Employee Assembly Minutes
Wednesday, April 21, 1999
Day Hall Boardroom
12:15 p.m. — 1:30 p.m.

I. Call to Order and Introductions

C.J.Lance-Duboscq called the meeting to order at 12:15 p.m.

Present: C.J.Lance-Duboscq, M.Esposito, L.Clougherty, T.Calvert, J.DeMarco, C.Woodward, T.Hoebbel, D.Howland, D.DiBene, B.Goodell, M.Overstrom, J.Gordon, A.Vail, C.Gardner.

II. Approval of Minutes

The Minutes of April 7, 1999 were approved as amended.

Section V, Business of the Day: the final comment should read: C.J.Lance-Duboscq announced the Transportation and Mail Services programming document was available and urged members to look at it and bring it back to the table in two weeks with suggestions.

III. Open Forum

J.DeMarco announced that Family Sports Day would be this Saturday, and the EA is having a booth at the event. It will contain a group photo of the EA, a copy of the charter and mission statement, and a poster of compiled photos. The booth needs to be manned between four and six p.m.

T.Hoebbel offered to have the photo spread in C.Gardner’s office by Friday afternoon so it could be brought to the event.

M.Overstrom let the EA know the IOC had sent members draft questions for TAC candidates out, and asked that if anyone has suggestions, she’d like to take them now. She read the four proposed questions.

A.Vail proposed, in addition, the committee ask about candidates’ previous leadership experience, and other committees they had served on.

T.Calvert wanted to ensure candidates had broad campus views, perhaps asking them if they could think in broad terms.

C.Gardner brought up a technique other groups have used, where a scenario is presented to the candidate and they must come up with a response, state whether or not they would agree or disagree with a certain proposal, and list steps they would take to rectify a problem.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq reminded the EA they wanted to include a statement about the body’s expectations and goals for the committee representative.

C.Gardner noted another good question could ask what the candidate would bring to the table. This query would, hopefully, give the EA a sense of a candidate’s views on particular issues and campus at large.

M.Overstrom offered to work on the questions more, email them to EA members, and then invite the candidates to the next meeting.

D.DiBene announced he would be leaving the EA and Cornell, and moving to California.

IV. Announcements and Reports

C.J.Lance-Duboscq went through all the Announcements quickly: A. April 28, 12:00 — 1:00 p.m. — EA Election Confirmation

• C.J.Lance-Duboscq announced the results for the EA internal elections; C.Gardner offered to email the revised slate to EA members and members-elect.

Slate of Officers selected for 1999–2000 Employee Assembly

• Chair: Michael Esposito
• Vice Chair: Joe DeMarco
• Secretary/Treasurer: Jayne Worden
• Parliamentarian: Andy Vail

Employee Assembly Representatives Slate to the University Assembly (5)

• Gary Brandt
• Andy Vail
• Brian Goodell

1999–2000 Employee Assembly Members’ Committee Assignments Communications (2) Personnel Policy (3) Trudie Calvert Linda Clougherty

Joe DeMarco				C.J. Lance-Duboscq
Tom Hoebbel				Andy Vail
Jayne Worden

Internal Operations (3) Employee Education (2)

C.J. Lance-Duboscq				Denise Howland		Michael Esposito				Jayne Worden
Meg Overstrom				

1999–2000 Employee Assembly Representative(s) to:

• Transportation Advisory Board Liaison - Trudie Calvert
• University Benefits Committee (3) - Linda Clougherty
• Campus Climate Committee (2) - Tom Hoebbel and Denise Howland
• Cornell Recreation Connection - Meg Overstrom
• Faculty Senate - Gary Brandt
• Graduate & Professional Student Assembly - C.J.Lance-Duboscq
• Student Assembly - Tom Hoebbel
• Transportation Advisory Board Liaison - Trudie Calvert
• University Benefits Committee (3)- Linda Clougherty, Andy Vail, Trudie Calvert

C.J.Lance-Duboscq announced the TAC liaison would not be appointed until at-large applications were received. J.Worden and B.Goodell expressed interested in this committee.

• B. April 19, Rogers/Opperman Luncheon
• C. April 21, Final Meeting of EA 1998–1999 Members
• D. April 28, EA election Confirmation
• E. May 4, President’s Reception at Statler Hotel, Taylor Rowe Room
• F. June 7, Annual Presidential Address to Employees.
  • A.Vail and M.Overstrom agreed to work on a committee to plan this event.

V. Business of the Day

The EA agreed to deal with item “D” first.

D. Referendum discussion — report on discussion with F.Rogers

M.Overstrom reported F.Rogers felt good about the EA referenda results which approved a hardship fund, however, he cautioned lots of things needed to be checked before the program could be implemented. A.Shapiro in the tax office was consulted about different issues surrounding administrative concerns, including tax exemption status and the possibility and logistics of taking money out of payroll. The fine points of this project need to be worked out.

L.Clougherty stated she was concerned with creating a hardship fund, because a majority of voting employees had not supported the idea.

B.Goodell expressed his belief that since people were not obligated to donate to the fund, it was a good idea.

L.Clougherty wondered whether it would be worthwhile to go through the hassle of creating a fund if nobody would donate money to it.

M.Overstrom suggested the drive for donations for this fund would work like the United Way campaign, with employees being asked to fill out cards if they choose to donate.

T.Calvert pointed out donations would be tax deductible.

C.Gardner reminded the EA of the good news that the money could be deducted directly from an employee’s paycheck.

B.Goodell asserted that if the fund was administered through Cornell University, it would be a tax write off; this situation could be different depending on who gets gifts and who administers the fund.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq said this was just the first step in the process of establishing a fund, and she echoed the “many questions” sentiment that was floating around the group, and many issues that would need to be discussed with the administration.

M.Overstrom asked if a committee had been established to look at this issue?

C.J.Lance-Duboscq replied one had not, but one could be established if members felt it was necessary.

M.Overstrom expressed her belief that the EA needed a committee to investigate issues regarding the hardship fund so the assembly could move forward with their plans.

L.Clougherty wondered who would pay the administrative costs of the project?

C.J.Lance-Duboscq suggested the EA take up M.Overstrom’s proposal for an exploratory committee to figure out answers regarding an EA hardship fund. M.Overstrom, A.Vail, T.Calvert agreed to serve on such a committee.

A.Vail asked that a vote be taken to create the committee.

The EA voted to create an exploratory committee to examine the continuing idea voted on in a recent referenda of whether or create a hardship fund.

C. Program Document — Transportation — EA concerns and questions for UA

B.Goodell said a retreat with TAC, the EA, and Transportation had been proposed for the fall, where people could ask specific questions regarding their concerns.

C.Gardner noted once the TAC and EA chairs were elected, the groups could work together to set up such a retreat.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq asked that EA members look at the document and bring their concerns to the next UA meeting.

B.Goodell had several concerns regarding the Transportation Program Document, which he offered to write up and provide for the EA.

A discussion ensued regarding changed “zones” for TCAT buses and increased prices for bus passes. Many members were under the impression that while bus pass prices for Zone I had increased, the area of Zone I had increased as well.

The EA agreed to move to committee reports in anticipation of a speaker for Business of the Day arriving. They later returned to items “A” and “B,” which dealt with the University Benefits Committee.

A. Scott Maynes — University Benefits Committee

S.Maynes made a presentation regarding the University Benefits Committee, which he read and distributed to the Employee Assembly (attached). He concluded his presentation by advising Employee Assembly members to invest in index funds to ensure they would have money for retirement.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq wondered what qualified employees for the State Benefits Program?

E.Quay responded you need to hold a position as a Cornell exempt employee or faculty member, or be a previous employee of a SUNY school where you were eligible; other state employees are also eligible.

C.Gardner asked what wasthe distinction between Cornell and State Benefit Plans?

E.Quay explained several facets of the plans, including why there were differences in benefits between exempt and non-exempt employees. He explained a defined contribution.

B. Linda Clougherty — introduction of resolutions from UBC

L.Clougherty introduced a resolution which the UBC proposed as a committee. The resolution is dealing with the TIAA-CREF savings and annuity fund. Right now, it is at 6.5%, and once money goes into the account, there is no withdrawl or transfer of that money if an employee were to decide to change their investment options.

E.Quay clarified investors could withdraw 10% of their money each year for 10 years.

L.Clougherty stated the purpose of this resolution was to encourage the Faculty Senate and the Employee Assembly to motivate TIAA-CREF to change that rule. Getting a major corporation to change their ideas will be difficult, but other colleges that have been contacted have similar problems, and with a combined effort perhaps change can be made.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq asked what other schools had been spoken to?

S.Maynes asserted that the UBC needed a strategy to change the plan. He spoke to R.Cooke, Dean of Faculty, who directed him towards Trustee T. Jones, who happens to be the prior CEO of TIAA. S.Maynes spoke to T.Jones, who contended that if five major institutions wanted change, that could get TIAA to change their policy. The institutions chosen to help with the campaign, due to personal contacts, were Cornell, Harvard, Princeton, Northwestern, and the University of Chicago.

C.Gardner expressed some discomfort with the resolution’s language and questioned if the three year payment was rejected by the committee?

S.Maynes explained he worked on this document with P.Bursic, E.Quay, R.Schuyler, and H.Beerman, and did phrasing in that subcommittee. H.Beerman felt that the requests for an immediate payout in full was reasonable, based on the size of TIAA’s funds and investments. He also made it clear that this was a point of initial contact with TIAA from which to work and make compromises.

L.Clougherty made a motion to accept the recommendation of the UBC.

M.Esposito wished to discuss rewording “polity” to “policy”, and noted that the term ‘relax’ might be construed as vague. He encouraged the UBC to ask for something definite and somehow explain the hardship of having a ten year payout.

L.Clougherty explained the resolution was less specific in some areas in order to encourage coalition building.

S.Maynes let the EA know this was coming up in front of the Faculty Senate on May 12th.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq made a motion to postpone until the Faculty Senate made a decision regarding the revised document before the EA would discuss and vote on this resolution.

The motion passed.

VI. Committee Reports

Campus Climate Committee — T.Hoebbel reported the committee was instituting Phase I of their program which is the pilot Dialogue on Difference. There will also be a presentation of “Cornell ‘69, Then and Now,” a faculty forum rescheduled to May 3rd, 4:30–6:30 p.m. in Alumni Auditorium in Kennedy Hall.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq asked if the EA could get approximately 20 tickets for members?

C.Gardner replied the Office of Assemblies had already requested tickets for members.

T.Hoebbel added the CCC would be holding a pilot dialogue in the Department of Rural Sociology.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq wondered if EA members could attend, and T.Hoebbel replied that would be fine, but not all at once. He mentioned there would be other pilot dialogues before next fall as well.

C.Gardner reminded the EA the purpose of the dialogues was to create internal discussion in a department, and there was some concern expressed in the committee that the presence of too many outsiders might change the group chemistry and alter the discussion.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq suggested two EA members attend each pilot dialogue, not as participants but as observers. T.Hoebbel offered to let R.Harris and R.Rich know about potential observers for meetings and would get approval from them.

T.Hoebbel mentioned that he was concerned that units such as the Campus Store, which deals with the entire University but is comprised mainly of employees, would have few faculty and students participating in their discussion.

C.Gardner responded by pointing out there were many student employees at the store who would be included, and oversight committee members that include faculty, would also be included. She announced that a campus dialogue program would be run in conjunction with the fall retreat.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Julia R. Gordon