Approved Minutes For Meeting On January 19, 2011

Date: January 19, 2011

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: Steve Buhman, JP Dunn, Pat Eckert, Jon Geiger, Alfred Jackson, Layla Murphy, Sarah Olson, Charlotte Sarao, Lori Stettler, Sue Tin, Gloria Yuncker.

Members Absent: Tuesday Ashner, Natalie Branca; Mike Reiman, Rod Sievers, Meredith Thomas.

Proxies: Steve Buhman for Janet Douglas; Alfred Jackson for Amy Rose.

Visitors and Guests: Tracy Bennett, Willie Ehling, Michelle Garrett, Cindy Jenkins, John Massie, Bevery Robbins.

3. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting on December 15, 2010, were approved as presented.

4. Adoption of Meeting Agenda: C. Sarao moved to adopt the agenda as presented; seconded by J. Geiger. Motion carried.

5. Reports

5.1 Chair 
JP Dunn reported there has not been a constituency heads meeting since December. He also reported on the new procurement requirement. He received clarification that unless the employee speaks with a representative who is attempting to influence the employee's procurement decisions, there is no reporting requirement.

5.2 Board of Trustees 
JP Dunn reported the next meeting will be on February 10 in Carbondale.

5.3 Human Resources (HR) - None.

5.4 Representatives to University Committees

5.4a Advisory Committee to Director of Public Safety - John Massie 
J. Massie presented and reviewed his report (included as appendix 1 to the minutes). A. Jackson asked if women's transit still runs at night. J. Massie responded that it is now called night transit, and it is no longer only for women. Anyone who needs transportation either to or from campus can call. With respect to cameras in the parking lot, J. Geiger asked if there are signs in those lots indicating that there is video surveillance. They could act as a deterrent for criminal activity if people know they are being recorded. J. Massie is unsure if there are signs, but will make that suggestion.

5.4b University Joint Benefits - Willie Ehling 
W. Ehling presented and reviewed his report (included appendix 2 to the minutes).

5.4c Student Center Advisory - Michelle Garrett 
M. Garrett presented and reviewed her report (included as appendix 3 to the minutes).

5.5 Standing Committees

5.5a Executive Committee 
JP Dunn reported the Expanded Executive Committee met and reviewed the minutes, as well as finalized the agenda. There was some discussion on sector changes and the overload policy.

5.5b Committee on Committees - No report.

5.5c Constituency Relations 
S. Buhman reported the committee will be meeting on January 29 with Vice Chancellor Kevin Bame to discuss the Excellence Through Commitment awards.

5.5d Operating Paper - No report.

5.5e Staff Benefits - No report.

5.5f Staff Welfare - No report.

6. Old Business

JP Dunn reported that he needs comments from the Council on the Overload Policy (attached to the agenda) before the end of the day on January 21 so he can forward those to the Chancellor. The Executive Committee discussed the policy and had questions on item 6, which states that a person eligible for overload "may be assigned no less than half a month's salary, but up to one month's salary for each overload assignment. No person shall be assigned more than two overload credit courses per fiscal year." The overload credits per fiscal years "may be either two sections of the same course or two different courses." The committee questioned whether that was fair. For example, if someone is being paid to teach a course like University 101, and earns $10,000 a month, s/he would receive $5,000 [for each]. If the person earns $5,000 a month, then s/he would receive $2,500 [for each]. The other question is that item 6 seems to, in part, contradict item 2b concerning the 20% annual maximum. J. Geiger indicated that if a person only had two assignments, and even if s/he was paid a full month's salary, 2 months salary out of 12 would not be [30%], so that would not be a concern. Rather, he is concerned that someone who makes [$10,000 could get that much for teaching a three credit hour course.]A. Jackson asked JP Dunn what is the impetus behind the policy changes. He pointed out that University 100 and University 101 have typically been volunteer teachers. He understands the University is moving into the first year experience and that academics want their best teachers in these classes. Is there a movement to get away from volunteers and lure in the academics? JP Dunn responded that the main focus is to encourage faculty to take an overload and teach online courses. One of the side benefits is that the change will allow A/P staff to be compensated for teaching. Currently, staff cannot be compensated for teaching University 101; the only way would be to reduce her/his contract to 75% or 50% [take out the teaching assignments, which would be the other 25-50%. JP Dunn added he was told that [supervisors] cannot put teaching in an A/P staff person's job description and cannot require A/P to teach; faculty will not allow that. It was noted that there likely are job descriptions that do include teaching as a responsibility of the position. T. Bennett indicated there is no way of knowing which position descriptions include teaching unless she were to go through each one. It is not something that HR tracks. JP Dunn noted that he will ask the Chancellor's office that question. [M. Garrett] noted that an A/P person in her [department] has teaching as part of her job description [because that is how the supplemental instruction students get their training hours. JP Dunn responded that he would raise that issue [with the Chancellor] as well. P. Eckert commented that there are likely other situations where a person has an overload of their job; however, the policy is skewed toward [faculty] teaching classes rather than an overload [of general work]. She asked how the policy addresses other A/P personnel who are non-faculty, non-teaching, but may have an overload situation, i.e., when they are asked to take on work for an extended period of time that is well above load and above the norm of what any staff would be asked to do. She did not believe the policy is representing those constituents very well. C. Sarao responded that the policy is not intended to address that kind of situation. JP Dunn asked that the comments that have been raised be emailed to him; he will send them in one document and make them all anonymous before sending them to J. Baggott.

7. New Business

7.1 JP Dunn reported it is time for spring A/P elections. One person from each sector (as they now stand) is needed to form the Ad Hoc Elections Committee. He opened the floor for volunteers. The following Council members agreed to serve: S. Buhman (General); L. Murphy (Medicine); L. Stettler (Student Affairs); and S. Olson (Academic Affairs). J. Geiger moved to approve the membership of the Ad Hoc Elections Committee; seconded by C. Sarao. Motion carried. [As Council Secretary, J. Geiger will chair the committee.]7.2 JP Dunn reported that the changes in sectors [as a result of the breakup of Student Affairs] will likely involve the Operating Paper Committee. One idea that has been raised is to only have two sectors academic and general. He does not know if that is a good or bad idea. Should the Council maintain the same representation or have an equal number of representatives on both. At the Executive Committee, it was discussed whether there are any big issues that come up that are sector-related, short of assigning people to search committees. S. Buhman asked whether JP Dunn was talking about dividing the sectors into academic units and non-academic units. JP Dunn responded that there are currently vice chancellors [to whom units] report. The original division of the four sectors was based on vice chancellors; however, vcs are becoming fewer and fewer. C. Sarao reported that the Executive Committee also discussed not having sectors and simply open up the elections to whoever wanted to run; however, they decided that may not be a good idea. It is always good to have sector representation because those people who work in academics do not necessarily have a good working knowledge of how other sectors work. The same is true for those who work in accounting, for example, and who do not always have a good idea of how academics works. It could get to the point where all academic people run for the Council and no people in general or [vice-versa]; so, there are still advantages to having the two sectors. J. Geiger asked if the breakdown of numbers in each sector have been received. JP Dunn responded that they have not. It was reported that the [structural] changes that have been made are not official, although they have already occurred. Additionally, the operating paper would need to be revised to accommodate any changes and that could occur before the election process would have to begin. After further discussion, it was decided that the Council would conduct its elections as usual and have the Operating Paper Committee address the issue. JP Dunn suggested the committee might want to consider building some flexibility into the operating paper for the future since there are many changes taking place. L. Stettler questioned whether it would cause more confusion to send the people in Student Affairs a nomination ballot when they know that sector no longer exists. It was suggested that a statement can be added to the call for nominations indicating the Council is aware of the changes and that anyone elected will still be a representative, but their sector may change. [JP Dunn] noted that A. Rose possibly would be the only one [on the Council changing sectors] because she now falls under the Provost's office. L. Stettler suggested that, looking at it from a sheer numbers perspective, if they identify where the numbers of employees are that will likely make a difference on the number represented on the Council as well. It needs to be constructed so that the people who moved to the academic side will have fair and equal representation as well. C. Sarao suggested the Elections Committee needs to meet and draft information so people will understand. A. Jackson pointed out that there are people working in trenches who do not know who is [in what sector]. Will there be some kind of formal statement coming out? L. Stettler responded that the structural changes will be formalized at the February 10 Board meeting. The Elections Committee will need to make sure the ballots are clear.7.3 J. Geiger reported that it was discussed at Executive Committee that, for clarification purposes, it may be important to include [on the web and paper copies of the minutes] who are the officers of the Council. It was noted that the website has since been changed to reflect that.

8. Announcements

C. Sarao announced that Provost Gary Minish has resigned from the University.

9. Adjournment