Approved Minutes For Meeting on November 16, 2011

Date: November 16, 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, Regina Brown, Steve Buhman, Janet Douglas, JP Dunn, Pat Eckert, Jon Geiger, Alfred Jackson, Kathy Jones, Charlotte Sarao, Lori Stettler, Sue Tin, Valerie Brooks Wallin, Gloria Yuncker.

Proxies: Pat Eckert for Meredith Thomas; Charlotte Sarao for Natalie Branca.

Visitors and Guests: Tracy Bennett, Tom Furby, Carrie Smith.

3. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting on October 19, 2011, were approved as presented.

4. Adoption of Meeting Agenda: The agenda was amended to reschedule the SURS Members Advisory Committee to December. Also, Regina Brown was added under New Business to discuss being converted from A/P to civil service. C. Sarao moved to adopt the agenda as amended; seconded by P. Eckert. Motion carried.

5. Reports

5.1 Chair 
JP Dunn reported the constituency heads meeting scheduled for November 3 had to be rescheduled because of lack of attendance.

5.2 Board of Trustees 
JP Dunn reported on the November 10 meeting: i) a presentation on the new alumni building was given; ii) there are five new Trustees; iii) an email will be circulated shortly by the Chancellor on the President's comments at the Board meeting; iv) there were two students who spoke during public comments. One had very harsh comments for Chancellor Cheng and the administration on the way the strike had been handled. The Trustees and the President defended the Chancellor, and one Trustee pointed out that not all the facts regarding negotiations were made public. The second student was upset about the University deleting comments from Facebook; v) salary increases were approved for all employees: 0% for FY11; 1% in January for FY12; 1% in July for FY13; and 2% for FY14; vi) all agenda items were approved on an omnibus motion, except for two that were withdrawn for later consideration. G. Yuncker asked JP Dunn if he knew whether the salary increases will also apply to the School of Medicine. JP Dunn was unsure, but noted that the School of Medicine was not specifically excluded as it was on the previous salary increase; vii) there are some renovations taking place on campus. [Additional] cooling capacity is being added to the Neckers building. There are also classroom, laboratory and auditorium renovations taking place.JP Dunn reported that he had one A/P staff person contact him during the strike. The person felt forced into taking on extra duties while the strike was in effect. From what JP Dunn can gather, this was an isolated incident.

5.3 Human Resources (HR) 
JP Dunn commented that he has heard conflicting reports on whether Senate Bill 512 will be pushed through or if a decision will be made in March after the primary elections. He explained that SB512 is the one that changes working employees' pensions. The most drastic effect would be doubling contributions to the pension system, if the employee chooses to do that over switching to a self-managed plan. J. Geiger asked if the Council should take some action with regard to the bill. JP Dunn responded the Council could publicize the issue, as well as provide names of local legislators and ask staff to contact them to request that they vote no on SB12.

5.4 Representatives to University Committees

5.4a Traffic Appeals Board - Tom Furby 
T. Furby reported that he is filling in for Elizabeth O'Neill while she is on extended medical leave. The Board has met once this semester and will meet in December. He believes E. O'Neill will be back in the spring.

5.4b SURS Members Advisory - Rescheduled for Decemer

5.4c Chancellor’s Planning and Budget Advisory - No report.

5.5 Standing Committees

5.5a Executive Committee 
JP Dunn reported that he covered in his report everything that was discussed at the meeting.

5.5b Committee on Committees 
J. Geiger presented for approval the following nominations to the Search Committee for Dean of Education and Human Services: Colleen Kuczynski (Evaluation and Developmental Center); John Massie (Student Health Programs); and Rose Moroz (Curriculum and Instruction). He also presented for approval nominations to the Search Committee for Dean of Applied Sciences and Arts: Donna Margolis (College of Business); Kevin Lister (SIU Foundation); and Faye Joyner-Keene (School of Allied Health). J. Geiger commented that because there was such a quick turnover, the Council will be voting to approve the nominations after the fact, as the selections have already been made (R. Moroz and F. Joyner-Keene). Nominations were approved. J. Geiger reported the committee will be meeting to fill the vacancy on the University Joint Benefits Committee.K. Jones questioned whether the entities forming the search committees should be selecting persons before the Council has had an opportunity to approve the names that were forwarded. JP Dunn responded that there is generally a very tight time frame. K. Jones asked whether the Council needed to change its procedures. J. Geiger pointed out that a change in the Council's Operating Paper would have to be made. K. Jones asked if the Council has ever not approved any names the Committee on Committees has put forward. JP Dunn responded that he has never seen that occur. He suggested that the Council executive officers could do the approvals, much like the Board of Trustees Executive Committee does on some of its matters. C. Sarao pointed out that when she was selected for the Agricultural Sciences dean search, she was selected the same day the nominations were submitted to the Provost's office. However, the first communication she received about the meeting to be held in the middle of December was today. She questioned why the short time frame if nothing will happen for months. L. Stettler responded that there are forms that have to be filled out when conducting a search that requires all the names of the proposed committee membership be listed. It has to go through all the administrative approvals before the search can move forward.C. Sarao raised a concern with respect to dean search committee memberships. She indicated there has always been an A/P staff member from the college and an A/P staff person at large; the same with civil service. That is no longer the case. There is one A/P staff person and one civil service person, which means that it is faculty who are dominating these committees. She believes this is an issue the Council should address. T. Ashner commented that the College of Education and Human Services is doing the opposite. C. Sarao believes there needs to be consistency. L. Stettler commented that the Affirmative Action Office's website has the form that has to be filled out listing membership, and there are no published guidelines for membership. J. Geiger questioned whether the Faculty Association has anything in its contract about how many people will be represented. He thought there were rules somewhere that required a certain number of faculty to be on any search committee, as these committees always seem to be faculty-dominated. T. Ashner believes that some college operating papers designate that an A/P staff member be part of the search committee. It is possible the new administration may be unaware of some traditions that older administration has followed and also may not have read all of the college operating papers. JP Dunn commented that, in some cases, the constituency group(s) within each college/unit have to be forceful about wanting representation or they will be overlooked. [The administration] cannot keep track of every operating paper. C. Sarao asked what happens if a search committee is found in violation of the college's operating paper. L. Stettler suggested the person to ask may be Linda McCabe Smith (Associate Chancellor for Institutional Diversity).J. Geiger again raised the suggestion that the Executive Committee could approve spur-of-the- moment requests for committee representation. T. Ashner did not see a problem, noting the Council relies on each committee to do its role. JP Dunn commented that [these kinds of nominations] always seemed to him to be information items. They have already been approved by the committee before they are presented to the entire Council. T. Ashner agreed with K. Jones that it is not how the Council's Operating Paper reads. J. Geiger asked if the Operating Paper could be changed to include these spur-of-the-moment decisions. C. Sarao believes that there should at least be some verbiage to address the short turnaround time. K. Jones indicated she would make note of the section for possible changes. She also suggested that each standing committee review its charge in the Operating Paper to make sure they are doing what they are supposed to be doing; if not, do they want to make a change. Since the Operating Paper is currently working on proposing changes, now would be a good time to make suggestions.

5.5c Constituency Relations - No report.

5.5d Operating Paper - No report.

5.5e/f Staff Benefits/Staff Welfare 
C. Sarao reported that Don Patton (Medical Education Preparatory) has agreed to replace Layla Murphy as the School of Medicine representative on the Judicial Review Board. Nomination was approved. JP Dunn reminded the Springfield representatives that it is their responsibility to appoint a replacement for L. Murphy on the Council. C. Sarao noted that the person needs to be from the Carbondale campus. G. Yuncker indicated she would make some calls.

6. Old Business

JP Dunn reported that he has invited Chancellor Cheng to meet with the Council on January 18. He asked Council members to send him any questions they have, as he would like to provide her some speaking points beforehand.

7. New Business

R. Brown reported that since the last Council meeting, she was notified that her classification had changed to civil service. She expressed disappointment, but acknowledged there is nothing she or Human Resources can do. T. Bennett explained that there is a state statute in the Civil Service System under which there are exemptions, and A/P employees are exempt from civil service if they meet certain criteria. The rules require that if there is a civil service position on the books for a job being done by an A/P, then the position will be converted. This is what happened in R. Brown's case. In general, the Systems office is taking a very strict approach to A/P positions. JP Dunn thought that HR waited until a position became vacant before there was a conversion. T. Bennett responded that R. Brown's conversion was not the result of an audit. She explained that every two years, the Systems office conducts an audit, and SIU has one coming up in January; that is usually from where those recommendations come. [The Systems office] used to allow the opportunity to convert once the position became vacant; however, there have been some problems throughout the state with overuse of Principle Administrative Appointments (PAAs), and they are now cracking down. The only time there would be an audit of someone's position is when the auditors are on campus, and the employee would know because s/he would go for an interview. In R. Brown's case, her department had requested to fill a vacant position, which called attention to [those other positions in her department] that do the exact same work with the exact same title. Those positions were converted as well. When auditors come to campus, HR has to provide them a document with every A/P title on campus. From that they take a random sample and request a job description for both civil service and A/P. They then narrow it down even more and send HR a list of employees they want to interview when they are on campus. HR receives an interim response and a final response with recommendations. It also tells them what they have done wrong and what they have done right. This is the University's first audit since the Systems office has taken this new approach. JP Dunn asked what is the impact to most of the employees who are shifted. T. Bennett responded that HR attempts to make it as minimal as possible. Any accrued balances are converted so they are not lost. The 43 awarded days are not converted because they are use or lose. Other than that, she does not believe there is any adverse impact. The employee's seniority is retroactive to when the error happened, i.e., when s/he began doing what they are doing.R. Brown commented that conversions can happen to any A/P position. She believes that if A/P positions are compared to civil service classifications on campus, there are a lot that could go either way. T. Bennett indicated there are many titles that people may not even realize are civil service, and just because they are not active on this campus does not mean they cannot be activated. R. Brown expressed the hope that if and when this happens to someone else, HR will send each person a letter notifying them that their position is being changed; she and her co-workers did not receive such a letter.C. Sarao asked if this kind of change would affect salaries. T. Bennett responded that there has never been a change in salary for this kind of situation. C. Sarao wondered if this was happening in academic or non-academic areas. L. Stettler responded that she has colleagues at other universities that this has happened to, and those were non-academic units. She is aware that system-wide at the University of Illinois Chicago and Northeastern Illinois University, they had massive abuse of the system and it swept the entire campus.J. Geiger asked if there have been conversions from civil service to A/P. T. Bennett responded that there is a process in place to convert a civil service position to A/P, and it is a very high standard. She has seen it done, but has also seen it rejected. C. Sarao believes [the conversions] appear to be more of a state-wide cleanup of abuses that have accumulated over a number of years. K. Jones believes there is language in place that says all positions are assumed to be civil service. T. Bennett responded that the statute says all positions are civil service unless exempted either by statute (e.g., chancellor, vice chancellor, students) or individually. Most A/P fall under Section 36.e.3, and under that, HR can give individual exemptions by position. There is a difference between exempt under the statute and exempt versus non-exempt under fair labor standards. Under fair labor standards, exempt/non-exempt is an overtime issue.JP Dunn indicated the Student Affairs sector needs to caucus to fill the vacancy left by R. Brown's departure.

8. Announcements

8.1 A. Jackson announced that he will be out for the next two months [on medical leave]. He indicated he will find a proxy to serve in his absence.8.2 J. Geiger asked if there has been any further discussion regarding the separation of higher level administrators from the rest of A/P. JP Dunn responded that the last he heard, Larry Schilling (Institutional Research) has been working on those numbers and sorting the job codes. T. Bennett indicated that HR has made some changes to some job codes, but those will not [cause a major shift in the numbers].

9. Adjournment