Approved Minutes For Meeting On November 18, 2009

Date: November 18, 2009

Program:

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

2. Roll Call

Members Present: Tuesday Ashner, Jake Baggott, Steve Buhman, Janet Douglas, JP Dunn, Pat Eckert, Jon Geiger, Vern Goode, Barbara Lokaitis, Dana McKenzie, Amy Rose, Rod Sievers, Allison Sutphin, Sue Tin, Sharon Walters, Gloria Yuncker.

Members Absent: Natalie Branca, Carla Coppi, Mike Reiman.

Proxies: Allison Sutphin for Layla Murphy, Sue Tin for Barbara Nowack.

Visitors and Guests: Tracy Bennett, Susan Edgren.

3. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting on October 21, 2009, were corrected under the Staff Welfare Committee report (5.5f) to show it was G. Yuncker rather than B. Nowack who was the person speaking. The minutes were approved as corrected.

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

5. Reports

5.1 Chair 
J. Baggott reported the constituency heads have not met since October, though there has been much activity, culminating in the announcement of Rita Cheng as the new chancellor. J. Baggott also expressed appreciation to Don Castle for his role on the Chancellor Search Committee. S. Buhman asked whether it is possible the new chancellor will begin her duties prior to June 1. JP Dunn believes she will be transitioned in up until her actual start date.

5.2 Board of Trustees 
J. Baggott reported the Board will not meet until December 10, at which time the hiring of the new chancellor will be approved.

5.3 Human Resources (HR) - None.

5.4 Representatives to University Committees

5.4a Traffic and Parking - Rescheduled to January.

5.4b Honorary Degrees - Susan Edgren 
S. Edgren submitted and reviewed her written report (see appendix 1to the minutes). She added that as an A/P staff member, she was disappointed that the letter sent out by Dennis Cradit, chair of the committee, did not go to individual staff members; rather, it was addressed to faculty, deans, department chairs and constituency heads. S. Edgren indicated that when she questioned why the letter was not sent to staff, she was told that the announcement was posted on Saluki Times for three weeks. Her recommendation would be that, in the future, the letter the A/P Staff Council Chair receives be forwarded to the Constituencies Office for posting on the listserv. She noted it was the first time since 1950 that no one was nominated for a distinguished service award.

5.4c SURS Members Advisory - Jake Baggott 
J. Baggott submitted and reviewed his written report (see appendix 2to the minutes).

5.4d Plagiarism Commmittee - Greg Scott 
G. Scott submitted his written report (see appendix 3 to the minutes).

5.5 Standing Committees

5.5a Executive Committee 
J. Baggott reported the committee met and reviewed the agenda for November, as well as discussed issues that came up in some of the committee reports.

5.5b Committee on Committees - None.

5.5c Constituency Relations 
A. Rose reported the committee met as part of the A/P Excellence Through Commitment Awards Committee. The deadline to submit nominations is 4PM on January 21, 2010. The group will meet again on January 29 to select the recipients of the outstanding A/P staff member and the outstanding A/P teaching support awards.

5.5d Operating Paper 
R. Sievers distributed and reviewed his written report (included asappendix 4 to the minutes). He asked for input from the Council on the issue of Springfield representation. B. Lokaitis commented that it is somewhat frustrating for those Council members in Springfield to give of their time and express their opinions when many times they are not provided with the handouts that are often distributed at Council meetings. Therefore, they have no point of reference as issues are being discussed. B. Lokaitis reported that she did attend the [Springfield] A/P Council meeting held in November, and she shared information with them on the issues discussed at this meeting. She indicated there is a Carbondale representative on the Springfield Council who was teleconferenced into that meeting. G. Yuncker commented that, from her standpoint, it is difficult knowing that when decisions are made, they will not impact her. She is still attempting to understand the role she plays on the Carbondale Council when there are two different HR departments, standards and policies. It is hard to see how it benefits Springfield to attend [Carbondale] meetings. Now that there is a liaison [from the Carbondale Council to the Springfield Council], her hope is that it might improve, and she will be able to share some of the information that is discussed at this meeting with the Springfield Council. Possibly, then, everyone will be on the same track. A. Sutphin commented that she was not aware there is a person in Carbondale who acts as a liaison in Springfield, and she is from the School of Medicine. It was noted that the Carbondale liaison is Sarah Merideth.J. Baggott asked those in Springfield if they believe there is or could be some value to their membership on this Council. He indicated the Council is attempting to determine what makes the best sense given the difference in the campuses and their policies. B. Lokaitis believes there could be a benefit to the Springfield representatives, though she did not feel it today. G. Yuncker believes strides have been made, simply by becoming aware that there was a Council in Springfield. In the short time they have been associated [with the Carbondale Council], they have learned much by sitting in and understanding their own structure. How the two work together in the future is the question. T. Ashner mentioned that when she was chair of the Council, they did some investigating and found that the Springfield Council does have operating papers. She believes there was progress made, but the fact is that membership changes every year, and possibly new Springfield members [are not properly oriented]. A. Sutphin expressed confusion as to whom she would contact if, for instance, she was harassed. She is based in Carbondale, but does she fall under Springfield's policies? Who would she contact about [an HR issue?] T. Bennett responded that A. Sutphin would fall under Carbondale's [policies] because that is where she works. However, the HR office she would need to contact would be in Springfield because all of the Carbondale-based School of Medicine A/P staff are hired and processed through Springfield.A. Sutphin believes it is important to have a voice at the School of Medicine here since there are A/P from Carbondale who sit on this Council; however, she questioned whether they need as many representatives as they have currently. J. Baggott asked, given the model the Springfield Council has with a liaison from Carbondale, if they believe a liaison or ex officio role would provide that connection between the two Councils in terms of information sharing. B. Lokaitis believes they at least owe it to themselves to try. J. Baggott asked if changing the representation from Springfield to a liaison or ex officio role would have any appeal to them. B. Lokaitis responded that she currently [acts] in that role for the Council in Springfield; she attends meetings and takes notes, but does not vote. She then comes back to this group and reports. It was noted that S. Meredith is a voting member of the Springfield Council. T. Ashner suggested [the Operating Paper Committee] could set up a model similar to what is being used in Springfield. [Council members from Springfield] could be phased out as their terms expire. J. Baggott believes some change is needed to make it more equitable and effective. R. Sievers indicated that if there is no objection, the committee can craft a proposed change to the Operating Paper and bring it back to the Council based on what has been discussed. V. Goode asked if it is intentional that there is always a Carbondale representative on the Springfield Council. B. Lokaitis responded that it is intentional.In other business, R. Sievers reported the committee has been discussing the issue of term limits for Council members. The current Operating Paper states that members can serve one three year term and then step down for a year before being re-elected. He believes the reason for this was so that more people could participate; but, is that happening? He asked the Council for feedback. A. Sutphin asked if there are problems [getting] new people to serve. J. Baggott noted the elections are rarely contested. It was also pointed out that many of the same people return after a year; some people may need that one year break; many times it takes a year or two to get oriented with how everything works; and with approximately a third of the membership being replaced, it can be hard to get going again. J. Baggott noted that any changes to the Operating Paper will have to be forwarded to the constituency as a whole; this will give them an opportunity to weigh in on the two issues. R. Sievers indicated the committee will meet to draft recommendations on the issues and bring them back to the Council.

5.5e Staff Benefits - None.

5.5f Staff Welfare 
J. Baggott (for C. Coppi) distributed a copy of the committee's report (included as appendix 5 to the minutes). He reported that at a previous Council meeting, the committee reported on its recommendations for the sexual harassment procedures (the committee had been asked to provide feedback on the proposed procedures). As a result of that meeting, he and C. Coppi met with Associate Provost Susan Logue to review in some detail the issues that were of concern. The end result was that S. Logue believed most of the issues that were presented were somehow incorporated into the language already, though he and C. Coppi do not necessarily agree. J. Baggott noted that the Council was not asked to approve the proposed procedures, but to provide feedback. When the issue was discussed in Executive Committee, there was a suggestion that perhaps a resolution be sent forward communicating the Council's concerns so there would be some formal document on record. Consequently, C. Coppi drafted a resolution, which is now being presented to the Council for consideration and vote. J. Baggott noted the "resolved" reads, "...that the SIUC Administrative and Professional Staff Council urges the SIU Board of Trustees to incorporate the suggestions submitted by the Staff Welfare Committee into the final draft of the Sexual harassment Complaint and Investigation Procedures." He pointed out that it is not the Board that approves the procedures, but rather the chancellors for each campus. He indicated this would be corrected.There was brief discussion and some editing of the wording of the resolution to make it more consistent and concise. T. Ashner expressed confusion about the wording that states there were repetitions from a review done in November 2008. J. Baggott explained that the previous Council addressed the procedures and made recommendations at that point. J. Geiger asked if C. Coppi believes the previous recommendations fell on deaf ears, and that is why the Council is again putting them forward. J. Baggott believes that is a fair assessment. [V. Goode] asked if the 2008 recommendations were formally submitted by the Council. S. Walters believes they were submitted [in writing to the Chancellor]. J. Baggott pointed out that the Council was not asked to approve the procedures, but was given the opportunity to provide feedback, which has been done thus far. If the Council chooses to adopt the resolution, it will be forwarded to the Chancellor, with a copy to S. Logue, General Counsel Jerry Blakemore and Board of Trustees Chair Roger Tedrick. J. Geiger asked if any of the recommendations made in 2008 were actually adopted. S. Walters responded that some, but not all, were incorporated.Resolution Requesting the Recommendations Submitted by the Staff Welfare Committee be Added to the Final Draft of the Sexual Harassment Complaint and Investigation Procedures was approved.[see appendix 6 to the minutes].

6. Old Business - None.

7. New Business

J. Baggott reported the Faculty Senate has approved a resolution concerning the formation of a chancellor's budget policy committee. The Senate would like the [constituency groups] to consider approving a similar resolution. J. Baggott explained that a chancellor's budget advisory committee has been in existence in various forms for several administrations and has included representation from various constituency and other groups. Previous committees have advised the chancellor on issues of budget and planning. J. Baggott noted he serves on the current Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee representing the auxiliaries; Phil Bankester is the A/P Staff Council representative on the committee. J. Baggott believes the Faculty Senate would like the faculty to have a more definitive and greater role on the committee than it has had in the past. The incoming chancellor has had experience with a [budget policy committee], so it will be interesting to see how she will handle this issue. He pointed out the "resolved" of the resolution states the committee would "make formal recommendations," which means the recommendations may or may not be adopted. T. Ashner did not believe the committee could make an organization reallocate funds in any way other than how it wanted. S. Edgren, who previously served as the A/P representative on the committee, does not believe there are people on the committee who have the background knowledge to make the types of budgetary decisions that are needed. R. Sievers agreed, indicating it should be left in the hands of the professionals hired to do so. S. Edgren pointed out that there are intricacies with the budgeting process that are complex, and a person cannot sit in a meeting and [easily] understand the whole process of transferring funds and taking out bonds, etc. She believes the committee should be advisory in making recommendations rather than be a decision-making body.R. Sievers expressed concern that the committee could become weighted in favor of one group over another, thus having one group making all the budget decisions. V. Goode asked if the current committee formulates and sends recommendations to the Chancellor. S. Edgren responded that it is more information sharing from the administration side. There have been good recommendations made that were taken into consideration, but the final decisions [are not] made at the committee level. Additionally, if the committee were to make binding recommendations that were not satisfactory, whose responsibility would that be? V. Goode believes using the word "recommendation" still makes the decision someone else's. P. Eckert noted that when P. Bankester reported last, he indicated the committee had not met very often under the present chancellor. S. Edgren responded that prior to the current chancellor (and with the exception of the last chancellor), the committee met frequently. J. Baggott believes the chancellor needs the best advice s/he can get, and [possibly] there should be some kind of formalized committee. S. Buhman agreed, adding it may give them a little more teeth. J. Baggott was unsure whether Chancellor Goldman would act on the [resolution] or wait and let the new chancellor address the issue; however, that does not mean the Council should not consider the issue. He indicated he would prefer to work on the resolution and come back with something that belongs more to the Council. S. Edgren did not believe it was a bad thing to have an articulated statement on the role of the committee, though she questioned how the committee at SIUE is different that the current Advisory Committee if it is also advisory to the chancellor. R. Sievers pointed out that the Senate wants to call it a budget policy committee. T. Ashner agreed with S. Buhman that the Senate possibly wants to give the committee more teeth. Any committee should have the right to make recommendations, and likely [the current committee] feels the process is pretty much one-way. J. Baggott thought the original intent of the proposed committee was to provide planning and budget advice, though the title suggests it be a policy committee; he is unsure that will be accepted. He indicated he could meet with the Senate president and discuss the issue. J. Geiger suggested the issue be tabled until J. Baggott had an opportunity to speak with the Senate president and bring his ideas about what was discussed, then bring the issue back to the next meeting for a possible [action]. J. Baggott indicated he would meet with P. Howze before the next meeting. In the meantime, the Executive Committee can arrange a meeting and include P. Bankester to consider a possible resolution.

8. Announcements - None.

9. Adjournment