Archive > 2009 Schedule of Meetings > Approved Minutes

Date: February 18, 2009

Program:

1. The meeting was called to order by the Chair, Don Castle. Visitors and guests were welcomed and introduced.

2. Roll Call

Members Present: Phil Bankester, Don Castle, Patty Cosgrove, Jon Geiger, Dave Hahn, Gabriele Hoffmann, Heidi Jung, Barbara Cray Lokaitis, Dana McKenzie, Barbara Nowack, Mike Reiman, Sandra Rhoads, Rod Sievers, Allison Sutphin.

Proxies: Don Castle for Amy Rose, Elaine Conrad for Carla Coppi, Dana McKenzie for Michael Cubley, Sandra Rhoads for Sharon Walters.

Visitors and Guests: Chris Pearson, Marge Selinger.

3. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting on January 21, 2009, were approved as presented.

4. Adoption of Meeting Agenda:

5. Reports

5.1 Chair
D. Castle reported: i) the chancellor search pre-committee will meet next week. No contacts have been made, but he believes the University will soon reach out to potential candidates to ascertain their interest in applying for the position. Committee members were given a form to complete to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) to the University that might be compiled and shared with potential candidates. D. Castle distributed a copy to Council members and asked that they send their responses back to him either by campus mail or e-mail; ii) the constituency heads met for the first time this year, prior to the Board of Trustees meeting. There was general discussion about the budget. The University is uncertain about what to do because it is unclear what is happening in Springfield. The Governor's [FY10] budget address is scheduled for March 18, but he will need to address this year's budget as well; iii) he has a meeting next week with Vice President Sarvela and Debbie Nelson from General Counsel to discuss the Council's comments on the plagiarism policies; iv) the Council's comments on signature programs may be similar to the comments the Chancellor has received from other constituency groups. As a result, he has backed off of his initial plans for signature programs, although D. Castle believes there are marketing decisions being made based on what the Chancellor wants to promote; v) the constituency heads have an interview scheduled for February 23 with the candidate for Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance. There is only one candidate for the position.

5.2 Board of Trustees
D. Castle circulated the agenda materials for the February 12 Board meeting. He noted there is a report about the state of higher education in the country and a report on duel credit options (where students can take both high school and college credit at the same time). Duel credit courses are more community-college based, but it is something SIU can and may look to as a possibility. D. Castle reported: i) the student trustee resigned. That term ends in June, and it is likely there will be a student election to replace him; ii) there were numerous Saluki Way contracts approved, many that were awarded to southern Illinois businesses; iii) under the public comments portion of the meeting, accusations were made against Trustees being involved in the "pay to play" with ex-Governor Blagojevich. Most of the information presented had been previously published in the newspapers, so none of it was new. There was another harsh comment made about the handling of the Jim Scales matter. President Poshard responded to the accusations against the Board members and pointed out that if someone has evidence against any Board members, it should be taken to the State's Attorney. He also commented on how much Board members contribute to the University and on the process the University's General Counsel went through to find out if any Board member had any discussions with the ex-Governor or his staff about their appointments. Again, there was nothing said that had not already been published in the newspapers. With respect to the Jim Scales situation, Chancellor Goldman explained it was a personnel matter and had to be treated with sensitivity; iv) President Poshard laid out his list of budget issues and reported that the IBHE is requiring all state schools to compile contingency plans for anticipated budget cuts. The President will be meeting with the IBHE in a few weeks to present some kind of budget projection. All of this may be heading toward the Governor's budget speech, so the University is attempting to quickly collect contingency ideas. All areas are being required to submit impacts of cuts ranging from 4-6%. D. Castle asked members what the Council should do to participate in the discussions regarding the impact of budget cuts. He noted there are many areas represented by collective bargaining agreements, though [most A/P] are not represented.

H. Jung questioned whether there would be layoffs or attempts to lay off staff, as happened a few years back. P. Bankester commented that what he is hearing more than anything else is the issue of across- the-board furloughs. For example, employees would not work and would not be paid for one or two days either in a month or a year; there is no defined time that has been identified. R. Sievers noted that there is an approximately $.5 million per day payroll; if everyone did not work one day per year, the University would save approximately $.5 million. D. Castle indicated the concept of furloughs has some momentum in California, and other state governments are using it in a way similar to R. Sievers' description. In reality, however, it is a salary reduction for almost all A/P. He does not believe furloughs have ever been used at SIU before, so it may be a good idea for the Council (possibly Staff Welfare or Staff Benefits) to look into the issue and develop [some kind of response].

During discussion, it was mentioned that collective bargaining contracts would have to be examined to see if furloughs are prohibited. The concern was also raised that, because A/P are salaried, they have to put in whatever time is needed to do their job. That being the case, the likelihood is that A/P will be docked for two days pay, for example, but will still have to put in whatever time is necessary to get their job done. D. Castle noted he understands the concern, and the simple answer is that the staff member will have to prioritize and determine what part of the job will have to be done less.

Another option that has been mentioned is to not give raises [this year]. However, there are multiple contracts in place on campus (tenured/tenure track faculty, non-tenure track faculty, graduate assistants, civil service, those civil service in the trades), some of which have built-in raises. Groups with such a provision would have to agree to no raises; in addition, the administration could not forego raises without declaring financial exigency. If that happens, then anyone could be laid off for any reason, including faculty. D. Castle believes at some point the Council needs to examine the issue of the budget shortfall and decide on some kind of action in order to be a player. He also does not want to see groups pit one against the other, as that is not a beneficial discussion. R. Sievers believes [the budget situation] is short term (to the end of this budget year) and not a five or ten-year prognosis. [This year's] budget remains uncertain because the state will likely end up in a deficit as a result of over-estimating revenue for the year. There is also discussion about an increase in the state income tax. D. Castle noted the Council's next meeting is the same day as the Governor's budget speech. P. Bankester believes it might be a good idea for the Council to forward some recommendations, though he is unsure what those would be or how to go about making such recommendations. Possibly it is something the Executive Committee could undertake.

5.3 Human Resources (HR) - None.

5.4 Representatives to University Committees

5.4a Honorary Degrees - Pat Eckert
P. Eckert submitted her written report (included as an appendix).

5.4b Search Cmt, Dean of Engineering - Chris Pearson
C. Pearson thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve on the search committee. He has not yet participated in a meeting of the committee, but will be attending one later in the afternoon. He reported that the search process began with 40+ applicants. Prior to his participation, the applicant pool was narrowed down to 11 applicants; 2 of those have since withdrawn, leaving 9. Letters of recommendation were requested from the 9 remaining candidates, and at this time the committee has received letters from 8 candidates. At the meeting this afternoon, the committee hopes to further limit the pool and invite those remaining for interviews. C. Pearson commented that any input the Council can give him would be helpful.

5.4c Screening Cmt, VC Administration and Finance - Charlotte Gibson
D. Castle reiterated that the constituency heads will be meeting on February 23 with the only candidate for the position.

5.4d Search Cmt, Interim Dean of CASA - To be rescheduled.

5.5 Standing Committees

5.5a Executive Committee
S. Rhoads reported on the January 14 meeting: i) the committee reviewed the minutes from the January meeting and a draft of the meeting agenda for February; ii) D. Castle gave a report on the Board of Trustees meeting, as well as the constituency heads meeting; iii) S. Walters reported that the Excellence Through Commitment award recipients have been identified. She provided information on the award dinner and A/P Staff Council reception. The committee also discussed award guidelines; iv) D. Hahn distributed a proposed resolution, "In Support of Conversion of Term to Continuing Administrative/Professional Appointment." The Executive Committee will review and discuss the resolution at the March Council meeting; v) P. Cosgrove gave a report on the spring A/P elections; vi) the proposed FY10 A/P Staff Council budget was presented and approved for discussion at the February Council meeting.

5.5b Ad Hoc Elections Committees
P. Cosgrove reported the committee consists of herself, A. Rose, B. Nowack, P. Bankester and J. Geiger. She and B. Nowack met via teleconference and reviewed the list of A/P staff by sector to determine how many representatives there should be for each. Sectors are entitled to one representative for every 50 people, except that Student Affairs is entitled to three. This is as a result of changes made to the Council's Operating Paper a couple of years ago which states that each sector must have a minimum of three representatives. The call for nominations has been mailed announcing vacancies in all four sectors: 2 in Academic Affairs; 3 in General; 3 in the School of Medicine; and 1 in Student Affairs. Terms are for three years (through May 2012). P. Cosgrove asked if anyone had someone they would like to recommend, please do so but remember to first ask the person if s/he would be willing to serve if nominated. D. Castle pointed out that both General and Medicine increased in representation by one, which means the Council will expand from 19 to 21 members. P. Cosgrove noted that although only she and B. Nowack met, the results were sent to the rest of the committee members and were approved.

5.5c Committee on Committees - None.

5.5d Constituency Relations
S. Rhoads reported for S. Walters that the spring reception will be held on April 29 at 3PM in the Old Main Lounge of the Student Center.

5.5e Operating Paper
D. Castle reported the committee has not met; however, they intend to meet to discuss term limits and how those impact the Council.

5.5f Staff Benefits
D. Hahn reported that the resolution he provided to the Executive Committee on the term versus continuing appointments was more of an informational document. The "whereas" statements provide factual information and the sources for that information; the "resolved" statements outline what the committee identified as potential issues. What is under discussion at this time is what, if anything, the committee should present to the Council and whether or not any of those issues should be pursued at this time. D. Hahn explained that the issue of term versus continuing has been a Staff Benefits goal for the past four or five years and has been discussed and debated ad nauseam, with no action ever being taken. The committee would like the Council to decide, probably at the April meeting, if any of the issues if they are even seen as issues should be pursued. D. Hahn believes the reason there has been no progress on this issue is because as administrative and professionals, some staff put together budgets and are aware that if there is no extra money in salaries, no raises can occur. What Council members should keep in mind, however, is that they are charged to be advocates for the best interests of the constituency. Consequently, they should examine whether the policies are doing what they are meant to do; whether SIU is following policy, etc. This is what the committee will look at in the next month or so.

5.5g Staff Welfare - None.

6. Old Business

D. Castle reported that at the constituency heads meeting, the Chancellor provided a revised graduation schedule which moves some of the ceremonies from Shryock Auditorium to the Arena; however, only the lower bowl will be available, as the upper bowl will be under renovation. Also, none of the doors to that area will be accessible. Moving some of the ceremonies loosens up the facilities and schedule a bit. Unfortunately, the Law School ceremony has to remain on Thursday evening because it is too late now for people to reserve hotel rooms for Friday and Saturday. The moving of graduation ceremonies was only possible because of the timing of the construction contracts and where they are with the renovations. This time next year, there will be no ceremonies at the Arena, but there is still time to work out the schedules for May 2010.

7. New Business

The proposed A/P Staff Council budget for FY10 was distributed for review. It was noted there were no significant changes in the budget from last year and that the most costly expense is the fall constituency luncheon. H. Jung noted that at the Executive Committee meeting, there was discussion about futuristic ideas such as implementing electronic balloting for elections. She is aware that the Faculty Senate is considering the use of Blackboard for their elections. Going electronic on the balloting would save approximately $160 in duplicating costs. An additional cost saving would be electronic rather than paper-based flyers. P. Cosgrove commented that one of the problems with the mass e-mailing system is that it cannot handle sending out a large volume of e-mails at once; however, Information Technology is installing a new e-mail system, so that may change in the future. D. Castle believes that by this time next year, progress in this area may allow the Council to consider non-paper options. P. Cosgrove moved to approve the FY10 budget; seconded by S. Rhoads. Motion carried.

8. Announcements

9. Adjournment