‘ ’ ‘Employee Assembly
Minutes
April 15, 1998
Day Hall Board Room
12:15 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.

I.Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 12:15 p.m. by M.Overstrom

II.Open Forum

a.EA Officer Elections and Retreat -

M.Esposito noted that the EA should begin preparing for its officer elections and retreat. He stated that he believed that one of the reasons that the EA started slowly this year is because there was no retreat. Also, the EA needs to elect its officers and decide who it will send to the University Assembly.

M.Overstrom stated that the organizational meeting was scheduled for next Wednesday, but this conflicts with an Office Professionals meeting that she will be attending.

It was suggested by members that the Monday Opperman/Rogers meeting be canceled and that the organizational meeting be held at that time. Since there is another Opperman/Rogers meeting in May, it was decided that this would be done. It was noted that this meeting was not optional.

M.Overstrom explained to the new members that once a month, the EA has a luncheon meeting with Mary Opperman and Fred Rogers. At that meeting, they answer questions submitted to them by EA members in advance. In addition to this meeting, once a month, there is an Assembly Leadership meeting at which the leaderships of all the assemblies meet with the President and other members of the administration.

III.Minutes

The minutes were approved by acclamation as submitted.

IV.Announcements and Reports

a.Opperman/Rogers Meetings -

The next Opperman/Rogers meeting was canceled so that the organizational meeting could be held at that time. C.Gardner will inform members when the meeting in May takes place.

b. Assembly Leadership -

The next Assembly Leadership meeting is on April 21. A sheet was passed around for members to submit questions.

V.Business of the Day

a.EA Elections -

M.Overstrom stated that the EA will vote on the new members today. There are three candidates— Rick Guardiola, David Di Bene, and Larry Russell. R.Guardiola will fill an endowed exempt seat while L.Russell will fill the statutory at-large seat, and D.Di Bene will fill the statutory non-exempt position.

A unanimous confirmation was made by the EA for electing Rick Guardiola, David Di Bene, and Larry Russell to a two year term on the EA, beginning July 1, 1998.

b.Cook Awards Letter -

M.Overstrom informed members that the Cook award is an award given to a member of campus, either male or female, who works on woman’s issues. April 21 is the date of the luncheon and tickets are $14.50. This will be held in the Statler.

M.Overstrom stated that M.Opperman has been nominated for this award because of her work on campus on woman’s issues. However, since the nominator will not be present at the luncheon, she would like the EA to send a letter of support for M.Opperman’s nomination. M.Overstrom noted that this was important especially since the original nominator did not include enough information. She then read the letter and asked the EA for input.

Members suggested that it be noted that Frontline Feedback is a program which involves mostly women. Also, it was suggested that the letter state that her work has been University-wide as opposed to across campus, since she also works with employees not located on the Ithaca campus.

c.Letter to Dean-Elect Robert Cooke -

M.Overstrom stated that this letter was suggested by G.Brandt and it will invite Dean -Elect Cooke to a reception with the EA. At a later time, the EA may have a meeting with him, during which questions could be asked. However, the purpose of this reception would be to introduce the EA to the new Dean. M.Overstrom stated that she will send out this letter unless members have changes to make to it.

d.Letter to President Rawlings -

M.Overstrom stated that during the Spring Elections, some employees reported that they were unable to run because their supervisors would not grant them release time. This problem was brought before the President, and he agreed to write a letter in support of the Assemblies; however, it is necessary for the EA to request this in writing. She noted that J.DeMarco has already suggested a few changes, and asked if members had any more changes to suggest.

In response to members’ questions, C.Gardner stated that release time for committee members is at the supervisor’s discretion. However, for elected officials like the members of the EA, according to the policy, release time is automatically granted.

T.Calvert noted that this policy also works for classes since release time is also determined by the supervisor in such cases. She asked whether or not it would be helpful to ask the President to advocate the broader issue, instead of just focusing on the Assemblies.

M.Overstrom asked whether or not it would be possible to address release time in the Employee Development Policy.

L.Caswell stated that there may be a separate policy issued regarding committee participation and volunteerism. One of the changes proposed by the Employee Development Policy is a requirement for the supervisor to state the reason why release time was refused.

D.Marsh stated that release time implies that the time an employee misses does not have to be made up. She noted that there is a difference between not granting release time and not allowing an employee to participate. A supervisor can allow an employee to take the time off, but require that the time be made up.

C.Gardner noted that just because there is a policy in the books, does not mean that it is followed. She stated that a letter from the President would indicate that he values participation and regards this issue as important.

L.Caswell noted that there is a new supervisor’s training manual that was put out by HR. Copies were supposed to be distributed at the last Education Committee, but there was not enough time left for this to be done. Unfortunately, it is not required for faculty to pick up this handbook.

M.Overstrom asked members whether they should ask the President to write the letter, or attempt to address the issue through a new policy.

A general consensus was reached to request a letter from the President. M.Overstrom stated that she would rewrite the letter and then send it.

Members suggested that she state that the EA will continue to monitor this issue. Also it was suggested that she note that there are many ways for employees to participate.

VI.Old Business

a.Transportation Committee -

T.Calvert stated that the new permit structure was approved by the Transportation Advisory Committee at its last meeting. One of the major changes made, is that the S permit will be changed to the M and T permit. Along with this change comes a price increase. Originally, this price increase was going to be from $30 to $100. However, it was decided that a gradual increase over three years would be done instead, with $30 to $60, $60 to $90, and then $90 to $120. Although, the end price is higher than the price originally proposed, T.Calvert noted that it appears that the price would have been raised next year anyway.

T.Calvert stated that one of the points brought up by the EA during its discussion was whether or not the actual number of M and T permits would be limited. She stated that there is no limit placed on the number of permits that can be handed out and that the Office of Transportation Services does not intend to limit the number of M and T permits. Therefore, this change will allow Transportation to make more money, but will not reach the objective of a reduction in the number of permits issued.

M.Overstrom stated that there is a need to provide a job description when applying for the M and T permit, and that one cannot change one’s job description. She noted that supervisors are less likely to get the permit.

M.Overstrom noted that there were questions as to how many S permits there are on campus at the last EA meeting. She stated that there are a total of 226 S permit spaces and 939 S permits issued: 356 of those permits are issued to departments for $30 each; 224 are floating S permits, which cost approximately $500(she noted that PDC only pays $30 for the floating S permits); 295 S permits are issued to personal vehicles and finally, there are vendor S permits, which retail for about $600.

T.Calvert stated that there will be an alternative to the floating S permit. Instead of buying a floating permit, books of ten one-day permits will be available for purchase. The idea behind these booklets is that it will stop unauthorized use of floating S permits by employees for their own personal purposes since the department will have to pay for each day one is issued.

L.Russell stated that the departments that use S permits are trying to find alternatives to them. For example, more buses are being used to transport employees to areas where they are needed. However, the increase in the permit price, he noted, will have to be passed onto the customer. He asked who will make the decision on awarding M and T permits?

M.Overstrom stated that Transportation will make that decision. However, one can appeal the decision if they are refused.

M.Overstrom explained to new members that the Transportation Advisory Committee oversees the changes made by the Office of Transportation. After changes are approved by the committee, they have to be approved by the University Assembly.

b.EA Charter Amendment -

M.Esposito stated that the UA recently changed its Charter to make membership requirements more flexible for its constituent assemblies. He noted that there are no real changes for the EA since it does not follow the charter requirement anyway.

C.Gardner stated that the GPSA and the SA have already approved charter changes to reflect those under construction by the UA. She noted that the charters were not adhered to by all the constituent assemblies. In the EA’s case, the EA was in compliance with the UA’s Charter but not with its own.

M.Esposito stated that it is proposed that two of the representatives sent to the UA must be from the EA. However, the other three members can come from the employee community at large. He noted that the President also needs to approve of any charter changes made by the Assemblies.

C.Gardner noted that the SA would like to directly elect its representatives(5) to the UA. However, it would always have two delegates from the SA.

M.Esposito requested that a vote be taken on the Charter change.

L.Clougherty requested that the Charter change be tabled until everyone else is present.

C.Gardner noted that Charter changes must be approved by two-thirds of the membership and because two-thirds of the EA are not present at today’s meeting, a vote cannot be taken.

M.Overstrom asked whether or not it would be possible to cover this at Monday’s organizational meeting. Members noted that only members of the 1998–99 EA have to attend the organizational meeting. Therefore, it was decided to have all members present vote and e-mail the absent members for their votes.

A vote was taken to approve a charter amendment to reflect those made by the University Assembly, with seven members voting for. The text of the Charter amendment as proposed by those present reads: EA Charter - PROPOSED AMENDMENT

2.8 interface with the University Assembly in the following ways,1

3.2 The Employee Assembly shall select five delegates to serve on the University Assembly by May 1. At least, but not limited to, two Five members of the EA shall be selected by the EA to sit on the University Assembly.

Bylaw 3.2.a If more than five EA members individuals are nominated to fill the seats of the University Assembly, selection will be done by secret ballot. The remainder of the seats will be filled in a manner recommended by the IOC and approved by the EA.

7.1.2 determine the means by which the vacant delegate seats to the University Assembly will be filled. Conduct an election by secret ballot within the EA for five representatives to the University Assembly. If if more than five individuals are nominated to fill the seats on the University Assembly. , selection will be done by secret ballot.

M.Overstrom stated that she will e-mail the absent members with the relevant information and ask for their vote.

c.EA Budget -

M.Overstrom distributed a letter penned by G.Brandt to F.Rogers regarding the EA budget. She noted that this was the first time that the EA has asked for an official budget. In the past, when the EA wanted funds for a specific event, they had to request the money from F.Rogers or C.Gardner. One of the changes suggested to the letter was that the money be requested as an annual budget, with a biannual review.

In response to members’ questions, C.Gardner stated that she would set up a separate operating budget for the EA so that the money can be easily accessed. This would not be a part of her operating budget although it would be reiterated in her annual budget. She noted that a request for continuing funds would give the Assembly some consistency for programming purposes. M.Overstrom stated that she will make that change and asked if members have any other changes to the letter. Members suggested various editorial changes, but approved the context of the letter.

d.Committees -

C.Gardner stated that the applications for committees have been received and a chart has been made listing each volunteer with their committee preferences. She stated that the EA now needs to determine which employee gets appointed to what committee.

C.Gardner noted that employees are appointed to a two-year term, but are often not aware of this fact. She asked that members inform people on their committees of this so that employees who need to reapply know of this fact.

C.Gardner stated that there is no real rush in completing this task. However, the applications were turned in some time ago and a timely response should be given to employees. She asked any members wanting a copy of the committee application chart to ask her for it after the meeting.

VII.Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m.