Approved Minutes For Meeting On November 17, 2010

Main Content

Date: November 17, 2010

Program:

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

2. Roll Call

Members Present: Tuesday Ashner, Steve Buhman, Janet Douglas, JP Dunn, Pat Eckert, Jon Geiger, Alfred Jackson, Layla Murphy, Sarah Olson, Mike Reiman, Amy Rose, Charlotte Sarao, Rod Sievers, Lori Stettler, Meredith Thomas, Sue Tin, Gloria Yuncker.

Proxies: Charlotte Sarao for Natalie Branca.

Visitors and Guests: Jake Baggott; Tracy Bennett; Kevin Lister; Carrie Andrews Rice; Codell Rodriguez; Yvonne Spencer.

3. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting on October 20, 2010, were amended under the Chair's report (5.1) to delete the last two sentences of item (ii). Minutes were approved as amended.

4. Adoption of Meeting Agenda: JP Dunn asked to move up the report of J. Baggott, who will be reporting on other issues. The SURS Members Advisory report will be rescheduled. T. Ashner asked to amend the agenda to add a 4.5 in order to pass around a thank you card. P. Eckert moved to adopt the agenda as amended; seconded by A. Rose. Motion carried.

4.5 T. Ashner circulated a thank you card for Chancellor Cheng for her generosity in helping to fund the annual fall luncheon.

5. Reports

5.1 Chair 
JP Dunn reported the November constituency heads meeting was cancelled because the Chancellor was out of town. He then discussed the administrative closure days, explaining that not all the bargaining units have agreed to the unpaid days. At this time, there are 2,121 employees in groups that are not represented or who agreed to the closure days; there are 1,838 employees in the bargaining units that have not agreed. JP Dunn pointed out that there have been several inaccuracies reported in both newspapers (Daily Egyptian and Southern Illinoisan), and he cautioned people to check more than one source. There are also employees who are in those bargaining units who do not agree with their union's stand on the issue. At the Faculty Senate meeting, one senator presented a white paper in favor of the closures, but the Senate took no stand on the issue. At the Chancellor's town hall meeting on November 16, she indicated that each [bargaining] group will be accountable for their share of the [funds that were not saved]. The last resort for those who did not participate in the closure days is layoffs.J. Baggott confirmed that the Chancellor made it clear that each group will be responsible for the amount of money that has to come out of that group; all the negotiations going on are strictly to the impact of that group. At some point, if there is not an agreement reached, the University will have to make a decision about putting in place the unpaid closures or some other way of [garnering the lost funds from within those groups]. The Chancellor had mentioned at the town hall meeting that there would be a website provided for people to submit questions. The website is now up, and there are already some questions coming in. They are attempting to formulate answers to those and will post them as they can.P. Eckert reported that she was asked by some people to raise this question: Since now it is a partial closure, and those bargaining units that did not agree are to report to work, who will supervise the faculty to make sure they are at work? J. Baggott responded that wherever the faculty are expected to be during [that] normal period of time is where they will be expected to be now. R. Sievers noted that the civil service range employees have come out in support of the closure days; he questioned whether the Council would want to do the same in some way, possibly by approving a resolution. He has drafted some language for Council members to consider, if they are interested. He pointed out that no one has asked A/P [their opinion], though he realizes it is not something the administration has to do. He believes the Council should at least weigh in. JP Dunn suggested this issue be discussed further under New Business.

5.2 Board of Trustees 
JP Dunn reported the next Board meeting is scheduled for December 9 in Carbondale.

5.3 Human Resources (HR) 
T. Bennett reported there is another flu shot clinic scheduled for December 7. Information is available on HR's website. Also available on the website is information about IRS limits for 2011 and the administrative closures.

5.4 Representatives to University Committees

5.4a J. Baggott indicated he will return to discuss the SURS Members Advisory Committee report. At this time, he wanted to inform the Council that the Chancellor has approved the Council's proposed changes to the "Conversion of Term to Continuing Administrative/Professional Appointment" policy. This issue goes back to when Don Castle was chair and carried over during his brief time as chair. The Council proposed the changes to provide more clarity in the policy and more review. One thing that is better defined is what constitutes recurring funds. The policy also now requires that if a position is not converted to a continuing appointment, and recurring funds is cited as the only reason for that, then it actually has to have an additional review by the vice chancellor. A review would occur every year thereafter, and of course the justification for that would likely be part of the discussion. J. Baggott also reported that the Chancellor is reviewing the Council's proposed changes to its operating paper, and he expects she will approve those some time this week. With respect to the closure days, J. Baggott reported that at the town hall meeting, there was much concern raised about those employees who are on the low end of the pay scale. The Chancellor is actively working with Vice Chancellor McCurry to establish some kind of Foundation account to help provide some relief for those employees. More information on that will be forthcoming.

5.4b Intercolegiate Athletics Advisory - Carrie Rice Andrews 
C. Andrews Rice presented and discussed her report (included  appendix 1 to the minutes).

5.4c Honorary Degrees - Susan Edgren 
S. Edgren submitted her written report (included as appendix 2 to the minutes).

5.4d Naming University Facilities - Kevin Lister 
K. Lister presented and discussed his report (included as appendix 3 to the minutes).

5.4e Chancellor's Advisory Review - Yvonne Spencer 
Y. Spencer reported that there has been some confusion as to her position on the Advisory Board, but that group has met five or six times, with about three more cases pending. She contacted Terry Huffman (Student Judicial Affairs) to discuss why she has not been contacted. They apparently have been using the alternate instead. It is her understanding that the representation was not set up that way, so he is investigating the matter.

5.5 Standing Committees

5.5a Executive Committee 
T. Ashner reported the Expanded Executive Committee met and discussed the issues raised in the Chair's report. In the discussion regarding the administrative closures, the only group not discussed was those on soft money. She reported that JP Dunn distributed the overload policy, and that was discussed. There was also some discussion about how the Council feels about the administrative closure days and about not being asked about the issue. T. Ashner indicated she drafted some tentative wording, which she distributed for consideration under New Business. She added that JP Dunn reported the University is still owed $5 million from last fiscal year. He also encouraged them to read the white paper by [Faculty Senate member] Ken Anderson.

5.5b Committee on Committees - No report.

5.5c Constituency Relations 
S. Buhman reported the committee met with Vice Chancellor Bame about the Excellence awards. Advertising is going up in all the buildings. As far as he knows, there will be a dinner, but it will not be part of the Chancellor's inaugural week. The committee is meeting again January 24 after the nominations have come in and will make the selections at that time.

5.5d Operating Paper - No report.

5.5e Staff Benefits - No report.

5.5f Staff Welfare 
A. Jackson reported that the Judicial Review Board (JRB) met for training on November 15. [The committee] will be receiving a formal request from the JRB to review its operating papers, and he will give a full report when the paperwork is submitted. Some of the changes revolve around the fact that there is no rationale given for why there are 12 members on the Board and whether there should be members from Springfield if they are not represented on the Council. JP Dunn explained that this would be a change to the JRB's operating paper, which basically follows the [grievance document]. The composition of the Board is three members from each sector, except for the School of Medicine, which has two. There is also an ex officio member which, at some point, was interpreted as being non-voting. When hearing panels are formed, there are three members that are selected by the chair of the JRB. [The committee] needs to review the JRB's operating paper, look at the grievance document and make sure they are all in alignment. The last time the operating papers were examined was 2006. JP Dunn also reported that the JRB elected officers for the year. The chair of the JRB for 2010-2011 is Amanda Phillips (Student Development); C. Sarao will be chair for 2011-2012; and Tena Bennett (Student Center) was elected recorder.

6. Old Business - None.

7. New Business

7.1 The Overload Policy (included as an attachment to the agenda) was presented for discussion. JP Dunn reported that the policy will allow A/P staff to be compensated for teaching a section of University 101 or a Saluki First Year course. Currently, there is no method of compensation. He indicated that if anyone had comments, they could forward them to him, and he will forward them to Associate Provost Susan Logue. He noted that the Faculty Senate was given an extension on the time line, which was originally November 15. A. Jackson indicated he has been getting questions about the policy because job descriptions are being rewritten in such a way that compensation cannot be given, i.e., the job description adds teaching as part of the person's duties. JP Dunn responded that a change in job description takes the signature of the employee. A. Jackson agreed, but indicated sometimes employees are not being told they have the option to say no; and what happens if someone says no to a new job description? T. Bennett responded that HR's position is that management has a right to assign the duty. If what [the employee] does is totally unrelated to teaching, then s/he would at least have a leg to stand on and [can] have a conversation about it not being a regular part of her/his position. It is those people who are already teaching voluntarily who will [most be affected]. A. Jackson indicated that people have asked him what happens when their job is being totally rewritten [so that the person is now teaching, but it is not a requirement for that position]. C. Sarao responded that if the job description is being totally rewritten, then [that person] should be the employee that fits in that job, and a search should be conducted. She added that the policy was developed to help faculty who teach continuing education classes. Compensation for A/P teaching 101 classes is just a side benefit. P. Eckert explained that faculty have been getting overload assignments for years. By law, they cannot make more than 20% for extra assignments. If they are working on a project of load, they can be compensated for that.T. Ashner asked if the policy is only for teaching overload. She had mentioned in Executive Committee whether the tripling of someone's job duties could be considered overload. P. Eckert responded that [a person could be compensated] if it is something totally different than what is a normal part of the person's job responsibilities. T. Ashner asked what if someone left her office, and she was asked to cover that position during the six months of the job search. JP Dunn responded that he is aware that in some cases, faculty have been asked to fill in as an associate dean while still being a director of a department. They do that for six months and receive an overload salary. T. Ashner questioned why that would be different from an A/P being asked to take over another position, as well as do their own.

7.2 JP Dunn pointed out that two resolutions have been distributed for consideration. T. Ashner noted that hers is not a resolution, but offers different ideas in different paragraphs, which can be changed, removed, etc. R. Sievers explained that his proposed resolution simply states that they are aware that, as A/P, they do not have to be consulted; however, they feel the need to weigh in, and this is [the Council's] opinion, should it be approved. T. Ashner's document goes deeper into other issues. J. Geiger asked if the Council would be saying it is okay with the administrative closures if members vote to approve the resolution. R. Sievers responded yes because the alternative is layoffs. J. Geiger asked if layoffs are addressed in the resolution and if not, should they be. T. Ashner indicated she has wording to that effect in her document. She believes the positive for approving a resolution is to make constituents aware that the Council has been keeping up on the issues and is attempting to work for their betterment. It was noted that JP Dunn came back to the Council with reports [from his constituency meetings with the Chancellor]. R. Sievers pointed out that the Chancellor's office does not have to come to the Council. T. Ashner agreed. C. Sarao believes it is important to forward a statement and suggested that JP Dunn take the two documents presented and merge them into something on which the Council can review and take a vote. R. Sievers asked if the issue is just that A/P want their voices to be heard. JP Dunn believes A/P should have their voices heard; if the Council does nothing, it will appear as if it does not care. The statement could say that A/P understand the University is in difficult times and appreciates what the Chancellor is doing to keep everyone employed. They do not like the idea of losing pay, but it is better than the alternative of losing a job; that is the issue.After lengthy discussion and editing by L. Stettler, J. Geiger and others, J. Geiger moved the Council consider a resolution in support of unpaid administrative closure days at Southern Illinois University; seconded by C. Sarao. Motion carried. JP Dunn then read to the Council the final draft of the resolution (included as appendix 4). J. Geiger moved to approve the resolution; seconded by P. Eckert. Motion carried. P. Eckert suggested a cover letter go with the resolution to the Chancellor. T. Ashner suggested the resolution be added to the Council's website as well.

8. Announcements - None.

9. Adjournment