Employee Assembly Meeting
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
B12 Day Hall
Minutes

I. Call to Order

J. Seymour called the meeting to order at 12:20 p.m. He then called the roll.

Present-D. Brooks, T. Grove, L. Croll Howell, L. Lawrence, L. Morris, G. Osborne, T. Ostrander, C. Phillips, J. Seymour Absent-P. Dongtoe, N. LaCelle, A. Mittman, G. Stewart

B. McKinney was not able to attend; GPSA liason Ben Heavner was present.

II. Call for Late Additions to the Agenda

There were no Late Additions.

III. Business of the Day

a) Discussion with VP Mary Opperman

J. Seymour introduced VP Mary Opperman and stated that the EA submitted talking points to her in advance. VP Opperman presented each of the questions submitted and then gave her answer.

1. How many staff have been laid off so far? How many of them have found reemployment?

VP Opperman first asked if the EA could potentially submit these questions to her office further in advance so that queries can be better answered. She went on to say that 104 staff are currently on layoff and that 288 people have been laid off in total since July 1, 2008. This, however, includes layoffs due to the loss of a large grant early last fiscal year. Of the 288 laid off, 63 have found reemployment (51 are back at Cornell and twelve found work externally) and 33 took the Staff Retirement Incentives (SRI).

J. Seymour asked if the SRIs were considered in the “layoff category.” VP Opperman replied that those eligible for the SRIs were allowed to take them; 33 staff members that were given layoff notices took the SRIs. She explained, however, that the number of SRIs given out was not considered to be in the “layoff” category; 432 total Cornell employees chose to take the SRIs.

2. Of the recently open positions at Cornell, how many were filled internally as opposed to externally?

VP Opperman said that about half have been filled externally and half have been filled internally, but there have been slightly more externally-filled positions. Most of the positions are advertised internally first and then externally if candidates are not found. Some jobs, such as research jobs, are either directly advertised externally or simultaneously advertised internally and externally to get them filled right away.

3. How are Wedge Consulting’s layoff support services working?

VP Opperman stated that there has been no formal survey, but people seem to like the Syracuse-based company and that there is good feedback from laid off workers.

4. Why did the Cornell administration select an out-placement partner?

VP Opperman replied that HR does not have the same resources that Wedge Consulting does. Furthermore, the administration realized that Cornell could not absorb all of the laid off staff; there simply would not be enough job openings to do so. This led them to the conclusion that an out-placement partner would be needed. Wedge Consulting provides professional layoff services and helps laid off workers. L. Croll Howell asked if these services would be provided in the future, and VP Opperman replied that they would continue as long as the funding for them still exists.

D. Brooks asked how long Wedge would continue to consult with an employee after they have been laid off. VP Opperman said that she was not quite sure, but it is probably about three months. She went on to explain that Wedge helps laid-off workers by teaching them how to write a resume, how to interview for jobs, and even provides counseling.

5. How has the “Connecting at Cornell” program been working?

VP Opperman explained that the October job fair for this program was intended to provide laid off staff access to recruiters and job opportunities at Cornell. So far, only one person has gotten a job through this program, but VP Opperman said that another job fair would be held in January to hopefully expand this program.

G. Osborne asked what an “average year” would be like in terms of layoffs, and VP Opperman estimated that it would be under 100. However, she added that there really have not been “average years” recently because there have been significant losses in research dollars and big grants. Before, layoffs have been due to the loss of research or state funding, but this is the first time since VP Opperman has been here that there have been layoffs due to cuts in operating funds.

C. Phillips asked what caused the operational layoffs, and VP Opperman said that it was simply budget reductions in each department. Last year, everyone was required to take a 5% budget cut; each department either laid off workers, didn’t fill job openings, or used their SRI savings. Everyone is simply waiting for the Budget Office to tell them how the budget cuts will be made this year.

N. LaCelle asked when the Bain Consulting reports would be finalized and what it would entail. VP Opperman said that she thinks that Bain seems to be focusing on administrative areas such as HR, Finance, Executive Communications, Facilities, and Information Technologies. She said that she suspects those departments will get cuts, but that the academic areas will probably not get cuts. Those areas will be expected to restructure themselves and develop internally with the same budget.

VP Opperman added that the rest of the savings would be due to efficiency increases. Bain Consulting proposed the idea of “middle management” in a “spans and layers” format. There would be fewer layers between the top and bottom of the university and those in the middle would have more people reporting to them. She said, however, that this would be difficult to implement in a decentralized university.

T. Grove asked about potential changes in faculty, and VP Opperman replied that faculty would not be reduced but lecturers have already been cut. These cuts have been made mostly in Arts & Sciences, and further reductions in lecturers would probably impair the college’s ability to function. VP Opperman asserted that CALS is planning to reduce their faculty by not replacing retiring professors, but overall in the university, the number of faculty will stay the same to keep the student-to-faculty ratio low. Furthermore, she said that the financial problems cannot be attributed to aggressive growth in the workforce because Cornell’s staff and faculty grew only moderately. The cost came from money spent on building construction and the university never received the expected financial gifts to pay for them; the operating budget was then used to finance the cost of construction. Because the major expense in the operating budget is the workforce, staff had to be cut. VP Opperman explained that the university is now trying to cut nonpersonal expenses to avoid further layoffs.

L. Lawrence asked about changes that occurred at the executive level. VP Opperman said that an Executive Vice President and a Vice President position have been eliminated, and the remaining executives have been asked to take on additional responsibilities. C. Phillips asked how staff would be asked to accept additional duties, and VP Opperman replied that these requests would have to go through HR.

J. Seymour asked if Bain has identified cases where an individual has to report to multiple bosses. VP Opperman said that Bain has probably not discovered these issues yet because their review has not spanned the entire university. She added that Bain has not and probably will not examine all of Cornell but just the areas where a significant amount of money can be saved. D. Brooks asked which areas would not be scrutinized, and VP Opperman replied that Bain would probably leave academics untouched. College deans would be charged with the responsibility of cost cutting within their own colleges.

L. Lawrence asked if bonuses would still be awarded; VP Opperman stated that she and President Skorton support the reimplementation of salary increases this year, though they disagree as to which level those salary increases should be awarded. She explained that salary increases are only fair because people are being asked to take on extra duties, but she thinks that those at the top do not need a bonus or increase for another year. Though salary increases will add to the university’s deficit, VP Opperman expressed confidence that Cornell would work through this.

IV. Approval of Minutes-

a. November 4, 2009

L. Croll Howell proposed several amendments and N. LaCelle suggested one as well. After brief discussion, T. Grove motioned to approve the minutes. G. Osborne seconded. The members voted and the minutes passed.

III. Business of the Day (contd.)

b) Discussion with Mike Powers on cost savings

J. Seymour introduced Mike Powers, who said that he would introduce the committees formed and the progress they have each made. The first is the Energy Management Committee, which has been highly impacted by the budget cuts. Their ability to cut costs is impaired by a lack of funding because they need investment to set up cost cutting systems. For example, they want to implement an energy conservation outreach program within CALS and set up more efficient light bulbs in the greenhouses, both of which would require funding. The committee chairman, however, was optimistic that this money would be forthcoming in future.

In Grounds and Building Maintenance, M. Powers said there have been reductions in seasonal plantings and the optimization of winter pathway closings. There was also a suggestion to reduce salt application on the pathways and grounds, but he said this was probably not implemented.

M. Powers added that there has been a focus on cost management and recovery and increased efficiency. He also said that this year, the maintenance cleaning costs would probably go up due to the influx of H1N1. However, Cornell Catering has reduced their spending because departments have either reduced or eliminated refreshments served during their meetings. Dining halls have implemented trayless dining, another potential source of cost cutting. Hard numbers on the savings, though, have yet to be calculated.

M. Powers also mentioned the SRI Program; the total cost of its implementation was $35M, and he estimated it would take about fifteen to sixteen months to recoup at least $25M of the costs. L. Lawrence said that he is not seeing replacements for retirees from full time positions, but some jobs are being filled. M. Powers then said that cost cutting is also being implemented for the annual Schwier Service Awards Dinner, the Work Life section is no longer printed in the Cornell Chronicle, and the university has saved $25,000 in the Fall 2009 open enrollment packages by not doing home mailings.

Cornell University Finance and Administration (CUFA) has offered the IT department solutions; the IT sector is also being closely scrutinized by Bain Consulting. M. Powers, however, did say that there has been discussion to categorize IT as a utility, and furthermore, there has been a recommendation for IT to start using more open source software. He said that the university has spent millions of dollars on customized software.

L. Croll Howell suggested a “Community First” type software like the Kuali Financial Systems Project. Universities have paid to have input in the open source’s development. She said that this type of open source would require less customization and would also be more relevant to the university’s needs.

T. Grove said that eShop has recently revised its interface to better accommodate Cornell. This could potentially cut costs because it is now easier to buy items at a cheaper price. C. Phillips, however, expressed her concern that Cornell is cutting itself off from local vendors because it is purchasing from other companies. M. Powers said that the university would probably focus on purchasing supplies at the lowest price, which may not include local businesses.

J. Seymour had an appointment and D. Brooks filled in as chair for the remainder of the meeting.

M. Powers added that the university is currently spending $1B, and is looking to save approximately $30M. His last discussion topic was the subject of printing at Cornell. In 2007, the total spending on printing and associated costs was $15.7M, $9.7M of which was actual printing. He stressed that there is no mandate, but they hope to encourage people to reduce printing and thereby cut those costs by 40–50%. He said, however, that departments should take their audience’s preferences into account; the alumni magazine’s readers, for example, preferred paper instead of print editions.

M. Powers also noted, however, that a reduction in printing would help Cornell become more sustainable. The Cornell Chronicle, which is no longer printed, used 26 tons of paper per year and 14,500 copies of the Courses of Study were printed, costing $40,000 and using 16 tons of paper. There were 105,000 copies printed of the Cornell Viewbook for prospective students, which used 40 tons of paper and cost $139,000. M. Powers said that a “Digital Well,” which would archive past and present Cornell publications, would accompany the switch to online instead of print media. This would also support different types of digital media, like audio and video. He added that a prototype would be online in January.

Because time was running short, M. Powers said he would take questions by email (ffp1@cornell.edu) and perhaps answer them in detail during another EA meeting. G. Osborne added one last comment; she suggested that perhaps eShop should make themselves more accessible on the web because the current website is not easily found.

V. Committee Reports

a. IOC

T. Grove had nothing to report.

Vi. Old Business

There was no old business.

VII. New Business

There were no New Business items.

VIII. Open Forum

T. Grove reminded everyone of President Skorton’s birthday party, to be held Monday at the Cornell Store.

IX. Adjournment

XI. Adjournment D. Brooks adjourned the meeting at 1:43 p.m.