue resulted in concerns about allocation of resources, the haves and the have nots and that kind of dialog, as opposed to coming up with a list of programs and criteria for those programs. The discussion resulted in the response that every program on campus is of value and should be supported in such a way that it can be the best it can be under the current environment. To create signature program status versus non-signature program status creates some dilemmas, and so the Executive Committee did not want to go forward with this. When this was presented back to the Chancellor, it became clear that some of the other constituency groups were of a similar opinion, while some others came up with a list. Since that time, the Chancellor has indicated that signature programs will be defined [with or without constituency input]. One of his pushes is in marketing and representing the University [outside the state]. His idiom is, "when we go into Kentucky to recruit students, we're going to represent our signature programs and use that to recruit students to come to this campus." He did not stop the discussion about the allocation of resources and how [signature] programs might fit into this campus, but nothing has been spelled out. Since that time, D. Castle reported he has seen a draft of a policy by the Graduate Council provided to him by Bill Stevens, who is the A/P representative on the Graduate Council. The Faculty Senate had drafted a resolution, but it was withdrawn.

H. Jung expressed the concern that her criteria for a signature program might be different from someone else's. At the start, there should be a standard list of criteria on which everyone agrees; then, it can easily be evaluated which programs meet the criteria and which do not. Also, depending on a person's knowledge of all the programs on campus, some will be more fitting to make this type of decision than others. H. Jung did not believe she could make those decisions because she is not exposed to all the programs on campus and therefore would not have a well- educated understanding of them all.

D. Castle asked Council members if they wanted to discuss and define criteria on what might constitute a signature program. This may be the last chance to do so. J. Geiger asked if they would mainly be academic programs. D. Castle responded that this was never said. There was agreement that the Council should respond to the Chancellor's request for input so at least those issues raised during discussion could be addressed on the whole. As a result of the discussion, the following concerns were raised: i) some specialized areas are driven by marketing, i.e., those programs take the initiative to highlight/publicize themselves; so, to say one program is better than another [based on how much it is promoted] may not be a good idea; ii) will there be benchmarks, such as the number of students enrolled versus the number of faculty. Every program is different. If faculty lines are taken from classes with very little enrollment and moved to classes with better enrollment, that is reallocation of resources. Consequences of this "slippery slope" could be: 1) the creation of a totally homogeneous compilation of students; 2) the elimination of unique programs that have brought the University national and international renown; 3) the opportunity to expose students to other areas they may have never seen before, such as glassblowing or blacksmithing; and 4) the inability for a program to possibly become a signature program if funds are taken away and given to those programs defined as signature; iii) what happens if [the Chancellor] goes into Kentucky to promote ten signature programs, but is in a group of students who have no interest in them? The University should be marketed as a whole rather than by individual programs. Students may know what universities have good education programs, but they will want to know which one is the right fit for them. Would SIU feel more comfortable, or do they want to go to a larger university or a smaller one? Every university has great programs; will students choose on those qualifications? The University should be marketed for all the "wonderful comprehensive, odd, unique things that we are and have always been and hopefully will continue to be"; iv) students select universities for different reasons. For example, one of the areas people look at is computing resources on campus, which is not a program; v) all programs are basically signature programs because those programs going into Kentucky will not be the same programs that will be marketed in inner city Chicago, for example. This follows with the Executive Committee's original statement that every program deserves the support of the University because they all have specific audiences and specific value, and that should be used by the University as it is needed; vi) instead of attempting to identify signature programs to take to Kentucky, the University should first find out [what it is that students are interested in]--the whole idea of signature programs is backwards!

D. Castle indicated he needed some kind of direction for the statement. H. Jung volunteered to draft the statement and send it to him to finalize. On a related issue, C. Coppi asked what became of the Simpson/Scarborough report. D. Castle responded that he was provided with a copy of the report when he was placed on the marketing oversight committee. If he is able to circulate the report, he will do so. He noted that a unique aspect that was identified about SIU is its relationship to the outdoors. H. Jung asked if the Council had time to wait another month before making [a statement] to move forward. D. Castle believed there was still time.

6.2 D. Castle reported he had no proposal to act upon on the Plagiarism Policy (attachment 2 to the agenda). However, this is the Council's opportunity to provide input on the policy and endorse, not endorse or take no action one or both documents ("The Southern Illinois University Plagiarism Policy Guide for Faculty, Staff and Students," and "The Office of the President Plagiarism Policy"). D. Castle asked if the Policy Guide is the policy. G. Scott responded that the [guide] is basically being reviewed by the constituencies and believes once they receive this feedback, it will be taken to the Board of Trustees. He was told that the guide, though a draft, is what is being used currently; right now, it is the policy should something occur in the meantime. Then, it will be used as a benchmark.

There were questions raised as to why there was a separate policy for the President's office. D. Castle explained that normally what happens is the Board has a policy, and Carbondale has its own policy that implements and falls under the umbrella of the bigger policy. The guide discusses how the President's Office shall appoint an inquiry committee; [that office] is in charge of implementation, so it is possible that they are required to have a second policy in place to cover their operations. H. Jung believes that if this is the case, that there are two different policies, then the guide is incomplete because it does not address what happens if someone is accused of plagiarism. The President's Office policy does explain the process, which includes [possible charges of plagiarism being brought to and acted on by that office]. This in itself raises a concern similar to the one she had with the Sexual Harassment Policy one person/office having all the decision-making power.

R. Sievers asked if the chair of the Plagiarism Committee could come and speak to the A/P Staff Council. G. Scott responded he could take the concerns back to the committee chair. D. Castle questioned how the [guide] relates to the Student Conduct Code and the Employee Handbook. He suggested that possibly the [Plagiarism Policy] is the total policy of the Board, and everything else being discussed [(the guide)] is spelled out specifically under the various codes and handbooks. That being the case, then the guide sets the definitions, but the policy to be followed is a campus policy, and Edwardsville might have a campus policy as well. G. Scott agreed, indicating that is the way he understands it also; [he would like to see] some of the proactive measures he mentioned previously included in the Student Conduct Code and some of the other documents already in place. H. Jung indicated the definitions in the guide are helpful; it just seems incomplete. D. Castle believes [the guide] fits into a larger masterpiece of managing plagiarism. It specifically lays out definitions, glossary and guidelines. It is not a policy to adjudicate a charge of plagiarism, whereas the President's policy does. So, if someone were to be charged with plagiarism, the guide would help with understanding the definitions of what that means; but then the person would be processed through whatever policy is appropriate for her/him as a University employee versus a student or faculty, who would go through a different process.

H. Jung raised a concern on page four of the policy guide where it describes "context." It refers to an accusation of plagiarism, followed by factors that should be taken into account. She believes the second sentence is too wordy and unclear. The sentence is saying so much that by the end it is hard to remember what it said at the beginning. Hearing no other concerns on the guide, D. Castle asked if there were any concerns regarding the Office of the President Plagiarism Policy. H. Jung responded that she is unsure if anywhere in the document it states whether the President has the authority to override the investigation committee's decision. She believes that rules should be consistent, whether it is about sexual harassment or plagiarism, when it comes to accusing and finding guilt or innocence. She was unsure whether or not the policy was giving that kind of power. G. Scott responded that he did not see anything [in the policy] where the President would have that authority; the investigation committee would make that decision. D. Castle noted the policy also governs the two chancellors in their activities.

D. Hahn asked if the Council needed to give its approval or not on the policy and guide. D. Castle indicated that the Council could simply respond that the policy seems fine and is a good thing; or, these are recommendations for some changes; or, it does not want this policy. D. Hahn believes the President's policy is somewhat hard to address because most staff are not involved with that office. As far as the guide is concerned, without knowing how it is going to apply to the different groups such as students, faculty and staff, it is hard to address how the guide will connect with the various situations that could arise. D. Castle indicated that D. Hahn's comment is a response. The Council can state that it is concerned about the implementation of the policy. A. Rose noted that the Student Conduct Code was recently revised, and plagiarism is not addressed. G. Scott indicated it was his impression that some of the things that were discussed in his subcommittee would be included in the Conduct Code. He supposed that could still happen. A. Rose indicated there is a section in the Code that is like a catch-all; one of them is "violations of other duly promulgated regulations or policies." So, if this becomes a policy, it could technically fall under that section as a violation. A. Sutphin believes it is almost impossible to comment on the [policy and guide] with it being in so many different pieces. It is hard to get the big picture in order to really effectively make comments.

D. Castle asked how the Council wanted to pursue acquiring more information on the plagiarism policy. H. Jung believes since the Council was asked for its opinion, it needs to comment. She volunteered to draft a response. D. Castle indicated the Council can approve or react to a statement at the next meeting. H. Jung mentioned she will incorporate her concerns, and if anyone else has comments, they should mail them to her quicky. G. Scott indicated that if there is anything D. Castle or Council members feel he can do in the meantime, let him know.

7. New Business - None.

8. Announcements

9. Adjournment