Approved Minutes For Meeting On March 20, 2012

Date: March 20, 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: Don Castle, Angela Cummings-Hunter, Jon Geiger, Jenni Janssen, Kathy Jones, Faye Joyner-Keene, Charlotte Sarao, Rod Sievers, Valerie Brooks Wallin, Keri Young.

Proxies: Don Castle for Jill Gobert; Jon Geiger for Pat Eckert; John Massie for Lori Stettler; Rod Sievers for Steve Buhman.

Visitors and Guests: Todd Bryson, Pat Latch.

3. Minutes

The minutes of the Council meeting on February 20, 2013, were approved as presented.

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

5. Reports

5.1 Chair 
K. Jones reported the constituency heads met immediately following last month's Council meeting: i) there was a fair amount of time spent discussing the Board of Trustees meeting, which did not take place; ii) the Chancellor mentioned the Governor's proposed 4.62-5% higher education appropriation cut. She also discussed the Student Services building, which is proceeding on schedule. K. Jones asked her about the dean of students position, and the Chancellor indicated that an interim would be put in place; a national search will be conducted in the fall when students are on campus; iii) GPSC discussed the approximately 60 grants that have been awarded to graduate students for professional development and travel. The Civil Service Council discussed their scholarship program and K. Jones reported on the Council's elections and the spring constituency meeting.

5.2 Board of Trustees 
K. Jones reported the Board meeting was cancelled due to lack of a quorum. Another Board meeting is scheduled for April 3 in Carbondale. It takes two readings for the tuition and fee increase proposals so another meeting was scheduled because the increases are due to be voted on in May.

5.3 Human Resources (HR) 
P. Latch reported: i) SURS counselors will be on campus in April; ii) the new I- 9 form is now available on the HR website. The I9 form, according to the form itself, states: "Employers must complete Form I-9 to document verification of the identity and employment authorization of each new employee (both citizen and noncitizen) hired after November 6, 1986, to work in the United States." This form has been updated and is currently in use on SIUC campus; iii) workman compensation claims are now being administered through a third party, Tristar Risk Enterprise Management. Information can be found on the announcement page of the HR (http://www.hr.siu.edu/benefits/IWCC%20required%20notice.pdf). J. Geiger asked P. Latch if she knew anything regarding health benefits for next year. P. Latch responded that HR has not heard anything officially.

5.4 Representatives to University Committees

5.4a Annitants Association - Pat Eckert 
J. Geiger (for P. Eckert) submitted and discussed her written report (included as appendix 1 to the minutes). 5.4b Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory - John Massie 
J. Massie submitted and discussed his written report (included as appendix 2 to the minutes).

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

5.5 Standing Committees

5.5a Executive Committee 
K. Jones reported the committee reviewed the minutes and finalized the agenda. 5.5b Ad Hoc Elections Committee 
D. Castle reported the deadline for submitting nominations was March 13; however, that was extended to March 15. There are two candidates in the Academic Affairs sector (with two vacancies) and four candidates in the General sector (with one vacancy). The committee has been meeting by email, and the next thing they need to do is conduct the elections. D. Castle asked if last year's election was done by paper ballot or electronically. C. Sarao recalled that the ballot was done electronically through SIU Online. D. Castle indicated he has not yet arranged for the balloting, but he will keep the Council posted. The ballots should be ready for the constituency beginning March 27.

5.5c Committee on Committees - No report.

5.5d Constituency Relations 
V. Brooks Wallin reported that as a follow-up to the Staff Excellence Awards, she did some research on what awards the faculty receive. She indicated that the Women of Distinction and Staff Excellence Award recipients receive a certificate, $1250 and a $1000 professional development award. The faculty receive a certificate, a $2500 award and $1000 of "other than salaries" funds. There also seems to be a distinction between the professional development funds that have to be used on campus versus the other than salaries award. J. Geiger asked how many faculty awards are given. V. Brooks Wallin responded that there is the Scholar Excellence Award; the Teaching Excellence Award and the Early Career Faculty Excellence Award. There were three Women of Distinction awards and two Staff Excellence awards given. C. Sarao pointed out that a few years back, all the monetary awards were suspended. When they were brought back, they were inequitable. Before then, everyone received the same award amounts.

K. Jones asked if the committee is still working on a date for the spring constituency meeting. V. Brooks Wallin indicated the committee is meeting after the Council meeting to determine a date. They will also be discussing a speaker.

5.5e Operating Paper - No report.

56.5f Staff Benefits and Welfare - No report.

6. Old Business

6.1 D. Castle reported the Operating Paper calls for one representative to the Council for every 50 staff members in each sector. Consequently, there will be 12 representatives on the Council this year--7 in the Academic Affairs sector and 5 in the General sector. He explained that there was not a loss of 50 people; rather, the way the numbers are calculated, there could be a loss of three or four people in a sector that could make the numbers fall below the threshold. That is what has happened this year. The question is whether 12 is a decent number to represent 600+ A/P staff or if there should be a discussion among the Operating Paper Committee to change the formula. The simple formula would not be 1/50 but maybe 1/45 they could play with the math. R. Sievers noted that if staff numbers go back up, then the Operating Paper would have to be revisited. C. Sarao questioned whether there should be a minimum and maximum number of Council members included in the Operating Paper; for example, the Council is not to go below "x" number of representatives and not to go above 'x" number of representatives, regardless of the number of A/P staff. D. Castle believes it is a challenge for the Operating Paper Committee, but the presentation of the idea now is whether the Council is comfortable with 12 representatives or if they believe there should be more. He added that where he sees the issue come into play is with the committee structure and what kind of work can be done. Currently, there are around six committees; does that mean everyone sits on two committees? Is a committee of three the right size?

K. Jones noted that the discussion taking place does not mean the Council needs to do something. This was an issue that raised questions and the Executive Committee wondered whether it was time to take a look at this issue. She indicated they do not have an answer to the question, but rather just wanted to pose it to the Council. J. Geiger asked if the standing committees have to be represented only by the Council membership. C. Sarao commented that she thought about that as well; maybe the Council could ask for volunteers to serve on each of the standing committees. It might get them interested in serving on the Council. J. Massie noted that doing so would require a change in the Operating Paper. J. Geiger believes this might be easier than trying to come up with numbers. R. Sievers indicated it would need to be determined what the ideal number is for committee membership. K. Jones indicated she would refer this issue of representation to the Operating Paper Committee.

6.2 K. Jones distributed a rough draft of the Town Hall Meetings report. She indicated she would like to end up with a document that can be posted on the website. She attempted to make revisions so that there are general themes. She would like to distill the information into two pages of critical sentiments they believe were reflected by the A/P staff. She would like the document to represent A/P staff to whomever picks up the document, so she would like to be thoughtful about what is included. D. Castle agreed that the document should be distilled to critical points and that any recommendations the Council wanted to make would be a separate endeavor. K. Jones indicated the purpose of the town hall meetings was to tell the Council what it needs to work on for the future. She noted that the basis of the questions to the Chancellor came out of those meetings. C. Sarao indicated that when a synopsis is done, they can indicate that the comments and issues raised at the town hall meetings were used to formulate the questions to the Chancellor and Provost. K. Jones reported that she and J. Geiger have already worked on whittling down the document. If Council members find there are issues they believe are important, then email her. She, J. Geiger and C. Sarao will continue to work on finalizing the report.

6.3 K. Jones reported she still needs to provide a revised charge to K. Young for the Ad Hoc Committee on A/P Staff Terms of Employment.

7. New Business - None. 8. Announcements

D. Castle reported that a judge ruled yesterday that the employee free health insurance guarantee is not a retirement benefit. The state can therefore change and set premiums as they like. AFSCME has negotiated a contract in which that has been done. They negotiated 2% and then 4% that retirees will pay, and then in two years 4% of their pension to cover their health care costs. This is all a precursor to the choice that State Senator Cullerton continues to propose the 3% cost of living or free health care. The problem is that this was a first-level judge; there is the state system, and if it goes through the state system, then it could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. D. Castle added that there are two or three bills in the Senate and one or two in the House that are pending.

9. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 1:59 p.m.