Archive > 2009 Schedule of Meetings > Approved Minutes

Date: August 19, 2009

Program:

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

2. Roll Call

Members Present: Tuesday Ashner, Jake Baggott, Natalie Branca, Steve Buhman, Carla Coppi, JP Dunn, Pat Eckert, Jon Geiger, Vern Goode, Barbara Cray Lokaitis, Dana McKenzie, Layla Murphy, Barbara Nowack, Amy Rose, Rod Sievers, Allison Sutphin, Sue Tin, Sharon Walters, Gloria Yuncker.

Proxies: Steve Buhman for Janet Douglas, Rod Sievers for Mike Reiman.

Visitors and Guests: Tracy Bennett, Kristine McGuire.

3. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting on July 15, 2009, were approved as presented.

4. Adoption of Meeting Agenda: R. Sievers moved to adopt the agenda; seconded by S. Buhman. Motion carried.

5. Reports

5.1 Chair
J. Baggott reported on the August 3 constituency heads meeting with the Chancellor: i) there was some time spent discussing the issues and challenges with MAP funding, as well as the impact of the lack of Illinois Veterans Grant funding; ii) it was reported that enrollment at that point was at 88% of where it was this time last year. New housing contracts are down 8.9%, and two-year contracts are better, but the net of those together is zero. The group discussed what might be the contributing problems to that issue; iii) the Chancellor will be taking a closer look this year at the 5/10/15 rule in an effort to achieve those goals. The 5/10/15 rule states that Ph.D courses should have at least 5 students; masters students should have at least 10; and undergraduates at least 15; iv) there was discussion on Banner and its challenges and also the North Central Self-Study. The Chancellor has been delegating some of the work on the Self-Study, but will become more involved as it goes forward; v) the Chancellor discussed his upcoming state of the campus address and asked for input on topics faculty and staff would like him to discuss. J. Baggott asked that anyone with suggestions can send him an e-mail (jbaggott@siu.edu).

5.2 Board of Trustees
J. Baggott reported the Board did not meet in August. The next meeting will be on September 10 in Edwardsville.

5.3 Human Resources (HR)
T. Bennett reported: i) SURS counselors will be on campus November 3-5 for individual counseling sessions. Those employees within four years of retirement will receive letters from HR in early September about scheduling their session. Appointment scheduling will not begin until after the letters have been mailed; ii) plans are being made to offer a presentation this fall on the self-managed plan. This will include participation from TIAA Cref and Fidelity. Someone from the Social Security office will also be asked to participate. More information will be forthcoming as it becomes available; iii) flu shots are scheduled for September 22 for last names beginning with A-M and September 30 for last names beginning with N-Z. The clinic will be in the Alumni Lounge of the Recreation Center. All employees will receive information with more details in the near future; iv) the Civil Service System audit is scheduled for January 10. HR has to submit information by late November and will be more aggressive about getting those position descriptions from civil service and A/P staff that are outstanding.

5.4 Representatives to University Committees

Signage - Jon Geiger
J. Geiger distributed and reviewed his report (included as appendix 1). He noted the guidelines are still a work in progress; however, the committee decided if there were any discrepancies, it would require a committee vote to decide how to handle those potential issues. J. Baggott asked if the committee has discussed banners. J. Geiger responded that banners have been discussed, but they will be handled on a case by case basis.

5.5 Standing Committees

5.5a Executive Committee
JP Dunn reported the committee met and reviewed the August agenda and July minutes. There was discussion about some changes in committee assignments, which will be discussed further in the Committee on Committees report. Additionally, the Executive Committee is presenting for approval P. Eckert's assignment to the Staff Benefits Committee. P. Eckert's committee assignment was approved.

5.5b Committee on Committees
D. McKenzie reported that last month, the committee presented for approval the University committee assignments. However, she was contacted by Paul Bennett, who asked to be reappointed to the Recreational Sports and Services Advisory Board [he was unaware that reappointment is not automatic] and from William Ehling, who asked to be replaced on the Traffic and Parking Appeals Board. The committee, therefore, is presenting for approval the reappointment of P. Bennett to the Recreational Sports and Services Advisory Committee and the reappointment of Tom Furby to the Traffic and Parking Appeals Board. Nominations were approved.

5.5c Constituency Relations
A. Rose reported the committee met via e-mail and drafted its goals for the year. They will meet soon to set a date and discuss a guest speaker for the fall luncheon.

5.5d Operating Paper
R. Sievers reported the committee met by e-mail and established its goals for the year.

5.5e Staff Benefits
V. Goode reported the committee met and elected him to serve as chair. The committee received an e-mail from J. Baggott concerning the Chancellor's request for a salary increase recommendation from the Council. The committee proposed the following for approval:

The Administrative and Professional Staff Council Staff Benefits Committee recommends to the Administrative and Professional Staff Council that they forward a request to the Chancellor that the proposed salary increase of 3.5% for FY2010 be distributed as an across-the-board increase to all eligible Administrative and Professional staff as an equal percentage of their base salary.

J. Baggott noted that salary increases are to be approved at the September Board meeting and would be effective as of July 1. S. Buhman commented that the increase basically covers the increased costs in medical and other rates that have gone up. V. Goode reported the committee also developed its goals for the year.

S. Tin asked if there are actually funds in the budget to pay for the salary increases. J. Baggott responded that what has been discussed in the past is that the recent tuition increase would barely cover the proposed salary increases, some of which are contractually established. The administration is moving forward with the increases, so he assumes the funds are there. S. Tin questioned how this would be perceived by the public at large given the state's dire financial situation. J. Baggott believes it is an awkward position to take given the economy; however, there are already contracts in place that include salary increases, and unless those parties are willing to renegotiate those increases, he believes the matter will proceed. P. Eckert believes the media should report that the A/P Staff Council is not the only group receiving a salary increase. The contractual piece should be reported as well; that is why the administration is coming to the Council. R. Sievers did not believe SIUC is the only university [in the state] proposing a salary increase. J. Baggott indicated the Council can entertain a different recommendation, if it so chooses.

V. Goode reported that the Staff Benefits Committee expressed the same sentiments being raised and expressed surprise as well; however, at the same time, it has to be viewed in context (that those with contractual obligations will receive increases). S. Tin asked if it is anticipated there will be layoffs in order to pay for these increases, and what impact might this have [in other areas]. J. Baggott responded that, as has been reported previously, there are no immediate plans for layoffs. What he is clear about is that, though there is not a hiring freeze, every open position will be scrutinized to determine its necessity at this time. Furloughs have been discussed in the media and have been proposed for other sectors in the state, but there are currently no plans for furloughs at SIUC . He mentioned that he has asked people at different times if they would be willing to take a furlough as opposed to someone experiencing a layoff. Nearly everyone he spoke with has said they would rather people not lose their jobs. J. Baggott believes that enrollment will determine what will happen from this point forward, and it is unclear at this time what impact that will have on the University. S. Tin asked if the Council is compelled to recommend a proposal for a 3.5% increase. J. Baggott responded that the administration is taking a recommendation forward to the Board of Trustees. The request was for how the Council wanted the increase to be distributed (merit or across the board), not whether it was an acceptable amount. He believes that whether the Council acts or not, the increases will likely go forward. P. Eckert believes if the Council recommends not to take the increase, then it will probably be taken willingly by someone else. J. Geiger questioned how constituents would feel knowing that everyone else [received an increase while A/P did not]. He believes the administration is appeasing A/P because they are aware that group of employees is not contractual, and if A/P do not receive what everyone else receives, then they may attempt to become contractual. J. Baggott indicated he would be pleased to pass on any concerns or reservations anyone has on how this would affect other operations. He is aware that in past years, as the campus has dealt with rescissions, that it almost always comes out of operating budgets. Those budgets have been trimmed pretty close, and he does not know how people can continue to do that and still function. Salary increase recommendation for FY10 was approved. J. Baggott thanked V. Goode and the committee for their prompt action on this issue.

5.5f Staff Welfare
C. Coppi reported the committee met and drafted its goals for the year. One of its main themes is how to market and publicize not only the mission of the Staff Welfare Committee, but the A/P Staff Council itself. As a result of the survey conducted by JP Dunn when he was the committee's chair a few years ago, committee members were able to closely analyze the data collected; they were amazed at the responses from A/P across the campus of the complete lack of knowledge of the Council. The naivete of the questions were surprising to the committee. Consequently, the major focus will be to publicize the mission and the services of the Council. Those Council members in Springfield also believe this is essential for their campus because the people they talk with there are completely unaware of the A/P Staff Council. In addition, they have found some real problems with the intranet links to the Council [website], so they would very much like to see an increased presence and importance of [the] Council at the Springfield campus.

6. Old Business

6.1 J. Baggott presented for approval the FY10 Goals and Objectives (included with the agenda). JP Dunn moved for approval; seconded by V. Goode. Motion carried.

6.2 J. Baggott circulated a copy of the proposed changes to the Conversion of Term to Continuing Administrative/Professional Appointment that the Council approved in May, but with an amendment to one of the proposed changes (included as appendix 2). He indicated this is a follow-up of the resolution the previous Council presented and sent to the Chancellor, which addressed the problem of those on term contracts continuing to remain on term contracts. The proposed changes offer some clarity to the policy so that people do not continue to remain in that position for no important reason. He explained that this has been an ongoing discussion for some time, and the resolution was reviewed by both Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance Kevin Bame and HR Director Kathy Blackwell. J. Baggott reported he met with them, and they were largely in agreement with what was proposed, but with a little bit of a clarification. He pointed to the second-to-last paragraph in the original proposed change to the policy, which stated, "If non-recurring dollars is cited as the sole criteria for non-conversion, specific supporting documentation as to why non-conversion is recommended must be provided to both Human Resources and to the administrative/professional employee within 30 days of the end date of the third consecutive year of the term contract." The amended version would put that responsibility on the vice chancellors. K. Blackwell was concerned that HR would not be the appropriate office for enforcement of people converting from term to continuing. There is a willingness to advise people as recommended by the policy, but HR does not have the authority to cause that to happen.

J. Baggott reported that other issues raised included whether behavior would change because there is still the opportunity to leave someone on a term appointment based on an administrator's evaluation of her/his departmental budget. Also, the appointment papers actually include the statement, "If the source of funds is an external grant or contract, this appointment is contingent upon the availability of funds in the external account." Therefore, there is no assurance that a contract will be completed; however, that is one of the common explanations [administrators] give for not putting someone on a continuing contract. P. Eckert commented that she has worked extensively with soft money and has both been employed by and administered grants. She has seen the state first cut in half and then discontinue a grant of 17 years. She believes when a contract lasts for so long, people are under the assumption that it will continue, and it does not. Also, with soft money, what makes conversion difficult is that the funder does not want to pay the benefits, particularly not the medical benefits, when they see how much that costs. So, when benefits accrue, it is the department, if that route is taken, that has to fund those.

[B. Nowack] commented that she is an employee this policy directly affects, and she did not know it even existed. She has never been told that after three years she should have been given the opportunity to change to continuing. There are A/P staff, herself included, that do clinical research, and their salary is paid by a pharmaceutical company. They sign five year contracts with the company, so it is not like they will not know if they will have a job a year from now. She wants to make sure that the Council does not do anything that would not be beneficial to staff like her who may not know the policy exists. T. Bennett noted that it is the Springfield Human Resources office that is responsible for notifying employees in Springfield. This policy has been in effect since [1995]. J. Baggott pointed out that employees are only notified once, so it is an easy thing to overlook. He mentioned to K. Bame and K. Blackwell that the current policy puts the employee in an awkward and possibly difficult position to have to go to the person who will decide their employment [and ask] whether or not they will remain on a term contract. Another concern is that it creates a situation where term employees may not be able to take their accrued benefits because of the need to get the work done (use it or lose it); they also do not accrue sick leave. Consequently, term employees are denied the opportunity to accrue sick leave that could be used for up to a year of service credit.

J. Baggott questioned whether the Council wanted to have Staff Benefits take another look at the policy or continue the discussion here. K. Bame and K. Blackwell believe the changes being proposed have a reasonable chance of going forward with success, meaning those people who report directly to the Chancellor would have to review and endorse it in some way. The result would be that the term employee would receive an annual reminder, which is not now the case, and then the appropriate vice chancellor would have to sign off, which they do not do currently. T. Bennett noted the [supervisor] would have to provide justification in a letter format to the employee and HR stating why there are not recurring dollars. It would require that level of justification to make it through the vice chancellors offices as well. She would guess for Springfield, it would go through the dean.

T. Ashner noted that it is not just soft money employees that the Council wants to help. There are employees who have been on term contracts for 15 or more years that actually have a salary line in the budget. J. Baggott believes the majority of the circumstances the Council is attempting to address are grant-related types of issues. V. Goode did not see how the recommendations really affect A/P who are on grants because those are external, and it is easy to see that the funds are not recurring. It is those A/P with salary lines whose [supervisors] are avoiding covering the benefits and accrued time of service by keeping them on term contracts who are the ones that the changes are addressing. Those people are not being treated fairly. L. Murphy commented that it almost seems like there should be two different types of contracts one for those on grant money that it is questionable and unknown [and another for those who are not on grants].

J. Baggott expressed appreciation for all the work that has gone into the proposal and believes it is a major step forward; however, in reviewing the document and reconciling it with what is practiced makes him wonder whether the Council should come up with something different. Unfortunately, it is not a great environment to ask management to make concessions on their ability to affect their budgets. He believes there will be a reluctance to make a lot of changes that would make them have obligations longer than they may be comfortable with at this time. He has contemplated meeting with the Chancellor to get his take on the matter, though he is aware the vice chancellors will be asked to weigh in as well. T. Ashner agreed this may be a bad time to ask [for concessions from management], but she suggested a good time may be when the employee's yearly evaluation comes up. They could ask to be considered for a continuing contract; it does not have to be a confrontational issue with supervisor. T. Ashner believes the Council should move forward on the proposed changes. It allows for proof to be shown for non- conversion and also provides the employee with more knowledge as to the decision that is made. J. Baggott is unsure it guarantees employees access to the data, but it would definitely alert [supervisors] that they have to explain their reasons, which the vice chancellor would need to know before signing off on the decision. V. Goode commented that he appreciates that the policy is worded in such a way that the vice chancellor makes the decision and that an employee can go to that person to appeal a decision.

J. Baggott indicated he is willing to take the additional proposed change forward if the Council would like to approve the proposal the way it is now written. With the Council's permission, he would also like to attach a cover letter outlining the disadvantages [the current policy] creates for employees. C. Coppi suggested creating a scenario using a colleague who has been on a term contract for x many years, and that had the employee been converted to term, s/he would have had a payout of x and service years of x at retirement year x; instead, s/he will have nothing. After further discussion, J. Geiger moved to accept the proposed changes to the Conversion of Term to Continuing Administrative/Professional Appointment; seconded by C. Coppi. Motion carried unanimously.

7. New Business

J. Baggott reported that at the Council's last meeting, he asked members to consider the Chancellor's question to the constituency heads as to whether or not Southern at 150 should be revised now or when a permanent chancellor is identified. V. Goode believes that waiting for a permanent chancellor is probably a good idea. That person would need to have that kind of input if there is going to be a revision or review and revision of the document. Also, by the time a new chancellor steps in, economic times could be different, creating a different perspective. R. Sievers agreed, but questioned who was pushing for the review the Board, the President's office? J. Baggott believes the President may have an interest in this being done before a new chancellor comes on board. V. Goode indicated he always viewed Southern at 150 as a campus document. If the President is going to be in charge of pushing that, then it is no longer a campus issue, as it ought to be. Setting up a review and getting a review and making changes could be two different things. R. Sievers questioned whether a review would have been automatic if there had been some consistency in the chancellor position, but because there has not been, someone higher up needed to give the order. V. Goode believes that if the President wants to request a review of Southern at 150, with a committee to submit recommendations to the new chancellor for her/his concurrence and review, then that might be a timesaving event; but to adopt those changes now without the new chancellor's input would be counterproductive. R. Sievers did not believe a review could be done that quickly. J. Baggott added that if the President is wanting to make a decision about a chancellor based on that person's ability to fulfill the goals established in Southern at 150, [a review] could be helpful, though he is unsure if that is what the President is needing necessarily. S. Buhman noted that the President may have a five year plan and want some input; he may also have a different perspective now than he did before since he has held different positions since Southern at 150's inception. J. Baggott agreed with V. Goode that it might be best to wait until the new chancellor comes on board; then, if the President wants to do something different, that will become clear.

8. Announcements - None.

9. Adjournment