Minutes
Employee Assembly
October 1, 1997
Day Hall Board Room
12:15 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.

I. Call to Order and Introductions

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

II. Open Forum

a. Data Access Policy -

Marjorie Hodges, Policy Program Manager, Information Technologies, informed the assembly that a data access policy is currently being formed by a drafting committee. Cornell has been trying for years to develop such a policy that would dictate who would have access to what data. About a year ago, this subject resurfaced when technologists from P2K asked the central administration for guidance about who should receive access. Clint Sidle, Director of Institutional Planning and Research, went into the community to ask for feedback on what the policy should be and how the University can deal with the question of data access. This group worked on the subject for about nine months and finally made two recommendations, which were published in several newspapers. This led to some concern over where the committee was going with the policy and so, last spring, this process was stopped and M.Hodges was asked to take over this development of the data access policy.

Previously, M.Hodges had worked at Cornell as the Judicial Administrator. She also helped to develop the Responsible Use of Electronic Communications Policy. She has been working on various policy issues for the last five years and so was chosen to develop a data access policy.

Data access is not intended to be a technological policy. This policy will only say who should have access to what data.

This drafting committee will give three policy options to the President and the Provost. The pros and cons, along with the necessary background information, will also be given to them. The actual decision will be left up to the leaders of the University.

In order to draft such a policy, the committee looked at all items that were previously written on this topic in the University. Also, for the last three months, M.Hodges has been meeting with individuals and groups in order to spread information about the formation of this policy and to receive community feedback about what the policy should be. The development of this policy was given a short time frame and the three policy options were supposed to be ready at the end of September. They were not ready, but it is projected that the options will be ready in three weeks. Individuals and groups will then be able to give feedback on the options. By the end of October, the formation of the options and reception of feedback will hopefully be done.

This policy will balance the need for privacy versus the need of running the University efficiently. Thus, the University has been divided into five functional areas: financial data, student data, HR data, public affairs data, and sponsored research data. There are different legal requirements for these types of data so they needed to be treated differently. The policy will deal with all data; the data has merely been separated into several groups.

Data in these five groups is further subdivided into three different categories: confidential, restricted, and unrestricted data. Confidential data is any data that has a law that deals with it and so it will be treated accordingly. Restricted data is any data that the University chooses to restrict to certain people, but there is no law requiring such restriction. Unrestricted data is basically directory type information; however, only some people will be allowed to actually change such data.

There are two types of access to data. Transaction access allows one to update, change, and delete data. This will only be given to individuals who need such access in order to do their jobs. Inquiry access allows the users to look at the data, but not change it. The question is, who should have inquiry access and what should they be able to look at. The community feedback indicates that there is no problem with letting people see aggregate data, but letting people see individual data and individually-identifiable data is a concern to many. Another concern is that once data is shared within the University, it might become available to the outside. The policy will also address the question of appropriate and inappropriate use of data and what is the punishment for inappropriate use.

A survey was passed to the members of the assembly and it will be e-mailed to them also. M.Hodges asked that the members collect the opinions of their constituents and return this survey within one week. A similar questionnaire will be sent out to the students.

M.Overstrom asked whether or not M.Hodges wants them to ask some of their constituents these questions.

M.Hodges replied affirmatively and that she would like to know how many people were talked to and on what issues they come out on. The policy will not be written on the feedback; instead, the feedback will serve to gauge the general feeling on the topic. Also, this questionnaire serves to let people know that a data access policy is being formed.

M.Overstrom asked whether or not M.Hodges wants to meet with the EA before the end of October. The only other meeting this month is on October 15 and the one after that is on November 5.

M.Hodges replied that she would like to meet with the Assembly on November 5.

G.Brandt asked how long M.Hodges has been working on this policy and why she thinks this process will take decades.

M.Hodges replied that she has been working on this since last summer. The establishment of this policy will take decades since there never has been such a policy in the institution before.

G.Brandt asked why the Assemblies were not informed earlier.

M.Hodges answered that she did not do so because the Assemblies do not work during the summer. The three options will be brought before the Assemblies to inform them and to receive feedback.

G.Brandt said that it is important for the Assemblies to receive such information early in the process so that Assembly members are able to be involved and to give the necessary feedback. If the members are to represent their constituents, they really need the information early.

M.Hodges stated that she understands such concerns, but the time frame constrains her in many things.

C.Gardner stated that she thinks there should be more specific questions asked on the questionnaire. She would like a questionnaire that asks who needs what data and also what data will be collectable and shareable.

J.DeMarco said that the questionnaire should also take into account position since some are naturally under more scrutiny than others.

D.Poland asked what is the current status quo.

M.Hodges replied that an individual’s data can currently be accessed by HR employees who deal with that individual’s unit and the administrative support of that unit. People who transact the data have access to data, but not to all the data that they need. Confidential data will remain so under this new policy. The real question with the new policy is whether it should be more or less restrictive.

M.Overstrom stated that due to time constraints, the questions that C.Gardner suggested cannot be asked. Instead, perhaps a space for additional comments should be added to the end of the questionnaire.

M.Hodges stated that scenarios will be presented along with the three policy options so that discussion can be generated. The policy will be written generally so that it can withstand the test of time. She will give specifics to the members the next time they meet.

M.Overstrom asked whether or not M.Hodges wishes to be on the agenda for November 5.

M.Hodges replied affirmatively and, should there be any problems, she will reconfirm with the Assembly before the meeting.

b. New Director of Purchasing -

G.Brandt noted that Vincent Patriarco was just appointed as the new Director for Cornell Purchasing. G.Brandt suggested that the EA invite him to one of their meetings in order to introduce themselves and that this practice should be adopted by the Assembly. It was decided that the EA would give V.Patriarco an invitation to one of their meetings.

c. Cornell Daily Sun -

T.Fraboni noted that he did not receive the Daily Sun. M.Overstrom passed around a sign-up sheet for members who did not receive the Cornell Daily Sun or do not have access to it. C.Gardner will make sure those on the list will get the newspaper.

III. Approval of Minutes

The minutes were amended as follows: M.Opperman’s title was changed to the Associate Vice President of HR in the open forum, C.Barbieri was changed to K.Barbieri in the P2K report, and M.Purvis was added to the list of members planning the fall open forum.

IV. Announcements and Reports

a.Opperman/Rogers Lunch Meetings -

The next meeting is on October 13 and a paper was circulated for questions and topics. The meeting after this one will take place on November 10 and questions will once again be needed on the first of the month.

b. Employee Appreciation Week/Employee Day -

L.Clougherty said that in order to attract people to the EA booth next time, some candy or another type of giveaway is needed. M.Overstrom noted that they could have pencils made or perhaps hand out candy. M.Purvis brought up the topic of the Benefits Fair, which is to be held on November 10 and 11. Members agreed to have a booth there. M.Overstrom suggested that they have a large sign at the booth asking a question in order to attract attention

c. Assembly Leadership Meeting -

M.Overstrom stated that she will e-mail the minutes to everyone.

V. Business of the Day

a.Data Access Policy -

This was covered during Open Forum.

VI. New Business

a. Fall ‘97 P2K Open Forum -

M.Purvis stated that currently a meeting with Senior Vice President Rogers on this topic is needed and that a location for the forum is being chosen. They are also trying to get President Rawlings involved. M.Overstrom said that they are having problems with the President’s office and that they have a meeting scheduled with Rogers on October 7. If they haven’t heard from the president by then, she hopes that Rogers will help them in getting the president involved.

b. EA Resolution on Reinstating Section 127 of Tax Code -

D.Poland stated that this resolution would thank the appropriate Congressmen for this action, but remind them that the EA is watching this topic in terms of taxing graduate course. This should go to both New York Senators, Jim Walsh, Maurice Hinchey, Amory Houghton, Bill Archer, Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee, William Roth, Chair of the Senate Financing Committee, Daniel Moynihan, Ranking Member of the Senate Financing Committee, William Goodling, Chair of the House Education and Workforce Committee, and William Clay, Ranking Member of the House Education and Workforce Committee.

M.Overstrom stated that she thought this resolution was a good idea, albeit the typos would have to be corrected. She suggested that this resolution be presented to the Tax Committee, which is meeting on October 6 at 10:00 a.m. This committee is looking at this issue and, therefore, should know about it. M.Overstrom asked C.Gardner if it was possible to vote on this resolution with the amended changes.

C.Gardner replied that it was possible to hold such a vote. She said that she would take the resolution and put it into the standard resolution format. She suggested that the assembly pass the content of the resolution and then she would e-mail its final form to the members for comments before it would actually be mailed out.

A vote was taken on the draft resolution dealing with the reinstatement of Section 127 of the tax code with the amended changes and reformatting. The resolution was passed unanimously, as follows:

Be it resolved that Cornell University Employee Assembly commends those lawmakers who supported the extension of Section 127 on employer provided educational assistance. Failure to extend this provision would have resulted in income taxes being imposed on the value of undergraduate course taken by university employees. We also commend those who supported the extension of Section 117D, which waives tax liability on tuition for employee’s children and for graduate students. The imposition of income taxes on these educational options would have dealt a severe blow to university programs that provide employees with the opportunity to further develop life and professional capabilities, and allow the university to offer compensation packages that can be competitive with the private sector.

However, based on the rationale stated above, we, as a body, are extremely concerned about the continued imposition of income taxes on graduate courses and programs for university employees. Staff wishing to improve or extend their career and personal potential in most instances simply cannot afford the burden imposed by this tax levy. Employees suffer; universities suffer, and in the end, the state of New York suffers from this ill-conceived measure.

We therefore, on behalf of Cornell’s 8050 employees urge you, our Representatives and Senators, to review this issue at your earliest possible convenience with the intent of permanently extending Section 127 to graduate courses and degree programs.

M.Overstrom asked C.Gardner if she would reformat it and then e-mail it to members for approval.

C.Gardner replied that she would e-mail it to D.Poland for review before distribution.

c.EA Resolution regarding New Labor Contract - G.Brandt stated that it is important to recognize the groups involved with the negotiation of this new labor contract and that this resolution would do that.

M.Overstrom stated that she cannot support this resolution because COLA and FUSE are on the resolution. She does not believe that these two groups had any positive influence on the negotiations

T.Calvert pointed out that these two were not part of the formal process.

M.Esposito stated that COLA and FUSE helped to bring this topic to the forefront. This helped to gather support for the union employees.

D.Poland concurred, stating that the student group also helped to raise awareness about all Cornell employees.

D.Walter said that he agreed with M.Overstrom’s view on including COLA and FUSE. He believes that although the two groups did help to educate people on this topic, they were not a good part of the negotiation process.

T.Calvert suggested that the assembly only congratulate those that had a formal part in the process.

T.Fraboni agreed with M.Overstrom. COLA and FUSE gave a lot of negative support and actually hurt some groups. T.Fraboni stated that he agrees that UAW and HR should be recognized for their hard work in negotiating this contract.

G.Brandt said that he was open to amendments to the resolution, but stated that he believes that when individuals organize themselves for a cause, they become a part of the process. Therefore, they should be recognized because they were a force in the new contract, which came out in a positive way.

D.Walter asked whether or not the EA had originally voted to stay neutral. If so, then this would be a change in policy.

M.Overstrom said that she believes that if UAW was a good union, the support of COLA and FUSE would not be required. She does not support COLA and FUSE because the union is a poor one.

M.Purvis said that if UAW is not a good union, then it should not be recognized.

M.Overstrom clarified her position by saying that COLA and FUSE were not part of the process.

M.Esposito stated that although the groups were involved less formally, they were still a force in the negotiations.

G.Brandt noted that the ILR school is nearby and is a natural center for the formation of these two groups. Thus, these groups are a part of Cornell.

L.Clougherty suggested that if there is this much controversy in the EA alone, perhaps nothing on the topic should be said since this might alienate the employee community. The UAW and the HR negotiating team did the jobs they were paid to do and so may not have to be recognized.

D.Poland said that people in these groups were active in informing the community about this issue and thus, this was a positive influence.

G.Brandt said that in the third paragraph resolution says that the “EA seeks to promote constructive dialogue and relations between faculty, staff and students.” If the EA does not believe that promoting constructive dialogue would include these two groups, then they should be excluded.

M.Esposito said that if the EA excludes the two groups, then the EA will seem not neutral and impartial.

C.Gardner suggested that the assembly vote on the amendment first and then vote on the resolution.

G.Brandt noted that it is not necessary for votes to be unanimous.

M.Purvis asked if G.Brandt had made a motion to vote on the resolution.

G.Brandt replied that he had.

M.Purvis seconded that motion.

D.Walter made a motion to amend the resolution so that the COLA and the FUSE sentences would be deleted.

T.Calvert seconded that motion.

A vote was taken on the resolution as amended. With four voting for the amendment and eight voting against it, the motion failed.

T.Fraboni noted that there was an article in the Chronicle recognizing all groups involved in the contract and COLA and FUSE were not among those so recognized.

A vote was taken on the original resolution. Six members voted for the resolution, five voted against it, with one member not voting. The resolution was passed, as follows

Whereas, Cornell and the UAW Local 2300 have successfully negotiated and signed a four year labor contract, and

Whereas, the Cornell Employee Assembly is concerned about the fair and just treatment of all Cornell employees, and

Whereas, the Cornell Employee Assembly seeks to encourage constructive dialogue and relations among faculty, staff and students to promote the advancement of research, education and community service,

The Cornell Employee Assembly hereby recognizes the constructive efforts by the following individuals and groups to effectuate a successful labor contract between Cornell and UAW Local 2300:

Harry Evans and the negotiating team for UAW Local 2300,

Mary Opperman, E. Peter Tufford and the negotiating team for Cornell,

The Cornell student labor advocacy group, COLA,

The Cornell faculty labor advocacy group, FUSE, and

It is also Resolved that that the Employee Assembly shall send a copy of this Resolution to each of the parties so named.

G.Brandt thanked the Assembly for its input.

d.”Frontline Feedback” -

M.Overstrom, M.Purvis, L.Clougherty, C.Gardner, Dennis Stein, Carol Ann Halseth, and JoAnn Shepherd are working on this topic. This program would help M.Opperman communicate with office professionals and get more feedback from them. An office professional is defined as a non-union OPE, non-technical, non-service staff. M.Overstrom has e-mailed JoAnn Shepherd and has received a list of office professionals who might want to work on this. Two people have replied; Leann Cooper and one unnamed person who needs to know whether or not she would have a lunch period because it is required by law that OPE workers be given a period for lunch. The committee is still searching for more members.

VII. Committee Reports

a. University Assembly -

G.Brandt announced that the University Assembly passed a resolution endorsing the hockey tournament. Because it is a recognized University event, additional insurance is not needed. Also, a donation was received to pay for the entire ice time of the tournament.

VIII. Adjournment

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