Approved Minutes For Meeting On December 21, 2012

Date: December 19, 2012

Program:

1. The meeting was called to order at 1:00 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, Jill Gobert, Jenni Janssen, Kathy Jones, Faye Joyner‑Keene, Don Patton, Charlotte Sarao, Lori Stettler, Valerie Brooks Wallin.

Proxies: Steve Buhman for Rod Sievers; Valerie Brooks Wallin for Jon Geiger.

Members Absent: Angela Cummings‑Hunter, Keri Young.

Visitors and Guests: Tracy Bennett, Joseph Schafer, Todd Sigler, Rosemary Simmons.

3. Guests

T. Sigler, R. Simmons and J. Schafer presented on the Chancellor Campus Life and Safety Task Force Implementation. 

4. Minutes

The minutes of the Council meeting on November 21, 2012, were corrected under Old Business, the second to last sentence in the first paragraph, to change the word “tact” to “tack.” K. Jones noted that all the brackets should be removed as well. Minutes were approved as corrected.

5. Adoption of Meeting Agenda: P. Eckert moved to adopt the agenda as presented; seconded by L. Stettler. Motion carried.

6. Reports

6.1 Chair 
K. Jones reported the constituency heads meeting for December was cancelled.

6.2 Board of Trustees 
K. Jones reported on the December 13 Board meeting, noting that aside from the usual purchase orders and contract approvals, some of the highlights of the meeting included: i) approval of the honorary degree and distinguished service awards; ii) an informal presentation by the SIUC debate team; iii) approval of a PPO provider (HealthLink) for student health care; iv) project and budget approval for the second phase of the pedestrian mall that will be north of the Student Services building. It is a $1.3 million project that will begin in the spring and be completed when the Student Services building is complete; v) project and budget approval for the Itchy Jones Baseball Stadium renovation ($5 million) and interior upgrades to the Moy building on the Springfield campus; vi) approval of electrical and heating additions to the new Student Services building construction in order to add new offices for five departments not included in the original plans. All action items were approved on an omnibus motion.

6.3 Human Resources (HR) 
T. Bennett reported HR is now completely moved into Miles Hall.

6.4 Representatives to University Committees

6.4a Recreational Sports and Services Advisory - Rod Sievers 
R. Sievers submitted his written report (included as an appendix to the minutes).

6.4b Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory - No report.

6.5 Standing Committees

6.5a Executive Committee 
V. Brooks Wallin (for J. Geiger) reported the committee reviewed and made some changes to the minutes and proposed agenda. They also discussed questions for the Chancellor and Provost for next month’s meeting, as well as the town hall report drafted by J. Geiger. He will put the data from those meetings into a more cohesive report for next month.

6.5b Committee on Committees - No report.

6.5c Constituency Relations 
V. Brooks Wallin reported the committee is meeting as part of the Staff Excellence Awards Selection Committee. She noted that a total of seven nominations were received--four, she believes, are A/P. Evaluations are due January 18, and the committee will meet on January 24 or 25 to review those. V. Brooks Wallin also reported that the committee will begin discussions on the spring constituency meeting and will look into possibly having alcohol. It was suggested that having alcohol might be an incentive for more people to attend. K. Jones believes the Council needs to find ways to reach out to A/P staff in order to have better attendance at the spring constituency meetings.

6.5d Operating Paper - No report.

6.5e Staff Benefits and Welfare 
D. Castle reported the committee met this morning and discussed ways to collect and understand all the elements involved in term and continuing contracts. They will likely ask for data from HR about some of the situations occurring with term and continuing contracts, possibly over the last 18 months. He hopes that in the next month or so the committee will have a better understanding of what the concerns are with term and continuing contracts. The committee has also touched on the issue of morale, as it is a subject that has come up several times. They discussed situations such as staff losing vacation time because they have maxed out on their time; since it does not roll over, it is lost. D. Castle is unsure if there is a way to track that issue, especially with A/P staff. K. Jones indicated that there is a fairly steep amount of research the committee will need to do; if they need help, let her know. She suggested there may be other Council members who might be interested in helping with that research. She believes the status of continuing appointments is possibly the most important issue the Council needs to address. D. Castle mentioned that the Staff Benefits and Staff Welfare Committees were combined a couple of years ago, so there is much work to be done. He indicated this may be something to revisit, e.g., what are the priorities when it comes to staff welfare and staff benefits.

C. Sarao asked whether the Council could create an ad hoc committee to look at the issues D. Castle has raised. K. Jones did not believe there was any limit on the Council’s ability to create ad hoc committees. C. Sarao suggested if the Council could create an ad hoc committee with the appropriate people, it might be to the Council’s benefit. D. Castle could serve on the committee as well. K. Jones indicated there may be some people outside the Council who might be interested in serving on such a committee. She asked L. Stettler to look at her list of volunteers to see if there are any staff who might be good additions to the committee. C. Sarao pointed out that there are several past Council members who would be good resources and who might be interested in serving as well. K. Jones suggested bringing this issue back in January, and the Council can decide at that time what it would like to do.

7. Old Business

7.1 K. Jones reported that the complete list of comments from the town hall meetings were handed out to the Council last month. Council members were asked to review the feedback that was received, with the notion of looking at all the issues and prioritizing those. The Executive Committee decided it would be better to condense and prioritize the issues before disseminating the document. She asked if anyone had any ideas about what they would like to prioritize; if not, she and J. Geiger will attempt to come up with a draft and organize and prioritize which projects to take on as a Council. She believes there were a few issues raised that are reflected in the questions that have been drafted for the Chancellor and Provost.

7.2 K. Jones reported that she had sent Council members a copy of the questions drafted for the Chancellor and Provost. F. Joyner-Keene responded back with a question about how question five was written. The question was originally written with two issues being raised; one was the limited approvals--the reduction in the number of fiscal officers so only a few people can sign, and the bottleneck that creates in terms of the business functions. The second issue had to do with having to get Chancellor approval at every step in the hiring process. K. Jones indicated she had attempted to rewrite the question to make it clear that these were two different tracks being addressed; one hiring and fiscal authority, with both causing bottlenecks so that business cannot be done. C. Sarao noted that there are other instances but could use those two as examples. K. Jones indicated that the questions have been limited to five, and they will be given to the Chancellor in advance; however, the Chancellor wants the questions in priority order. K. Jones believes that the Council has honed in on five topics and would really like them all to be answered. She asked if there is one question anyone believes might be slightly less important that could be listed last—although, she stressed all are important. It was suggested that the question related to the awards program be moved to the end.

D. Castle suggested adding a question about enrollment and what staff can expect to see. He does not want to hear what he would call a “Board report” (with the bells and whistles), but rather information that would provide staff a view of their jobs or the future of their jobs. C. Sarao suggested removing the awards question for now and instead have the Constituency Relations Committee submit a report about the reduced number of applications that were received and why. She believes it is not just the demanding application process, but the fact that the benefits of the award have been stripped away. Then, a question could be added on enrollment/retention. K. Jones agreed and asked C. Sarao and D. Castle to help with drafting the question.

8. New Business - None.

9. Announcements - None.

10. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 1:34 p.m.