Approved Minutes For Meeting on July 20, 2011

Date: July 20, 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: Tuesday Ashner, Natalie Branca, Valerie Brooks, JP Dunn, Pat Eckert, Jon Geiger, Kathy Jones, Layla Murphy, Charlotte Sarao, Lori Stettler.

Members Absent: Steve Buhman, Janet Douglas, Alfred Jackson, Sue Tin.

Proxies: Pat Eckert for Meredith Thomas; Layla Murphy for Gloria Yuncker; Lori Stettler for Amy Rose.

Visitors and Guests: Carrie Andrews Rice, Tracy Bennett, Don Castle, Anita Hutton, Amanda Phillips, Carol Westerman-Jones.

3. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting on June 15, 2011, were corrected as follows: Under the first paragraph of New Business, the sentence beginning, "In Continuing Education..." was changed to read, "In Continuing Education, the credit unit was removed and is now the Office of Distance Education and Off Campus Programs; but the credit-free unit was left." In the same paragraph, the sentence beginning, "P. Eckert responded..." was changed to read, "P. Eckert responded that once the allocation is lost, it usually never comes back." Under the second paragraph of New Business, the sentence beginning, "There are service units..." was corrected to read, "There are service units that have had more than 2% of their state reallocation cut." Towards the end of the same paragraph, the sentence beginning, "C. Sarao believes..." was corrected to read, "L. Murphy believes it is not so much, then, that the Council needs to address the lack of information with the Chancellor, but rather that should be a conversation with the Council's representative to the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee." The final correction was under Roll Call to show that N. Branca was in attendance at last month's meeting. Minutes were approved as corrected.

4. Adoption of Meeting Agenda: JP Dunn amended the agenda to add A. Phillips under 5.4 Representatives to University Committees. C. Sarao moved to approve the agenda; seconded by T. Ashner. Motion carried.

5. Reports

5.1 Chair 
JP Dunn reported he was unable to attend the constituency heads meeting; however, he did attend the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee meeting on June 20. It was reported that FY12 does not look as bleak as FY11, so the Chancellor does not foresee any layoffs or furlough days. At that time, the Carbondale campus was owed approximately $71 million for FY11. At the Board of Trustees meeting on July 14, the President had reported that the system is still owed $100 million; however, the campus is better off now than it was a year ago. With open positions, the University has saved $2.7 million. The balance of approximately $3 million was saved with the furlough days. Many open positions will remain open, and at the end of the year, a sweep was done of those funds. In other news, it was reported that a decision has not been made on whether the St. Louis Rams will come here for practice. Also, a handout was distributed showing the restructuring of the College of Agricultural Sciences.

5.2 Board of Trustees 
JP Dunn reported on the July 14 meeting held in Carbondale: i) all items on the agenda were approved on an omnibus motion, except for Item I (Changes in Faculty and Administrative Payroll for Carbondale), which was removed by Trustee Lowery at the last moment. When the time came to vote on that item, he and Trustee Manering voted against. There were 12 individuals on the list, but only 7 were salary increases (all 15% and above); ii) the Board approved building another parking lot where McAndrew Stadium stood. In April, the Board approved Lots A and B outside of Anthony Hall. Those lots and the newly approved lot should make up all the spaces that will be lost when the parking garage is demolished; iii) there were several program additions, deletions and name changes approved; iv) the Board formed an ad hoc Legal Affairs and Legislative Committee [to advise General Counsel] until the vacant positions in General Counsel have been filled; iv) during the public comments portion of the meeting, a graduate assistant spoke about the need for health insurance as part of the job benefit for GAs.

5.3 Human Resources (HR) 
T. Bennett reminded everyone that HR, Payroll, etc., are preparing for fall semester. She asked that paperwork related to GA contracts and new hire contracts be submitted in advance to help get them paid on time. JP Dunn asked where to find information on the conversion from term to continuing. He is aware of someone who was denied a continuing contract. T. Bennett indicated the reason for denial would have had to be [the lack of a funding source]. She indicated the staff member is welcome to call her to get a copy of the documentation [stating the reasons for denial].K. Jones asked if there is any update on the health insurance benefits. T. Bennett responded that there has been no further information. The 90-day contracts that were put into place expire in September.

5.4 Representatives to University Committees

5.4a Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory - Carrie Andrews Rice 
C. Andrews Rice presented and discussed her report (included as appendix 1 to the minutes). She added that the NCAA SIUC Athletics Support Services report indicated that, overall, the [Athletics Department] is doing a great job here. It was reported the department uses GradesFirst technology, which is an advising and retention system that utilizes Facebook apps, text messaging and web technology to communicate with student athletes. There has been talk about possibly using that technology for the classrooms. C. Andrews Rice also reported that Athletics is sponsoring a Salukis Blackout Cancer Benefit, with proceeds going to he [Coaches vs. Cancer] program. It will be held on November 12 at the football game against Eastern Illinois. [For more information, go to salukisblackoutcancer.net]. It was noted that the idea for this fund raiser came from a student athlete and, as far as anyone knows, it is the only one of its kind.

5.4b Strategic Planning - Don Castle 
D. Castle presented and discussed his report (included as appendix 2 to the minutes). He noted the focus groups were very interesting. One in particular with students was very rewarding for the people involved. He indicated that the A/P staff had many good comments. The committee attempted to approach the collective bargaining groups on campus to see if they would like to specifically give comments, but they expressed mistrust in the process.

5.4c A/P Judicial Review Board - Amanda Phillips 
A. Phillips presented and discussed her report (included as appendix 3 to the minutes). JP Dunn commented that there are some inconsistencies in the grievance document and the Judicial Review Board's (JRB) operating paper, and those need to be [cleaned up]. T. Ashner asked which committee would oversee any changes. JP Dunn responded that the Staff Welfare Committee would review [those documents] and submit any proposed changes to the Council for approval. C. Sarao asked if the memo (page 2 of appendix 3) reflects the inconsistencies. A. Phillips responded that the JRB initially wanted to seek clarification [and attempted to make changes] since there would be a new structure. All the information is there, but when they attempted to put the process into place, [it would have been helpful to have a process on how to go about doing that]. JP Dunn added that the time frame on grievances is tight, and that may need to be changed. Most grievances do not arise from a one-time incident; it is something that occurs over a period of time.

5.5 Standing Committees

5.5a Executive Committee 
It was reported that the committee reviewed the agenda and discussed search committee appointments. K. Jones indicated there was also discussion as to whether top level administrators should be taken out of the A/P category so that the University's administrative count matches other universities in the state. JP Dunn responded that he did speak with the Chancellor on this issue at the Board meeting. There are other universities that call their A/P staff "academic professionals" U of I uses that title, and their administrative costs are around 16%; SIUC's cost is 29% because all A/P staff are thrown into the administrative costs; so, coaches--who are A/P--are thrown into the administrative costs. It is an artificially high number. The Chancellor did say she had spoken to Larry Schilling at Institutional Research about properly coding employees so there is not that artificially high number in administrative costs. J. Geiger pointed out that the faculty have been addressing the issue in their union comments, and he believes it is important that the A/P staff be accurately represented rather than with inflated numbers.K. Jones questioned whether ISAC or some other [group] could have a definition that could be used across the board. She did not believe each campus should be using its own definition. C. Sarao believes there is a definite dividing line, such as deans, directors and above. T. Bennett explained that every position title is assigned to an EEO group and a job group in [HR's] system. If that is what is putting out this information, it can be reorganized, if that is what the Council is asking to happen. J. Geiger asked whether [staff] could be identified by whether or not they are union represented, [i.e.,people who cannot be a part of the unions based on having an administrative position, but are tied to a tenure track [faculty] position on campus]. He believes SIUC's percentage is similar to U of I's and other universities--closer to 16% rather than the 29% figure. He wondered whether SIUC is including the same people that other universities throughout the state are including. The faculty are using these inflated numbers to show that the percentage of administrators here is much higher than at other universities across the state and that it needs to be adjusted. He does not believe they are comparing "apples to apples." T. Bennett suggested the numbers could be readjusted just by making a line and stating that whatever the standard is across the state, whether it is deans and higher, those are no longer included in that number when the cost is calculated. P. Eckert believes that would give a more realistic picture.

5.5b Committee on Committees 
J. Geiger presented for approval the list of University Committee Assignments (included as appendix 4 to the minutes). He reported there were approximately 17 committee and search committee appointments that needed to be filled. Approximately 23 staff volunteered, some willing to serve on any committee and some listed their first and second preferences. Out of the 17 vacancies to be filled, over half of the volunteers received their first choice. The names of those staff who were not placed on a committee will be kept at the top of the list for consideration whenever any committee vacancies occur during the year. Also, because of the upcoming structural changes that will occur both within the Council and the A/P Judicial Review Board, the committee decided not to fill two of the four open positions on the JRB at this time. University committee assignments were approved.

5.5c Constituency Relations - No report.

5.5d Operating Paper 
K. Jones reported the committee had been instructed at the beginning of the Council year to wait for the Executive Committee to meet in hopes the Committee would have some suggestions for them to consider. The only issue that was raised was whether there still needed to be sectors, and why they were created in the first place; no one has those answers. She does have a new list of A/P staff, updated with recent transitions. She has sent it to the committee via email and is now attempting to schedule a meeting for discussion next week.

5.5e/f Staff Benefits/Staff Welfare 
C. Sarao reported the committee will meet soon to develop a plan to combine the Staff Benefits and Staff Welfare committees. She would also like to schedule a meeting of the JRB soon because they will need to get an early start on their discussions to [make changes to the JRB operating paper]. P. Eckert commented that there has always been some confusion as to how to handle grievances originating at the School of Medicine in Springfield. C. Sarao added that the JRB tends to be a rather large group, and when there are that many people who do not always know what is going on, then things can get off track. Since she is chair of the JRB, Staff Benefits and Staff Welfare, she is open to suggestions. She is considering convening a smaller group of people who have involvement with the JRB. JP Dunn suggested the Council's Executive officers and the JRB chair, chair-elect (once one has been selected) and recorder.T. Ashner asked why the JRB is composed of three members from each sector since concerns have been raised about having a lack of quorum for meetings. JP Dunn believes it is so the JRB will have a larger pool from which to draw [when panels are formed]. C. Sarao indicated that she would like to get the JRB together for training in August and also to elect a chair-elect so they can begin discussing the changes that need to be made [in the process]. [L. Murphy] suggested JP Dunn call the chair of the Springfield A/P Staff Council and ask them how they handle [grievances]. A. Phillips indicated that the JRB did have a School of Medicine Springfield case, and what they found is that they do have an internal policy; however, she believes there is more there that needs to be explored. There needs to be some review of overall policies that people are either committed to or not. According to their internal documents, staff in Springfield can go to Carbondale for their next appeal. C. Sarao believes the process can be improved to be clearer and easier for staff to navigate. It needs to be one way or the other or a total separation.T. Ashner commented that she does not believe the Springfield A/P Council is as recognized as this one. L. Murphy indicated she has sat in on some of their meetings since they are teleconferenced to her building. There are a handful of people who show up. It does not appear to be as structured as the Council here. She does not believe there can be a total separation between Carbondale and Springfield, despite the fact that it has been talked about for years how School of Medicine employees have two sets of rules they are supposed to abide by, and they do not know which ones take precedence. C. Sarao asked L. Murphy if there is a written grievance procedure for the Springfield campus that she could provide. L. Murphy responded that she could check. C. Sarao suggested a good place to start would be to examine the grievance procedures for Springfield and Carbondale and determine whether they should be completely separate or combined. L. Murphy understands the need to eliminate redundancy, but for those people who work for the School of Medicine and are in Carbondale, there is an established structure and hierarchy. They see themselves as being their own unit and do not always recognize that they are part of SIU; rather, they see themselves as the School of Medicine. There is some ambiguity as to what they are supposed to do and how it is to be done. She believes there is a great concern on the part of many School of Medicine A/P staff in Carbondale about the potential of losing a voice, the opportunity to be heard and to know what is happening. She pointed out that what happens with the A/P Council in Springfield has nothing to do with what happens in Carbondale.C. Sarao questioned how much her committee could accomplish, aside from combining Staff Welfare and Staff Benefits. P. Eckert indicated that some of the other issues, such as clarifying the step by step protocol for when a grievance comes forward and who does the letters, etc., can be addressed. C. Sarao agreed, but pointed out that if the committee drafts a different grievance procedure the School of Medicine staff in Springfield have to follow, and they [do not get satisfaction], the grievance comes back down to when does the 30 days start. JP Dunn noted that the time frames are ambiguous because it is 30 days from the point at which the grievant realizes there is a problem. C. Sarao asked whether this is something in which legal counsel would have to get involved (possibly). L. Murphy noted that Springfield has its own legal counsel. A. Phillips indicated that another issue was that it was a challenge to get responses from those in Springfield. J. Geiger asked A. Phillips if she has an opinion as to whether the Committee on Committees should fill the vacancies on the JRB from the School of Medicine and Student Affairs.. A. Phillips responded that there needs to be a good pool of people from which to choose [should a panel need to be formed]. L. Stettler mentioned that the Chancellor's Advisory Review Board, which looks at the student appeals, is set up so that there is a larger group of people who are trained; but, then there are only a certain number that are needed to actually hear the appeal. In response to the question of whether the Committee on Committees should fill the remaining two vacancies on the JRB, C. Sarao pointed out that the Council has to abide by the current operating paper; so, the vacancies should be filled.J. Geiger indicated that those from the School of Medicine who volunteered for committee service were from Springfield; that raised another issue. If there is someone here versus in Springfield, should there be a representative on the [JRB] from both campuses? T. Ashner pointed out that the Council already changed its operating paper [to address those issues]. However, she believes the JRB is an exception to the rule, if they need to grieve it here. C. Sarao asked if that is in writing. T. Ashner responded that, from what has been discussed, it sounds like it is in the grievance policy. A. Phillips indicated that [Springfield] has a policy that states they [have the option] to appeal to the JRB, though it does not say that in the Carbondale policy. T. Ashner reminded Council members that Springfield still has one seat on the Council based on the changes to the operating paper. As she recalls, they were in favor of that as well because they sat through meetings where many of the issues voted on did not affect them. JP Dunn noted that some of the staff in Springfield were not happy about the change. He indicated that both campuses believed it was important to keep the lines of communication open and have one member appointed by their Council to this Council. T. Ashner suggested that if Springfield wants to continue to have three representatives on the JRB, that could be something the Council could continue to allow. C. Sarao believes [Springfield's] options need to be more clearly defined. Her committee needs to look at what is currently in place on their campus, what exactly it says, and does it say something the committee believes needs to be fixed. She also believes the wording may need to continue to be if a Springfield employee chooses to, they may file a grievance with the Carbondale campus. JP Dunn indicated he will raise the issue with the Chancellor. T. Ashner asked if the JRB's decision on a Springfield case would go to the Chancellor or to Dean Dorsey or both. C. Sarao responded that JRB decisions go to the Chancellor.

6. Old Business - None.

7. New Business

7.1 JP Dunn charged the standing committees with developing their goals and objectives for the coming year and to present them at the next meeting.

7.2 A. Hutton presented her final report for the Search Committee for Dean of the College of Liberal Arts (included as appendix 5 to the minutes).

7.3 The Council's year-end budget report for FY11 was distributed to Council members for informational purposes.

8. Announcements

JP Dunn announced the passing of Terry Huffman, who was director of Student Judicial Affairs. L. Stettler added that there will be a memorial service held at the Newman Center on August 13.

9. Adjournment