Approved Minutes For Meeting On May 20, 2008-09

Date: May 20, 2009 (2008-2009)

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, Vern Goode, Dave Hahn, Heidi Jung, Barbara Cray Lokaitis, Dana McKenzie, Barbara Nowack, Sandra Rhoads, Amy Rose, Rod Sievers, Mary Stammer, Allison Sutphin, Sharon Walters.

Members Absent Mike Reiman.

Proxies: Steve Buhman for Phil Bankester, Dave Hahn for Jon Geiger, Allison Sutphin for Gabriele Hoffmann.

Visitors and Guests: Tuesday Ashner, Jake Baggott, Tracy Bennett, Natalie Branca, Janet Douglas, Don Laur, John Massie, Layla Murphy, Vanessa Sneed, Kim Taylor, Sue Tin, Gloria Yuncker.

3. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting on April 15, 2009, were approved as presented.

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

5. Reports

5.1 Chair 
D. Castle reported: i) legislators are attempting to have the state's budget done by May 31. The hope is that the Governor's original allocation to SIU does not change because there could be a direct impact on [the University] if it does. There appears to be momentum with the capital plan, which equates to the transportation building at the airport and Morris Library here, as well as a building for Edwardsville; ii) he attended a constituency heads meeting on April 29. The Chancellor discussed tuition and fees, which were eventually approved at the Board meeting. He noted that SIU is so far the only university in the state that has proposed or locked in tuition for the fall. The Chancellor also discussed fall enrollment projections and reported that he was pleased with the out of state numbers and is excited about the nursing and physical therapy programs. There was also some discussion about internal searches to fill two positions under the Provost; iii) he was asked to provide comments on the proposal from the Graduate Council and Faculty Senate on acting and interim titles. He spoke with H. Jung about the proposal and indicated if anyone has comments, they need to let him know by this afternoon, and he will pass them on; iv) the formal chancellor search committee met for the first time on May 5. They will meet again on June 9. He does not believe the committee will meet the rest of the summer, but anticipates bi- weekly meetings in the fall. He has seen a deadline of September 15, so things will move quickly. As he understands it, finalists will be made public and brought to campus for interviews, but it is likely not much will be heard about the search before then. There is interest in the position being expressed by viable candidates, so hopefully that will increase the quality of the pool; v) the Senior Marketing Team met on May 4, and another meeting is scheduled for June 1. The real purpose is to develop for next year SIU's first official marketing plan; this means they would actually strategically plan and budget monies to go in a purposeful direction.D. Castle submitted his final report as chair, which shows the kinds of meetings he was asked to attend, as well as the kinds of matters in which the Council is involved (see appendix 1)

5.2 Board of Trustees 
D. Castle reported the Board met on May 7. He circulated the materials for the meeting, with the reminder that the agenda and supporting documentation are available online (http://bot.siu.edu/). The Board approved all the fee and tuition increases that were proposed at the previous meeting. The student representatives voted against the Student Center Fee, the Campus Recreation Fee and the Athletics Fee, but they were all approved by the Board. Laraine Wright spoke again, but more harshly, in the public comments portion of the meeting. D. Castle reported that the Board also approved the plagiarism revisions that were reviewed by the Council, as well as the ethics requirements and something on sexual harassment, though he is unsure if it was the actual policy. H. Jung indicated she has a copy of the document that was posted with the Board [agenda] when it was supposedly going to be approved, but it looks incomplete. She would like to know where the complete document can be found. D. Castle responded that [the policy] has not gone through the Board. P. Cosgrove suggested calling the Board of Trustees Secretary for a copy of the policy. H. Jung indicated she was attempting to compare the [final] document to what was suggested by the Council. D. Castle pointed out the resolution that was approved outlines that the documents added to the Board Policies were the "Legal and Ethical Conduct Requirements" (in that is what they call sexual harassment); Personnel Policies Required by the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act; Conflict of Interest Policy; Student Loan Code of Conduct Policy; Sexual Harassment; Policy on Non-Discrimination and Non-Harassment; and the Plagiarism Policy. The [resolution] shows that the Sexual Harassment Policy was approved, but [the document was not part of the agenda], so he is unsure what was approved. H. Jung indicated she would like to know what the Board actually approved.D. Castle reported that another item on the Board agenda was an amendment to the President's contract. It was approved, but no comment was made about it, and it is unclear what was adjusted in the contract.

5.3 Human Resources (HR) - None.

5.4 Representatives to University Committees

5.4a Advisory Committee to Director of DPS - John Massie 
J. Massie presented and reviewed his report (see appendix 2). He noted that the Campus Violence Prevention Committee met throughout the school year and handled approximately 120 individuals. Many of those individuals will be dealt with through the new Saluki Cares program.

5.4b Computing Advisory - Patty Cosgrove, Don Laur 
D. Laur presented and reviewed their report (see appendix 3).

5.4c SURS Members Advisory - Jake Baggott 
J. Baggott reported on the April 14 meeting: i) as a result of Public Act 96-006, which basically abolished the boards for the pension systems, it was decided that the Executive Director of SURS would be suspended; then, once a new board is composed and operational, they will restart that process. Judy Parker is the interim executive director. She has been with SURS a long time and is very capable; ii) the 2010 effective rate of interest was established at 8%; the Controller, however, establishes the effective rate of interest for the money purchase formula, and that was set for the time at a rate lower than the other rate of interest, which was 7.5%. The money purchase formula is only available to those who were in the system prior to 2006. Anyone hired after 2005 is not eligible for money purchase; iii) investment earnings were down year-to-date at 28.6%; however, the month-to-date earnings were actually positive for the first time in several months at 3.7% for March. Assets were at a high of about $16 billion, but because of market losses, they are now around $10 billion. The funding ratio is at 38.5%, though SURS still tends to outperform most of the other investment boards; iv) the committee reviewed the SURS board election process. The board will basically be re-composed, with four appointees by the Governor and four members elected by participants (only two of which can actually be from the U of I system). He received an e-mail a few days ago that showed there were seven candidates that appeared to be certified as eligible for the board. There is a list of four candidates that are being nominated and promoted by the unions and the State Universities Annuitants Association (SUAA), though he is unsure who, if any, made it onto the actual ballot. Everyone should receive a ballot in the mail by next Friday with the names from which to choose. Those need to be returned by June 17. The results will be announced on July 2, which is when the new board will take effect. The chair of the board has already been defined by the legislation and will be Carrie Hightman, who is the chair of the IBHE and also the vice president of a utility company. C. Coppi asked if people could go to him for advice on the candidates or where they can go to get information. J. Baggott responded that anyone is welcome to call him and get his opinion.J. Baggott reported that the committee spent much time discussing the Governor's budget proposal. The proposal to increase employee contributions to SURS by 2% appears to be dead. He has not heard much discussion about any of the other proposals, so hopefully those will not persist. There were several changes that could affect some retirement benefits, but there are two protections employees have; one is the constitutional protection that prevents legislators from diminishing retirement benefits. Another protection is a constitutional provision that prevents legislators from intervening in contractual relationships. While that does not have an impact on employment contracts, it could be construed to have an impact on the retirement contracts current employees have [with SURS]. He remains concerned about new employee benefits in terms of the University's ability to recruit and retain qualified staff. He believes this will affect recruiting efforts.J. Baggott reported there was also an analysis done in an effort to look at retirement plan choices. In 1995, employees had the choice to stay with the traditional plan; choose a portable plan; or choose a self-managed plan. There has been much discussion about what should be the default. As a matter of practice, the default has been the traditional plan. Most people do not make a decision, and as a result are placed in the default (traditional) plan. The summary of that analysis is that the traditional plan tends to be the best plan for the career employees who will ultimately retire from the system. The portable plan appears to be the best plan for employees who work part of their careers at SURS-covered [institutions], terminate employment and then later take a lump sum distribution. The self-managed plan was not analyzed because it is so variable and based on choices the employee makes about investments. One of the disadvantages of the portable plan is that there is no survivor benefit; however, one can be purchased, so there are options available. The conclusion of the analysis is that the portable plan is probably the most logical retirement plan to consider as [a default] rather than the traditional plan given that most employees do not spend their entire careers with one employer; most or many have or will work at different places throughout their careers. No decision has been made as yet. This information has been provided to the committee and to the [new] board, and they will evaluate it to determine if a change should be made. The next committee meeting is scheduled for October 15 in Champaign.D. Castle asked if [SURS] is attempting to match up ages with Social Security so that retirement would not take full effect until age 62 or older J. Baggott responded that [extending the age requirement] was one of the proposals the Governor had in his budget. He does not think it will happen, at least not at present, and it is very unlikely to affect existing employees; however, any changes made will almost have to be made for new employees. D. Castle asked if anyone was advocating for the new hires. J. Baggott responded that the unions are standing up for them pretty well, and the committee also expresses its concerns.

5.4d University Joint Benefits - Vanessa Sneed, Kim Taylor 
K. Taylor presented and reviewed their report (see appendix 4), noting the report includes the names of the candidates being backed by the unions and SUAA. H. Jung asked how long the terms are for the SURS Board members. J. Baggott responded that the terms are normally six years; however, they will be staggered at the outset to maintain continuity on the Board.

5.5 Standing Committees

5.5a Executive Committee 
S. Rhoads reported on the May 8 meeting: i) the committee reviewed the minutes from the April meeting and the draft agendas for both May meetings; ii) D. Castle gave a Board of Trustees report, noting that the 2010 tuition and fee rates and policy approvals were discussed. He also gave a report on the constituency heads meeting he attended and also gave an update on the chancellor search process; iii) committee chairs were reminded to submit their final reports so they could be included with the May agenda; iv) the Conversion of Term to Continuing Administrative/Professional Appointment process was discussed.

5.5b Committee on Committees 
A. Sutphin presented the committee's final report.

5.5c Constituency Relations 
S. Walters presented the committee's final report.

5.5d Operating Paper 
S. Rhoads presented the committee's final report.

5.5e Staff Benefits 
D. Hahn presented the committee's final report.

5.5f Staff Welfare 
H. Jung presented the committee's final report.

[All final reports were included as Attachment 1 to the May agenda]

6. Old Business

D. Castle referred Council members to the proposed Resolution in Support of Conversion of Term to Continuing Administrative/Professional Appointment (see Attachment 2 to the May agenda). The Staff Benefits Committee is proposing policy changes that, if approved, will be sent up the administrative ladder for final approval. The resolution was presented for discussion and then tabled at the April meeting. D. Castle indicated he would entertain a motion to remove the resolution from the table and re-open discussion. H. Jung so moved; seconded by S. Buhman. Motion carried.D. Hahn moved approval of the Resolution in Support of Conversion of Term to Continuing Administrative/Professional Appointment; seconded by P. Cosgrove. D. Hahn reported that the only change made to the resolution since the last meeting was the addition of a "whereas" about the lack of benefits for term appointment employees. H. Jung indicated she would like to know how Council members as a whole feel about the resolution, as there has only been discussion within the Executive Committee. She believes that, although it is controversial, what is being proposed is a step forward. T. Ashner did not believe A/P accrued sick leave, noting it is only accrued if the person was hired by a certain year. P. Cosgrove responded that the resolution states term A/P are ineligible for accruable sick leave, but it does not state anything specific. Term employees accrue sick leave at a much lower rate and do not receive as many sick days as continuing A/P. H. Jung indicated that "accruable" in the resolution could refer to the seven sick leave days A/P accrue that go into a second pool that can then be used towards retirement. [All A/P] receive those days automatically every year. R. Sievers believes the resolution is a good thing, as he is aware that many people are senselessly trapped in a kind of purgatory. It is time to do something to make it fair for those who remain on term appointments. D. Castle believes there are arbitrary decisions made without knowledge by supervisors when it comes to employment conditions. His hope is that the proposed changes will provide firmer ground for debate on those decisions. D. Hahn mentioned that Human Resources told the Staff Benefits Committee that "non-recurring dollars" is the reason given for the vast majority of term contracts that are not converted. He pointed out that the actual "Notice of A/P and Faculty Appointment" papers include the following statement: "If the source of funds for this appointment is an external grant or contract, this appointment is contingent on the availability of funds in the external account." D. Hahn noted that A/P and faculty do not have a "contract" with SIU but an "appointment." Basically, what that statement means is if the money is not there, whether it is a term or continuing appointment, that appointment can be done away with, making the excuse of "no recurring dollars" a moot point. The way the policy is worded currently, all a chair or fiscal officer or whoever has to say is there are no recurring dollars, and nothing more is done. The intent of the Conversion of Term to Continuing policy was so an A/P person would not be strung along indefinitely on a term contract if there was a continuing need; obviously, that is what is occurring for some people.D. Castle noted that the Executive Committee has had more in-depth discussion on the resolution than what Council members have had here. He has heard from a few people and did not believe there was much dissent to the resolution. If there is agreement that it should go forward, he wanted the Council to understand that once it leaves here, it then becomes a negotiation with the administration. In essence, it will be left to the next year's Council to haggle with the administration. Hearing no further debate, D. Castle called for the vote. Resolution was unanimously approved.

7. New Business

D. Castle presented certificates of appreciation to outgoing Council members Heidi Jung, Sandra Rhoads, Phil Bankester, Patty Cosgrove, Gabriele Hoffmann and Mary Stammer. He thanked them all for their Council and committee service, noting in particular P. Cosgrove, who has served in various roles during her nine years on the Council; and S. Rhoads, who served as Vice Chair during the past year. On behalf of the Council, S. Rhoads presented a gavel to D. Castle for his hard work and leadership as Chair of the Council from 2008-2009.

8. Announcements

P. Cosgrove expressed appreciation to H. Jung for all her work with the revamped A/P website.

9. Adjournment