Approved Minutes For Meeting On November 20, 2013

Date: November 20, 2013

Program:

1. The meeting was called to order at 1:03 p.m. by the Chair, Kathy Jones. Visitors and guests were welcomed.

2. Roll Call

Members Present:  Todd Bryson, Jeannie Killian, Don Castle, Angela Cummings-Hunter, Jon Geiger, Kathy Jones, Don Patton, Charlotte Sarao, Rod Sievers, Matt, Valerie Brooks-Wallin

Proxies:  Jon Geiger for Colleen Kuczynski, Christie Mitchell for Jill Gobert

Visitors and Guests:  Chancellor Rita Cheng, Michelle Rushing, Tracy Bennett, Jim Hunsaker, and Wayne Glass 

3. Minutes

The minutes of the Council meeting on October 16, 2013, J. Geiger had changes to Executive Council on the minutes. Motion to approve by Charlotte Sarao, second by Don Patton, minutes approved as amended.

4. Adoption of Meeting Agenda:Rod Sievers moved to adopt the agenda as presented; seconded by Valerie Brooks-Wallin. Motion carried.

5. Guest: Chancellor Rita Cheng

Council members introduced themselves by name and position. Dr. Cheng began by saying that she had been asked to speak on how A/P staff and the A/P Staff Council in particular can help move the institution forward. She noted that it speaks highly of an institution that has A/P Staff who want to continue the conversation of how they can contribute.

The Chancellor stated that the university has the largest freshman class in twenty years, a very high achieving set of students who are still going to classes and are very pleased with their experience. The opening of the new Student Services Building, a signature building for the campus, and sends a message to prospective students and their families that the institution is on the top 100 public university list and can compete nationally.  She noted that exceptional feedback has been received on the accreditation report with accolades from the higher learning commission on the transformational changes here at SIU and significant accomplishments that we have made showing that we are taking their recommendations very seriously. Applications are being tracked very closely this fall, they are up 6-9% from last year and last year was a record year. Everything is tracking very positively. She noted that enrollment is a very complex subject for all of us at the university. We need to do well on all dimensions of enrollment; we can’t focus on just one thing.

Dr. Cheng said there are positives and negatives, but we are going through an institutional transformation. We are becoming more focused on student success to insure that they do well academically and graduate from here. With the transformation comes a whole lot of change and stress. She noted that A/P Staff is front line to a lot of that stress, whether in student services or in a supervisory capacity. The A/P staff share in the accomplishments of the institution, but also share in the stress of achieving the accomplishments.  The University is complex; the A/P staff is central and core to the future of its success. A/P professionals who collaborate with faculty and other staff are representing the hundreds of A/P staff on campus.  Dr. Cheng said that saying how A/P Staff can help move the university forward is difficult because A/P staff is central to that success. The last few years have not been easy.  There have been lost positions, which has forced us to use technology, approach things differently, and keep looking for ways to reduce redundancies.  We have to do more with less, and this affects everyone across campus. Dr. Cheng said our budget is not as high as it was years ago, but it is not in crisis – we know what resources we have and can work with that.  The state of Illinois needs to get in better shape, hopefully there will be movement this fall.  The University will have minimal tuition increases if any; the only real source of revenue will be growth from student enrollment, new students and retention. All of the pieces are in place, but they need fine-tuning and that will take place this year. We have stabilized; we are strategic and collaborative across campus. We are not perfect, but in better shape.

Dr. Cheng expressed six things that she thought A/P staff could help with:

• Continue to be great stewards of resources – manage effectively.
• Share your best thinking, express ideas, your voice does matter.
• Break down internal silos – we need the same branding across the university – reach across, communicate with one voice
• Customer service – provide the best customer service to the community, we hear that we are not responsive or that we are aloof to the community – be welcoming and positive.
• Take ownership of the University – this is our place – take pride and ownership
• Help tell the story of transformation of the campus and the institution – small class sizes, advising, undergraduate research, exceptional faculty, building improvements. Pass it on – Your Voice Does Matter.

Questions for Chancellor

M. Rushing asked the Chancellor about progress on pension reform.  Dr. Cheng replied that she has heard that there would be a proposal put forward in December and the legislature would be called back to take action. State University Presidents and Chancellors have talked and they are determined to put forth their proposals and not react until a bill has actually been enacted.  It is her understanding that the bill will have a lot of limitations, such as a cap on the salary at which a pension can be calculated, gradual extension of retirement age, COLA capped at a low amount, to name just a few.

K. Jones asked about the latest version of what the public colleges and universities are proposing.  Dr. Cheng said it was the paper put out last year that was not accepted. The public colleges and universities proposal contained some cost shifting to the universities with exceptions. Cheng believes there will be cost shifts without protections. 

D. Castle asked for help in understanding the plan the public presidents and chancellors to change the 3% COLA. Castle asked if there is some way that they are explaining that that will be possible when it is spelled out clearly in the state constitution that the COLA can’t be changed. Dr. Cheng answered that no matter what change is made, the matter will be battled out in the courts. She noted that having something indexed to the cost of inflation could be more protective than the 3% for the future.

M. Sronkoski remarked that many A/P staff across campus have been asked to teach the UCOL 101 freshman class, and that in some cases they have been required to by supervisors, or strongly recommended that they should.  Sronkoski asked if there was any plan to fund these positions considering that this is essentially a faculty position or a faculty job that A/P staff are doing. Is there any way that A/P staff can be paid for what is an extra job at this institution?  Dr. Cheng replied that the short answer is “no.”  This model was taken from the Center for Academic Success (CAS), for advising, mentoring and staff teaching. This is part of the effort to bring students from high school to the point of being college ready. She noted this model is best practice around the country, and if we hired instructional staff for UCOL sections, we would have to lay off staff for other sections. We don’t have the resources at this time to fund the positions.  J. Killian added that for twelve years they used this model in CAS whereby they taught 4 years of classes, in addition to advising 200+ students and it was a very successful model. Killian noted this also goes with the total intake model for academic advising. Dr. Cheng added that she hates to think that anyone is being forced to teach, because that feeling would carry over into the classroom, and that should be looked at. If we start paying UCOL 101 faculty – we will have to make cuts other places in the institution. Sronkoski noted Faculty Senate addressed this in April and they were worried about the academic oversight in these classes. Dr. Cheng added that there is a lot of assessment going on, but we need to make sure these students are here, next semester and next year. It is in everybody’s best interest to have students on campus and successful. UCOL courses are meeting the needs of students; we are looking at tweaking the course, adding and taking away to what is taught. Dr. Cheng added that Retention Specialist Theresa Farnum, spent two days on campus recently and will help to assess every step we are taking around student retention. If there are any suggestions about the UCOL courses, let the Chancellor know.

J. Geiger in regard to “telling the story”, whether the chancellor had noticed that the farther away the recruiters are from southern Illinois, the more different the stories are as to the image of SIU. Dr. Cheng said there is a difference, but we do have old attitudes even close to home and different strategies for telling our story.  If you are in Chicago, you are hearing a lot of advertisements about SIU, alumni is excited about that.  The coverage locally is not as edgy, and local people are not hearing the good things about SIU.  We need to keep pushing to counteract that.  Geiger added that it would be worthwhile to make the good news more available locally so that local folks get to hear the other side. Dr. Cheng agreed.

J. Killian asked Dr. Cheng about the customer service initiatives that were started some time ago where there were some select focus groups and training, but the customer service initiatives never seemed to come full circle. Killian felt the customer service initiatives were very beneficial because there was interaction across campus.  People got to meet fellow employees, see new faces, hear one another’s story, etc. Killian said that she would like to see more customer service sorts of initiatives going on from the front line up. She noted we need to portray positive images so other people can see the positive image. Dr. Cheng agreed she would like to see that happen again.

Dr. Cheng reported that she is getting more and more positive remarks coming to her office. Asked what he had heard, Geiger remarked he was hearing the negative side, particularly morale issues.  Dr. Cheng asked for clarification about the morale issues.  Geiger noted that he was hearing about way too much work, more than can be done in a day due to attrition and cutbacks, etc. Dr. Cheng asked what’s not getting done or is it a perception that there is actually something not getting done.  C. Sarao remarked that she thinks that there is less attention to detail because of the workload; a fear of putting things on the back burner too long and the fear of not having the extra time for quality. Killian added we have quantity, but most folks want to have the quality to go along with that. Doing more with less affects a lot of employees. Dr. Cheng remarked this is happening all over the country in other institutions and in other businesses as well. She added that we have to integrate more technology in providing better service, we are behind in that aspect.  Cheng said we have a lot of old ways of doing things. We are very people oriented but have no resources to add more people. She added that we need to work together to make more efficiencies on campus.  Sronkoski state that the old is being layered with new, making it more difficult for employees to get answers to problems and issues. Lots of changes are further complicating things. Dr. Cheng said we need to get the old layers out of here, to concentrate on new. There have been a lot of changes all hitting at the same time. Things will settle down and it will be easier for everyone. Those are all changes that need to take place; unfortunately we didn’t have the luxury of changing one at a time, because the students are only here for a short time.

K. Jones added that how things are done matters. Just being told to do something like teach the UCOL 101 starts things off on the wrong foot - nobody likes to be told they have to do something.  Part of the issue is wanting to do well teaching the course and feeling like you aren’t given enough time to prepare to teach because none of your other duties went away.  Jones noted that it is true that students are here on campus a limited amount of time and if we screw it up, they’re gone.  She stated that sometimes when quick decisions are made and people are not brought along in the process, morale is affected.  Jones added she was not sure that every unit has taken the time to figure out how priorities have changed and made purposeful decisions about what they were not going to do anymore in light of the new priorities.

T. Bryson added that a lot of employees are worried about their jobs and whether they are going to have one. With all the changes that are happening, people are worried about how the changes will affect them and their job. 

M. Rushing stated that some departments on campus have lost depth in their department. Many administrative offices have lost a significant number of experienced staff to retirement, and their valuable knowledge base has also been lost. Since many staff who retired were not replaced due to the budget cuts, departments have not been able to cross-train staff for important functions. That often makes it frustrating and time-consuming trying to solve problems when there is only one person who knows how to handle a dilemma. It is stressful for the units that have been impacted. Technology will help in some of those instances. Dr. Cheng replied that the academic affairs side was protected more than other sides of the campus when it came to budget cuts. Some units are working with almost half the staff. Until resources come back again, we need to incorporate new technologies to help staff.  

J. Killian asked about Performance Based Funding. Dr. Cheng answered, the model affects a very small amount of funding at this time. Each year we lose about another $100,000, which is maybe 3 or 4 people. The model doesn’t work for institutions like ours. It rewards primarily white institutions that are bringing in well-prepared students, such as the U of I-Champaign campus so SIU gets less. There are weights for the types of students we attract, but those weights are not high enough, so we will keep conveying that message.

6. Reports

6.1 Chair 
K. Jones reported that the Oct. and Nov. Constituency Heads meetings were cancelled.

6.2 Board of Trustees 
K. Jones attended the Board of Trustees meeting November 14th in Edwardsville. It included approval for a revised charge, composition and time table for the Presidential Search Advisory Committee. The first public forum for the Presidential search was held after the BOT meeting. Other items included approval to purchase investment banking services for assistance in planning, marketing, selling and underwriting anticipated university financing including financing for deferred maintenance, authorization for renewal of the series 2004A certificates of participation (COPs) in the amount of $32.7 million.  The COPs were used to finance campus renovations including Morris Library, energy conservation measures, the campus wide signage projects and other capital improvements. The Board also approved the sale of $30 million in new COPs – 2014A series to fund new money projects or to refund all or a portion of the 2004 COPS. Among other items approved by the board included a 5-year renewal of the Oracle software support contract, which could save the university 30% a year, as well as revision to the residency status policies, removing the credit hour limitation for graduate students from Missouri and adding Iowa and Wisconsin to the border states initiative. The reinstatement of the Law School Graduation discussion was removed from the board agenda. Next board meeting will be in Carbondale, December 12th.

6.3 Human Resources (HR) 
Tracy Bennett reported that retroactive pay will be sent out December 1st. In the middle of handling the retroactive pay raises, Human Resources is preparing for their bi-annual audit in January. So, between now and January, HR could be asking for updated job descriptions, and other things.  Tracy asked people to be supportive.

6.4 Representatives to University Committees

6.4a      Chancellor’s Planning and Budget Advisory Committee – Michelle Rushing
Michelle Rushing presented and discussed her report.  She had packets for everyone. (See Attachment A).

6.4b      SURS Members Advisory Committee – Jim Hunsaker
The legislative update would be purely speculative at this time. There are four bills that are being considered. There was hope that the Cullerton-Madigan Bills would come together as a compromise. Hunsaker’s full report is attached. (Attachment B).

6.4c      Honorary Degrees Committee – Wayne Glass
W. Glass reported that the committee met on December 13th. There were six nominations; one was removed for not meeting the requirements and two were tabled. Three names were recommended to Chancellor, ranking first, second and third, then Chancellor sends to February Board of Trustees for ratification.  Six nominations for Distinguished Service Awards – two were removed for not meeting criteria, three candidates were moved forward in ranked order and a fourth candidate did not receive support to be moved forward. (Attachment C)

6.4d      Presidential Search Advisory Committee – Charlotte Sarao
C. Sarao reported that the committee met and went over policies and procedures. There are 21 members of the committee, chaired by Donna Mannering. The search firm hired is R. William Funk & Associates from Dallas, Texas. There was an open forum November 14th in Edwardsville with one being held on December 12th at 11:30 a.m. in Carbondale. You are encouraged to attend and participate. Information for the position of President and the members of the committee are on the website at:http://www.southernillinois.edu/pressearch/index.html (site no longer active 2017). (Attachment D)

D. Castle asked if the nominee has to have a PhD. Sarao answered a terminal degree is needed. That was a topic of discussion in the PSAC meeting.

6.5 Standing Committees

6.5a      Executive Committee – Jon Geiger
J. Geiger reported that the agenda was discussed. The committee discussed inviting the Chancellor. The Moe Wallace catering bill was discussed. The amount in dispute has been credited back to our account until the dispute is resolved. Rhonda will check on the bill and the dispute and let the council know what is happening. We will try to contact the company to discuss issues and resolve the problem. The Executive Committee discussed the presidential search committee, made revisions to the minutes, and K. Jones and her GA are looking at possible sector revisions to increase the council to maybe 20 members, to get more work done in the committees and improve representation for the constituency.  The pension bill issues were also discussed.

6.5b      Committee on Committees – Charlotte Sarao
C. Sarao reported that Terri Harfst will be serving on the JRB committee. So that committee has now been filled.

6.5c      Constituency Relations – Rod Sievers
No report.

6.5d      Operating Paper – Kathy Jones
K. Jones reported that the committee met Nov. 14th and is meeting again on Dec. 3rd.  The committee is looking at the list of A/P Staff to see about redefining the sectors. Each person on the committee took two Illinois state universities to research their operating papers to see how they define their sectors.

6.5e      Staff Benefits/Staff Welfare – Don Castle
D. Castle reported that his committee’s work agenda is growing.  They continue to look at term versus continuing appointments.  The committee is also inventorying the University policies for A/P staff appointments. Castle hopes to have a training session for the Judicial Review Board in December sometime. The committee is trying to meet at least once between council meetings. This committee has a big agenda and it is hard to manage it all.

7. Old Business - No Old Business
  
8. New Business - No New Business

9. Announcements

Happy hour was discussed. There were several places suggested for future happy hours. Some suggested that the Happy Hour be moved to second Thursday of the month and be called Throwback Thursdays with the venue changing on a monthly basis as well. It was decided to table the happy hours until after the holiday season.

10. Adjournment

Motion was made by Charlotte Sarao and seconded by Jon Geiger to adjourn.