Approved Minutes For Meeting On January 20, 2010

Main Content

Date: January 20, 2010

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, Natalie Branca, Steve Buhman, Carla Coppi, JP Dunn, Pat Eckert, Jon Geiger, Barbara Lokaitis, Dana McKenzie, Layla Murphy, Barbara Nowack, Rod Sievers, Allison Sutphin, Sue Tin, Sharon Walters, Gloria Yuncker.

Members Absent: Mike Reiman.

Proxies: Jake Baggott for Amy Rose, Steve Buhman for Janet Douglas, Sharon Walters for Verne Goode.

Visitors and Guests: Tracy Bennett, Bill Stevens.

3. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting on December 16, 2009, were approved as presented.

4. Adoption of Meeting Agenda: It was noted that item 5.4b Student Center Board report, will be rescheduled. JP Dunn moved to adopt the agenda; seconded by R. Sievers. Motion carried.

5. Reports

5.1 Chair 
J. Baggott reported the constituency heads have not met since December. He noted that at one of the Council's previous meetings, there was discussion about the possibility of drafting a resolution on the proposed chancellor's budget advisory committee. J. Baggott suggested the issue be tabled for now because it likely will not go anywhere until the new chancellor is in place.

5.2 Board of Trustees 
J. Baggott reported the Board did not meet in December. The next meeting is scheduled for February 11.

5.3 Human Resources (HR) 
T. Bennett reported that auditors from the State Universities Civil Service System will be on campus January 26-29 to audit HR's practices. The audit will include a random sampling of A/P positions in order to determine if the exemptions made by HR are appropriate.

5.4 Representatives to University Committees

5.4a Traffic and Parking - To be rescheduled.

5.4b Student Center Board - To be rescheduled.

5.4c Graduate Council Representative - Bill Stevens 

B. Stevens reported that Graduate Council meetings typically begin with comments by the Chancellor, followed by reports from both the Vice Chancellor and Associate Vice Chancellor for Research. Rarely does any of the sometimes spirited discussion make it into the meeting minutes. He can recall only two instances when the spirited discussion had some affect: the idea of signature programs raised concerns, many of which were expressed by the A/P Staff Council; and the Sexual Harassment Policy, which the Graduate Council decided not to weigh in on because it had nothing to do with graduate research or graduate education. Many of the issues acted on by the Graduate Council deal primarily with department name changes for programs or reclassification of a group of courses. B. Stevens expressed disappointment that the Graduate Council's review of the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance facility, which he directs, was not discussed. The review committee did a very thorough, meticulous job and wrote a very nice review; however, the report was simply accepted by the Graduate Council and posted on the web with instructions that it was available for reading. B. Stevens reported that he reviewed the Graduate Council's minutes and his notes, but did not see anything that would be of interest. However, he will continue to be alert to any issues that may be of interest to the A/P Staff Council.

5.5 Standing Committees

5.5a Executive Committee 
JP Dunn reported the committee met and made changes to the tentative agenda for January. He also discussed a conversation he had with one of his colleagues in the library who is also with the SIU Foundation. This person meets with the other A/P development officers, and there is a consensus that they do not know what the A/P Staff Council does. The Executive Committee decided to try and put together a one or two paragraph electronic newsletter each month, which each Council standing committee would take turns writing, to inform constituents about the Council and what it does for them. JP Dunn noted that he has conducted two surveys during his time on the Council and is still surprised to find out that there are people who do not know the Council exists or what it does.T. Ashner discussed an effort she and some of her colleagues in Institutional Advancement attempted in order to acquaint the staff in her area about the Council. She indicated that 30 A/P staff were invited to a luncheon, and 9 people attended. She would like to continue the lunches every other month to see if more people would want to come and learn more about the Council. T. Ashner believes the luncheon was successful, but she was unsure if this idea would be of interest to the Council or if it preferred to do these kinds of things by sector. In her area, they are beginning to break down events by affinity; rather than holding a large alumni reunion such as at homecoming, it will be broken down so that those with common interests are grouped together (e.g., a band group, a Greek group, etc.). She suggested the Council might consider separating out staff into smaller groups by their sectors. JP Dunn questioned whether all A/P are even aware of which sector they belong. T. Ashner responded that the people she met with were not aware there were sectors. JP Dunn suggested this could be described in one of the [newsletters]. T. Ashner noted that the luncheon she helped organize was self paid and held off campus; however, she did read in the Employee Handbook that A/P can meet and be paid if it is for the betterment of the University.J. Baggott reported that A. Rose wanted him to remind people that the deadline for nominations for the A/P Excellence Through Commitment Awards is January 21. He commented that there may be some people, himself included, who believed the award was cancelled for this year. S. Buhman responded that the awards were cancelled, but then the decision was retracted. J. Baggott indicated he was unaware of this, and it is likely other people are not as well. He questioned whether that would impact the nominations. J. Geiger mentioned that there have been no meetings of the Excellence Through Commitment Awards Selection Committee, and that may in part be because of the initial cancellation. S. Buhman indicated the only thing he received was the note the Chancellor sent out announcing the awards would be given out, but that there would be no monetary award. If anything, that will likely affect how many nominations are received. T. Ashner agreed, indicating that people who are nominated may ask their nominator to wait another year. It was noted that the winner would still receive a parking space and a certificate and would be eligible for nomination again next year. S. Walters believes most people likely would not receive the award two years in a row. It is a lot of work to put a nomination together. S. Buhman pointed out that there have been some multiple winners in some of the smaller schools. A. Sutphin noted she has not heard anything with respect to when the committee will meet.

5.5b Committee on Committees - None.

5.5c Constituency Relations - None.

5.5d Operating Paper 
R. Sievers reported the committee will be meeting in the coming weeks. It was noted that any changes to the Operating Paper would likely not impact Council elections this year. The changes must first be approved by the Council (after a first reading), then go to the constituency at large for a vote; and lastly, if approved, be submitted to the Chancellor for final approval. R. Sievers indicated the committee will need to submit the proposed changes to the Council at the next meeting in order to get the changes approved during this Council term.

5.5e Staff Benefits - None.

5.5f Staff Welfare 
C. Coppi reported that one of the committee's goals for the year was to make the constituency aware of the Council. Before creating and sending out a newsletter, the committee believes it first must have a media blitz, which will be three-fold: first, she will speak to Tom Woolf (University Communications) not only about getting a spot on Flyers Row but about writing an article on the Council for Saluki Times. She and J. Baggott will meet to come up with a one-page flyer, with bullet points that can be read in 15 seconds about "what the A/P Staff Council does for you." If an e-mail blast is done (via the announce listserv), they want to make sure people will read the flyer/newsletter. J. Douglas has agreed to design a header/logo for the Council to use that could also possibly be used as an identifier the Council could use in the future. J. Douglas will begin working on that as soon as she C. Coppi and J. Baggott can get their ideas to her. Additionally, she spoke with Pat Latch (HR) about the new employee orientation. P. Latch does an approximately five minute presentation about the Council and hands out a welcome letter [furnished by the Council office]. P. Latch indicated she would be willing to follow up after a few weeks with the Council's flyer by sending it to the departments of the new hires. This will be the initial publicity blitz, which C. Coppi hopes to accomplish within the next month. Afterwards, she will begin the newsletter. Staff Welfare will be asking for a very brief paragraph from each of the standing committees and possibly some of the special committee chairs that could be included in the newsletter. All are in agreement that the newsletter should be readable and enjoyable and not one of those cumbersome documents that people do not want to read.T. Ashner asked JP Dunn if he e-mails new A/P staff when they are hired. JP Dunn responded that he does not, but believes someone does. S. Walters responded that it used to be Committee on Committees. T. Ashner indicated she sent a welcome e-mail when she was [Council] chair (prior to the mentoring program), and then the Committee on Committees chair took that over when she left. J. Baggott asked how she became aware of the new hires. T. Bennett responded that P. Latch keeps a list of those newly hired and sends them to several departments on campus. The Council can request a list, though it will not have e-mail addresses. T. Ashner believes sending a welcome letter would be a good way to reach out to new hires. C. Coppi asked if the orientation is for all new hires or are they separated out by faculty, A/P and civil service. T. Bennett responded that they start with one big group; then, there is a breakout session for civil service to discuss those issues directly related to them (seniority, bumping, etc.); faculty and A/P are pulled into a different area to discuss those issues that apply to them. Afterwards, everyone goes back to the joint session, where HR discusses leaves, fringe benefits and different policies. The majority of the orientation takes place in one room.J. Geiger asked Council members how they found out about the Council and why they joined. He wondered how much is spoon-fed and how much is wanting to get involved and be a part of something. J. Baggott believes many people do not think about it until they are more oriented [in their jobs]; or possibly they become acquainted with someone who is or has served on the Council, which is how he became involved. C. Coppi believes it is possible to make contact with every new person, but then six months later they may forget. What the Council needs to do is dedicate itself to continuing education and make sure that whatever is sent out now is [continued]. She asked Council members how they would respond if someone were to ask, "What is the A/P Staff Council?" She asked that Council members send her and J. Baggott their responses. She would like to work them into the flyer in an effort [to generate interest in the Council, explain what it does and why they should join].R. Sievers asked if there is any interest in attempting to get a Daily Egyptian reporter to cover the meetings. C. Coppi responded that committee members did discuss the idea, but believed that T. Woolf, being A/P, would be more interested. She suggested R. Sievers could also be a conduit for convincing the DE why this would be a good story. R. Sievers was agreeable to the idea, commenting that he is aware that students work different beats. It is possible the Council is not on anyone's beat.

6. Old Business

T. Ashner indicated that some time back, J. Baggott wrote a letter to Chancellor Goldman about the change in the term to continuing policy. She asked if he has heard back from the Chancellor. J. Baggott responded that he is not aware of anything happening recently. R. Sievers indicated the proposed policy changes went before the Chancellor's executive committee. Some people had questions and were not too receptive, most likely because of the costs. That was some months ago, and he has not heard anything since. J. Baggott indicated he would ask about the policy at the next constituency heads meeting. T. Ashner believes that even if the Chancellor does not agree with the changes, he should send the Council some kind of response.

7. New Business

J. Baggott reported that it is time for spring A/P elections, and one representative is needed from each sector to form the Ad Hoc Elections Committee. He pointed out that as Council Secretary, A. Sutphin is chair of the committee. J. Baggott asked for volunteers, and the following Council members agreed to serve: JP Dunn (Academic Affairs); R. Sievers (General); and C. Coppi (Student Affairs). It was suggested that the person selected from the School of Medicine be from Springfield so she could collect [and count] those nominations/ballots. A. Sutphin indicated she would contact the Springfield representatives and ask for a volunteer to serve on the committee. J. Geiger moved to approve the membership of the Ad Hoc Elections Committee, with a representative from Springfield to be named; seconded by S. Buhman. Motion carried.

8. Announcements

T. Ashner expressed thanks to JP Dunn for sending the articles and other information about the pension plan to the discussion listserv. It is very interesting and helpful to her. J. Baggott noted that the SURS Members Advisory Committee will be holding a special meeting next week to discuss furloughs. There is much concern amongst the membership about the possible impact. SIU is not currently instituting furloughs, but the University of Illinois will be, and that has raised many questions. The Civil Service System is working on a set of rules on how to handle such a situation.

9. Adjournment