Archive > 2009 Schedule of Meetings > Approved Minutes

Date: October 21, 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, Steve Buhman, Carla Coppi, Janet Douglas, JP Dunn, Pat Eckert, Jon Geiger, Vern Goode, Dana McKenzie, Layla Murphy, Barbara Nowack, Mike Reiman, Amy Rose, Rod Sievers, Allison Sutphin, Sue Tin, Sharon Walters, Gloria Yuncker.

Members Absent: Natalie Branca.

Proxies: Barbara Nowack for Barbara Lokaitis.

Visitors and Guests: Phil Bankester, Tracy Bennett, Don Castle, Delores Kerstein.

3. Minutes

The minutes of the meeting on September 16, 2009, were approved as presented.

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

5. Reports

5.1 Chair
J. Baggott reported: i) he attended a constituency heads meeting with the Chancellor on October 19. There was much discussion on the success of the MAP lobbying efforts; however, there is still concern as to how it will be funded; ii) the Chancellor discussed the preliminary numbers for fall 2010. At this time, freshman applications are up 2.5%; the numbers are also looking up for spring. Applications for students in bordering states are up 36 from last year. Transfers continue to be a concern; iii) there was some discussion about the number of students who drop out. There does not seem to be an opportunity for intervention with students before they drop. Dean Minish suggested students be required to meet with an advisor or someone in the department who could intervene in order to effect those numbers; iv) the University is facing a $4 million shortfall, some of which will be covered by the reserve (2% contingency); however, this will exhaust all the funds that would have been carried over to the next year. This creates much concern, as there are challenges that have to be addressed ($3 million as a result of the enrollment decline; $4 million for the Illinois Veteran Grant). It is hoped the hiring freeze will offset some of that expense. The absence of stimulus money could also create a 7% deficit that will have to be made up; v) the Chancellor discussed the connection with China and the possibility of increased numbers of students from there attending SIUC; vi) there was some discussion about the sexual harassment procedure.

J. Geiger suggested two minor changes be made to the draft letter going to the Chancellor about the term to continuing policy, which was included as appendix 5 to the September 16 minutes. J. Baggott indicated he did have a meeting with the Chancellor to discuss the proposed change. He believes it was a productive meeting, although the Chancellor is concerned about the incurring liability it might create. J. Baggott explained to the Chancellor that he does not have specific numbers yet as to how many people this change would affect; he did, however, indicate that there are anecdotal examples that people have offered to share. The cost in his mind is the 56 days of vacation someone might accrue that would be payable at the time of separation. He does not believe the numbers are large and would make much difference to the institution as a whole; however, to the individual it could be very significant. J. Baggott believes the Chancellor is supportive, but would like to have more discussion on the issue.

5.2 Board of Trustees
J. Baggott reported the Board will not meet until December.

5.3 Human Resources (HR) - None.

5.4 Representatives to University Committees

5.4a Chancellor's Search Committee - Don Castle
D. Castle reported that the search is moving along quickly, and he wanted to give everyone a heads up as to what will take place next. He reported that six semi-finalists have been identified, and off-site interviews will be conducted within the next week or two. The committee will then narrow down the finalists to possibly three. The finalists will have a rigorous schedule when they arrive on campus. There will be a scheduled time for the candidates to meet jointly with the A/P Staff Council and Civil Service Council, at which time any questions or topics can be raised for discussion. Tentative dates for the finalist visits are November 5, 9 and 16. Those who will be involved in the interviewing of the candidates will also be invited to a reception and meeting to be oriented to the candidates. The committee plans to be through the interviews by Thanksgiving. Any recommendations made on the candidates will be forwarded to the President. D. Castle believes [the campus] will be pleasantly surprised at the caliber of the candidates. He reiterated that the process will move quickly, so anyone who has questions or comments should e-mail him, and he will answer what he can. He also noted that the finalists will visit the Springfield campus, though Dean Dorsey has the details on those schedules.

C. Coppi mentioned that one of the ways Student Affairs has conducted interviews is to compile some pre-set questions or concerns that could be used as jumping off points. She questioned whether this was something the Council might want to do in order to make the most efficient use of their time with the candidates. J. Baggott indicated that Council members who have questions should forward them to the Constituencies Office by October 30 so the Executive Committee can consolidate those questions that are similar.

5.4b Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory - Phil Bankester
P. Bankester reported the committee had been meeting twice a month until the spring, when the Chancellor changed the schedule to monthly--though several meetings during the past six to eight months [were cancelled]. P. Bankester indicated the committee did meet on October 19, at which time several of the issues J. Baggott raised in his report were discussed. P. Bankester reported: i) the hiring freeze is not to be considered absolute. Positions are being considered on a case by case basis. There are currently only 9 ongoing searches, which is way down from the 60-70 that are typical at this time of year. The colleges have exercised great restraint in attempting to hold only the absolutely critical [positions]. A suggestion was raised about the possibility of early retirement incentives; however, it was decided that with all the represented groups on campus, it would have to be a bargained issue; ii) the MAP funding issue was extremely critical and could have been disastrous in the second half of the year if the legislature had not committed to the funding. It is unclear, however, how it will be funded; iii) it appears that FY11 will be a much more difficult year than FY10. Recruitment, retention and total enrollment are being seen as the key by the Chancellor. There will be a big recruitment push in the St. Louis area and possibly Memphis. The Chancellor is also looking for a considerable increase in international students next year, particularly from China, as a result of a memorandum of understanding that would grant those students Illinois resident (alternate) tuition. Additionally, there are some faculty traveling to India to do some development work for the College of Engineering; iv) the College of Agricultural Sciences continues to lead the campus in enrollment. Dean Minish indicated that for the last two or three years, the college has been buying ACT names of students who list agriculture as an interest. They then direct mail those students fact sheets about all the college's degree programs, the general course requirements, etc., and follow up with phone calls. Prior to that, enrollment in the college was flat; v) last year, SIU's tuition increase was the smallest [in the state], while many others were around 9 to 11%; vi) a search will begin soon to replace Susan Ferry, who is retiring in March. The hope is to conduct an internal search to fill the position. J. Baggott noted that Dean Minish will also be retiring in the near future.

5.4c Affirmative Action Advisory - Delores Kerstein
D. Kerstein submitted and reviewed her written report (see (included as appendix to the minutes).

5.4d Judicial Review Board - JP Dunn
JP Dunn reported the Board received one appeal and met to review its merit. Board members found the appeal to have merit, and a three member panel was appointed to hear the case. The panel's recommendation was forwarded to the Chancellor, who upheld the decision. JP Dunn reported that a training session for Board members is being planned soon, and a permanent chair will be elected.

5.5 Standing Committees

5.5a Executive Committee
JP Dunn reported the committee met on October 6 and approved the Council's September minutes and the agenda for the October meeting. There was discussion on the term to continuing policy, the MAP grant funding and the rally held in Springfield. He also noted that the Council's website has been updated with new slide show photos. Anyone with comments on the website can send them to Heidi Jung (hjung@lib.siu.edu). J. Baggott expressed appreciation for H. Jung's continued willingness to help with the website.

5.5b Committee on Committees
D. McKenzie reported the committee received a request for a representative to serve on the Academic Calendar Committee. The committee met via e-mail and decided to ask J. Geiger if he would be willing to continue serving. He agreed to do so. The committee is therefore presenting his name for approval. Nomination to Academic Calendar Committee was approved.

5.5c Constituency Relations
A. Rose reported the fall constituency luncheon went well. If anyone has any comments or suggestions [for future meetings], they can e-mail her (amywrose@siu.edu). She thanked committee members for all their help.

5.5d Operating Paper - None.

5.5e Staff Benefits - None.

5.5f Staff Welfare
C. Coppi presented the committee's recommendations for the Sexual Harassment Complaint and Investigation Procedures (included as an attachment to the agenda). She thanked her committee for all their input. She explained that the committee was intentionally brief and succinct, giving concepts, ideas and concerns as to why the committee believes the procedures should be revisited. She pointed out that many of the concerns are almost direct repetitions of what the committee put forth last year and which, apparently, fell on deaf ears. The main concern is the ultimate and complete centralization of the process. The committee believes there is a deliberate de-emphasis on the informal resolution process, which data and historical literature shows is very effective in sexual harassment cases. As a consequence of the de-emphasis, there is a loss of anonymity because even if there is an insinuation of sexual harassment, it comes to the attention of the supervisor and [opens up the possibly of becoming known to the campus at large].

C. Coppi asked J. Baggott if he has presented the committee's recommendations to Associate Provost Susan Logue. J. Baggott responded that he had wanted to wait until after this meeting. He asked if the committee believed that, because of the issue of anonymity, people would be less willing to make a report of sexual harassment. C. Coppi is unsure if that is a verbatim concern of committee members, though she believes the specialists in the Affirmative Action and Vice Chancellor's Offices would not believe that to be the case. J. Geiger asked if there are consistencies in the committee's concerns with those of the other constituency groups. C. Coppi responded she has not talked with the other groups, but is aware there are agencies on campus that have many of the same concerns. It was noted that the Faculty Senate expressed the concern that its recommendations to the procedures were ignored as well. J. Baggott added that the student constituency groups were unaware the procedures were being examined and are just now starting to review them.

JP Dunn commented that he and H. Jung discussed the possibility of having the Judicial Review Boards for the respective constituency groups be a step before a case goes to the associate chancellor. That is potentially a less threatening environment than going straight to the top administration. They also discussed the unrealistic time lines for both sexual harassment and JRB cases; [60] days is not a lot of time for data collecting, informal and formal review. It is not even specified whether it is calendar days or working days. Also, most people prefer to get advice from counsel before they file a grievance or a sexual harassment claim. T. Ashner suggested that possibly J. Baggott and C. Coppi could meet with S. Logue not only to provide her with the Council's recommendations but also [to convey how strongly the Council feels about them]. J. Baggott believed they could accommodate that suggestion and asked if anyone had any other comments/concerns. He expressed appreciation to the committee for its work, particularly those members in Springfield. He noted that during discussion of the issue, it surprised him to learn that Carbondale and Springfield have different sexual harassment policies. G. Yuncker indicated she was surprised as well to learn of the different policies, so she has been [reviewing other Springfield campus policies to see how they compare to those in Carbondale]. J. Baggott responded that he would be interested in G. Yuncker sharing what she is learning about those policies. L. Murphy indicated that as a School of Medicine employee in Carbondale, she is also interested in knowing which policies would apply to those on the Carbondale campus. G. Yuncker responded that her understanding is that the School of Medicine Carbondale employees are under the School of Medicine policy.

J. Baggott asked if there is a separate A/P constituency group on the Springfield campus. G. Yuncker responded that Springfield does have an A/P Council; one of the School of Medicine representatives from each Council will act as a liaison to share information back and forth. J. Baggott asked if information about the Springfield council is accessible with respect to how that organization functions. G. Yuncker responded that there is a website available to Springfield employees, though she is unsure if it is accessible [to those in Carbondale]. C. Coppi indicated she attempted to get on Springfield's intranet and was denied access because she did not have an access code. L. Murphy believes she and A. Sutphin may be able to access the site because they have a separate password for SIU School of Medicine e-mail accounts. J. Baggott believes the Council needs to understand the two different parts of the School of Medicine and how they relate to each other, as well as the campus policies that affect each one differently. C. Coppi commented that one of the committee's goals for this year was to look at how to bring Springfield more into the A/P Staff Council. They are [working toward that] now by asking these kinds of questions.

J. Baggott believes it would be more effective if a group got together between now and the next Council meeting to examine and educate themselves on the issues. It may affect the Council's operating papers, so possibly the Operating Paper Committee should look at the issues. He suggested that A. Sutphin, as a member of the committee and of the School of Medicine, might potentially have access to the School of Medicine's intranet. If not, possibly Springfield could help with that. R. Sievers indicated he would set up a meeting of the Operating Paper Committee in order to discuss the issues. J. Baggott thanked the Staff Welfare Committee for taking the time to look at [the sexual harassment procedures].

6. Old Business - None.

7. New Business - None.

8. Announcements - None.

9. Adjournment