Approved Minutes For Meeting On November 21, 2012 | Administrative Professional Staff Council | SIU

Date: November 21, 2012

Program:

1. The meeting was called to order at 12:58 p.m. by the Chair, Kathy Jones. Visitors and guests were welcomed and introduced.

2. Roll Call

Members Present: Steve Buhman, Don Castle, Pat Eckert, Jon Geiger, Jill Gobert, Kathy Jones, Faye Joyner- Keene, Don Patton, Charlotte Sarao, Rod Sievers, Valerie Brooks Wallin, Keri Young.

Proxies: John Massie for Lori Stettler; Deidra Milan for Jenni Janssen.

Members Absent: Angela Cummings-Hunter.

Visitors and Guests: Jake Baggott, Casey Parker.

3. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting on October 17, 2012, were approved as presented.

4. Adoption of Meeting Agenda: D. Patton moved to adopt the agenda as presented; seconded by P. Eckert. Motion carried.

5. Reports

5.1 Chair 
K. Jones reported on the November 20 constituency heads meeting: i) there was discussion on the Woody Hall renovation and what offices will be relocated there. Also discussed was the return of the books from McLafferty to the library and the construction of the McLafferty space for interdisciplinary research; ii) the Chancellor has asked the deans for their strategic plans, based on the University's new strategic plan, as she wants to make sure everyone is headed in the same direction; iii) K. Jones asked the Chancellor directly about a rumor she heard concerning the conversion of all A/P continuing appointments to term, with that notice going out sometime in the spring. Where the rumor is coming from is that there are some A/P staff in certain academic units being placed on term appointments because the units, which are undergoing reorganization, are unsure how those reorganizations are going to pan out. The conversions are also for the purpose of allowing flexibility. The difference between these term appointments and the usual term appointments is that those staff will continue to receive their vacation and sick leave benefits. The Chancellor confirmed that the conversions are happening, but that they are strategic and limited. K. Jones noted that performance-related conversions of continuing to term appointments will not retain benefits.

J. Baggott believes the number of conversions will likely be further reduced as the colleges work through their planning for budget reductions. He also believes it is important to recognize that all the vice chancellors who were hired, as well as every dean and recently-appointed chair, are on a term appointments. This is not a reflection of a change in practice for A/P in general; rather, it is just that those in leadership positions are employed at will. J. Baggott noted that he has heard the same rumors (that all A/P will be converted to term), but that is not an accurate statement. K. Jones suggested the Council needed to disseminate this information so rumors are not being perpetuated that this is a wide-spread action.

C. Sarao reported she was told by a staff member that s/he had taken a promotion and was placed on term. The person moved to an office where s/he supervises a number of continuing A/P staff. Since being moved to the new position, the person has been asked a minimum of half a dozen times to put all her/his A/P continuing people on term contracts. The person has resisted doing so and finally inquired as to where this directive is coming. S/he was told that it came from the Provost and Chancellor. C. Sarao indicated that the Chancellor and Provost need to be made aware that staff are hearing that it is coming from them. On the other hand, she has heard exactly the opposite (that it is not their directive).

J. Baggott indicated that the Chancellor gave a presentation to the Faculty Senate on the budget problems the campus is facing. He explained that in the last three years, the University has had to cut a total of almost $22 million worth of state funds due to cuts in state appropriations and declining enrollment and the resulting decline in tuition. Added to that was approximately $4.6 million in regular faculty and staff promotions, $1 million in operations and maintenance costs for the Technology building and increased costs for financial aid. All told, there was somewhere around $28 million that was cut from the budget during the last three years. Close to $12.8 million has to be addressed this year. J. Baggott pointed out that the problems the University is facing are recurring rather than one-time needs. He indicated that deans and department chairs/directors have difficult decisions to make. The Chancellor made the big picture clear at the Faculty Senate meeting, noting the colleges' portion of that big picture. The non-academic areas had to make similar cuts, but she is not making decisions on how the deans will make their cuts. Each of them drafted plans to send to the Provost, and many of those are moving forward. Consequently, there will be some A/P, possibly a handful, who may be converted to term appointments. That by itself does not mean their appointments will not continue beyond that term; but, it does give deans the flexibility, where necessary, to make the more difficult decisions. K. Jones asked if the six people C. Saro mentioned are the same handful he is talking about, or is this another six people? J. Baggott suspected that the rumors and the reality are not necessarily the same. Those being placed on term appointments will be notified probably the first part of the calendar year. occurring. It should be recognized that there are several new deans who are working hard to familiarize themselves with the policies and procedures of the personnel management process.

D. Castle mentioned that earlier, J. Baggott described continuing contracts, term contracts and then term contracts with benefits. D. Castle indicated that he has been involved in that discussion for over 10 years, and it was always the Council's thought that it did not want to use term contracts that still accrued benefits because it would make term appointments more appealing to use. He is not saying those individual staff affected by this policy should not continue to have their benefits, but to him this sounds like a policy change that did not get floated through the Council. He believes, from the Council's perspective, they would like to be a part of those discussions--and deserve by structure to be a part of the discussions--when personnel policies are changed that have a dramatic impact on A/P staff. He appreciates that the University was taking care of individuals; but there seems to be a new classification of A/P called "term with benefits." He questioned what the new policy really means and that it appears that the people making personnel choices are doing so at the cost of the individual members of the A/P staff. He reiterated that the Council should be involved in those discussions because it impacts A/P staff. J. Baggott responded that D. Castle's comments about that policy going forward are very appropriate and need to be considered. He would not like to see people on term contracts continually where they should not be, but he also knows there has to be some flexibility identified or prepared for to be able to make those decisions if they have to be made.

P. Eckert mentioned that she was asked by a staff member if the deans are coming in on term appointments and if not, are they coming in with tenure. She had responded that she understood that to be the case. J. Baggott pointed out that there are administrators recently hired on term appointments that do not have tenure status. C. Sarao indicated there is a big difference between academic and other service units. The deans have to be tenurable before they are even hired because it is a requirement of the position, whereas that is not the case for directors and other staff. P. Eckert added that the person's follow-up comment was what does that do to the pool of candidates the University is getting. C. Sarao believes it does have a big effect, and she does believe there are candidates who withdraw when they find out certain things.

J. Baggott commented that the percent of change of A/P staff since 2008 is negligible and reached a high point in 2009 when there were over 800 FTE. The total has dropped approximately 8% in the last three or four years; on the civil service side, it is considerably more. This includes retirements, resignations and not filling positions. Faculty are down as well, though faculty to student ratios have not changed that much.

K. Jones also reported that the Chancellor gave some information at the constituency head meeting about completion of the Student Services building. They are looking at completion in late summer, but move-in will not take place until sometime in the fall. The Chancellor also discussed the approximately 30 additional classrooms being updated, as well as 12 teaching labs.

5.2 Board of Trustees 
K. Jones reported the most notable item on the Board agenda was the adoption of a policy on search firm procurement. A new state statute will go into effect January 1, so there will need to be a change in the policy on securing outside search firms. The new Board policy would limit retention of an outside firm for searches for president or chancellor positions, but allows for an exception that authorizes the president to retain an external search firm when a justifiable need has been established. Four criteria were identified on which need would be based: i) specialized nature of the position; ii) if the position requires professional search expertise that is not found on campus; iii) the position is of a critical nature and has to be filled immediately or where time is of the essence; and iv) the diversity of the applicant pool would be enhanced by using an external search firm. K. Jones indicated this item caused the most discussion by the Trustees because one member in particular did not want the President to retain the authority to do that without Board action. The policy was approved with the stipulation that the President would have to communicate with the Board to make sure they stay informed. In other actions, K. Jones reported the following items were approved: i) the alternate tuition rate to attract high-achieving out-of- state students; ii) a Board of Trustees Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct; iii) the new Vice Chancellor for Development and Alumni Relations; iv) a revised budget for the renovation of Pulliam, which needed an additional $1.25 million to cover the replacement of the roof systems and windows; v) a revised budget for the Student Recreation Center to cover replacement of the roof and building envelope improvement; and vi) authorization for the sale of bonds to fund the HVAC for the Student Recreation Center and demolition of the Triads. Also, some bonds were re- financed at a better interest rate.

J. Baggott mentioned that the money coming in as a result of the Pepsi contract is being put directly into funding and expanding the scholarship program to attract more high-achieving students.

5.3 Human Resources (HR) - No report.

5.4 Representatives to University Committees

5.4a Computing Advisory - To be rescheduled. 

5.4b Honorary Degrees - Deborah Case 
D. Case submitted her written report (included as appendix 1 to the minutes).

5.4c SURS Members Advisory - Jake Baggott 
J. Baggott reviewed the minutes of the committee meeting held on October 9 (see appendix 2 to these minutes). R. Sievers asked if health insurance is constitutionally guaranteed. J. Baggott responded it is not. P. Eckert pointed out that changes to the health benefit were made at least once. It used to be that a vested employee would get health insurance; then, it was changed to 5% a year. She asked if someone is already legally challenging the change for health insurance. J. Baggott responded he would not be surprised, but SURS does not have the numbers. P. Eckert commented that the passage of SB1673 would put employees in the position of having to make a choice between receiving their cost of living increase or having health insurance; however, the decision about how much an employee would have to pay for health insurance has not yet come into play. J. Baggott agreed, adding that what decisions will occur later that will affect the value of getting some sort of insurance, if not taking the state insurance, and the fact that it will be a one-time decision, is also troublesome. He knows the state has to come up with money to fund the health insurance, and tax increases seem unlikely. As a result, there is talk about shifting the costs to universities or to employing agencies. If that happens, it will have a very detrimental impact here in the next fiscal year. Just passing 1% of pension costs would be $3 million for the University, of which $1.6 million is from state funds. The legislature has some interest in passing 6% or more of pension costs over time to the universities. The chancellors and presidents around the state acknowledge that the costs may come back to universities, but they would like to have it incremented in over time. An option has been discussed about picking a point in time at which benefits from that point forward would have a different package, as opposed to what employees have accrued up to this point. In effect, there would be two plans. Other options are being discussed, but he is unsure whether they will have much traction. The concern among the Advisory Committee is that changes will come so quickly that people will not have the ability to make informed decisions. As a result, a subcommittee of Advisory Committee members was formed to work with SURS to develop strategies on the best way to communicate and inform people once SURS is aware of the rules. J. Baggott noted that Mary Nippe from Human Resources is a member of that subcommittee.

5.4d Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory - No report.

5.5 Standing Committees

5.5a Executive Committee 
J. Geiger reported the committee discussed changes to the minutes and agenda and finalized questions to ask the Chancellor and Provost, who were initially supposed to attend this meeting. The committee also noted that next month's Council meeting is on December 19 and wondered how many people would be in attendance.

5.5b Committee on Committees 
D. Castle (for L. Stettler) presented for ratification the nomination of Vanessa Sneed, Office of Sponsored Projects Administration, to the Screening Committee for Director of Undergraduate Education.Nomination was ratified.

5.5c Constituency Relations 
V. Brooks Wallin reported the Constituency Luncheon held last month had a good turnout. She indicated that from the feedback she received, everyone thought the issue was timely, and the presentation by the panelists was good. V. Brooks Wallin also reported that the Staff Excellence Award process is starting, and there is an upcoming meeting that the Constituency Relations Committee will attend.

5.5d Operating Paper - No report.

5.5e Staff Benefits and Welfare - No report.

6. Old Business

J. Geiger provided a report on the town hall meetings that took place. He noted there is not a specific order in the notes with regard to each specific question. J. Geiger reported that he and K. Jones attended all six meetings, and there were typically two or three Council members at each meeting as well. Approximately 21 constituents total attended the meetings. He indicated the questions are related more to each meeting and are not necessarily in the order of the meeting. He reported that there were consistencies throughout all the meetings with respect to the issues. Many concerns dealt with transparency, hiring, being overworked; not having support from supervisors when requesting job description changes and issues of those type. He found the meetings to be very positive in nature, and suggestions were made such as holding social events like brown bags to promote camaraderie among the constituency. J. Geiger asked Council members to read through the report, and if they would like him to re-draft it into a question format, he can do that before the next meeting. C. Sarao believed the comments in and of themselves are sufficient. R. Sievers asked what will now become of the report. K. Jones responded that the Council needed to pick up the issue of term appointments and determine how to enter into that discussion with the University. She believes it is a matter of the Council picking its battles from the issues in the document and deciding if there are any the Council can impact. R. Sievers suggested prioritizing the points, as there are probably a lot of commonalities between some, and then decide what tack to take going forward. K. Jones responded that if Council members read through the report, then maybe at the next meeting each member could take an opportunity to look at what the Council might be able to do about some of the issues that resonate with them.

J. Geiger reported that at the Executive Committee meeting, it was suggested that they could come up with appropriate questions to ask the Chancellor and Provost when they attend the meeting. If Council members read through the report and believe there are some type of formation of specific questions to ask them, the Executive Committee can go through those at its next meeting. K. Jones indicated the Executive Committee was focused on the questions to be asked of the Chancellor and Provost, but then she received word that they were unable to attend. She believes it would be a good idea to distribute the questions the committee focused on at its last meeting for the December meeting. The Council can look at the questions and then they can be given to the Chancellor and Provost for January's meeting. K. Jones asked J. Baggott how many questions they would have time to answer, noting the committee eventually came down to five big questions. J. Baggott did not believe there was a certain number, but suggested putting them in priority order of what the Council might want her to address. K. Jones indicated she will send the questions to Council members before the next meeting for discussion in order to make sure they are the questions the Council wants to ask.

7. New Business

K. Jones reported that last month, she had provided to Council members with excerpts from the Strategic Plan (appendix 1 to the October 17, 2012, minutes). She explained that she read the document and believes it gives the University a direction. If that is the direction in which the campus is headed, then we should be doing the right things in terms of moving forward. She believes the plan to be more alive than the previous document. Although the plan is not very lengthy, she did not want Council members to get lost in the details and get distracted; so, she just excerpted the "marrow" from the document to provide focus for the Council. J. Baggott commented that a condensed version of the plan, which sounds much like what K. Jones has described, will soon be disseminated to the campus.

D. Castle noted that the mission statement in the strategic plan is actually the new mission statement for the University, so it is very much a big change. He commented that, having served on the Strategic Planning Committee, he is attempting to read what is not in the plan; so, he needs to go back through his notes to see what is not or what should have been included in the plan. Although it is too late to add anything, he believes it would help to better define the document if people understood what it no longer includes.

8. Announcements

D. Castle announced that the Student Center is having a holiday craft sale from November 29-December 1.

9. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 2:38 p.m.