Employee Assembly
May 6, 1998
Goldwin Smith 160
12:15 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.

I.Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 12:18 by M.Overstrom.

II.Open Forum

a. Employee Degree Program- Reception -

D.Stein stated that the Employee Degree Program Reception will be held on May 21 for degree candidates. He noted that all Assembly members should have received an invitation and that one must RSVP for the reception by Friday. He encouraged all members to attend.

b.EA Budget -

M.Overstrom stated that she, C.Gardner, and G.Brandt will have a meeting with F.Rogers next Friday to discuss the proposed EA Budget.

III.Minutes

The minutes were approved as submitted.

IV. Announcements and Reports

a.Opperman/Rogers Meeting -

M.Overstrom stated that the last Opperman/Rogers meeting of the year will be held on May 18. A sheet was passed around for questions.

Trustee Meeting -

M.Overstrom stated that on May 23 the EA will have fifteen minutes to make a presentation to the Board of Trustees. She stated that she is currently working on a speech, with the help of Cris Gardner and Fred Rogers. The meeting will be held in the Board Room of the Johnson Museum. However, members will need tickets to attend.

C.Gardner stated that she will look into getting tickets for this event. She asked that members let her know if they wish to attend so that she can try to reserve them a place.

M.Overstrom stated that the Board of Trustees will be sent the EA brochure and EA pencils before the presentation. Also, she will show the speech to the Assembly before the actual presentation.

c.Meeting with Dean-Elect Cooke -

M.Overstrom stated that there will be a breakfast meeting with Dean-Elect Cooke from eight to nine on May 21. It will be in the ILR Faculty Lounge.

IV.Business of the Day

aAlcohol Policy -

Jan Talbot, University Health Services, stated that Susan Murphy asked a group to review the University Alcohol Policy. Federal legislation requires a periodic review, and a review had not been done since 1989. The group was formed last May, and now has a draft proposal for changes. The committee now would like to receive feedback from various groups on the changes. J.Talbot stated that the committee tried to cover all types of events that may be planned. Throughout the year, the committee consulted with various others as needed.

J.Talbot stated that the first change that was made to the policy was to put it into the proper format. The committee believed that using the proper format would make it easier for people to read it and follow the policy guidelines. Also, the committee decided to set minimum standards for all University events. Individual departments, units, and organizations can modify the policy to make it stricter and to suit their own particular needs. J.Talbot noted that such modifications have occurred in the past. For example, Campus Life has modified it with the housing contract for students living in the residence halls.

J.Talbot stated that the committee incorporated a “drug statement” into the policy and so the policy’s new name is Alcohol and Other Drugs. She noted that there was no formal policy in the past at the University on drug use. Items that are true for alcohol are usually true for other drugs.

The committee also looked at the procedures because groups have been confused about the process used when planning an event at which alcohol will be served. In the past, groups have not been aware of the policy, and so risks were taken. The changes were made to clarify the procedure and reduce the risk of liability of the University.

J.Talbot stated that the policy has already been shown to the Leadership Committee and the University Assembly. She stated that she would go over the concerns other groups have made first.

On page one, under the reason for the policy, there was a concern about the wording “maintaining a drug-free workplace” and a suggestion of changing “workplace” to environment. J.Talbot stated that this is a reasonable change and that she will take it back to the committee.

On page four, under caterers, Risk Management can provide a list of “insured caterers” only. It cannot provide a list of licensed caterers, and so that change will be made. J.Talbot stated that there is no approved caterers list.

M.Overstrom clarified that Campus Life has a list of caterers that are to be used in a particular building.

J.Talbot stated that the reason that licensing was crossed out is because it is a broad term that would need to be defined. Also, the caterer has to submit an application to the ABC board in order to serve alcohol at an event, and so the issue is up to the caterer.

On page eight, under Responsibilities of Faculty and Staff Members, the first sentence states that faculty and staff are role models to students. It has been noted that staff members are not officially role models. Students may perceive them as such, but no such wording is listed in their contracts.

In response to members’ question, J.Talbot stated that there is a separate section concerning faculty and staff members since they represent the University. Also, faculty and staff advise student organizations, and so sometimes can influence the choices and decisions on utilizing alcohol at an event. Some faculty members, after learning more about what the law requires, have suggested that there be more than one advisor to an organization.

Members expressed concern about indemnification for faculty and staff. Joshua Adams, University Policy Development, stated that the Indemnification Policy will apply to faculty and staff, and that they will include it on the list of related policies.

On page 21, under General Restrictions, one of the committee’s concerns was alcohol not being used in an advertisement for an event. Such a requirement is new, and it is more mindful of the student organizations. For example, for the last couple of years, the Victory Club has advertised by stating there would be complimentary champagne. However, organizations can say that refreshments will be served. She stated that this issue will be taken back to the group for further discussion.

G.Brandt stated that Statler has a Visiting Chef’s Program, at which prominent chefs come to campus. He noted that it is a part of the culinary experience to blend food and wine, and that advertisements are run for such events.

J.Talbot stated that this will be taken back to the committee to see if there can be some exceptions to the rule.

On page 12, under Purchasing Alcohol with University funds, J.Talbot stated that the committee needs to check with the Graduate Students Finance Commission to see what their particular policy is. She noted that the Wines class is exempt by New York State Law.

C.Gardner asked whether promotion of off-campus events would be into the policy with regard to advertising. J.Talbot stated that it will be included.

On page 13, there is a chart listing the procedure for serving alcohol at an event. J.Talbot said that some groups have been concerned with the fact that forms need to be filled out if twenty people attend an event where alcohol is being served. J.Talbot stated that the goal was to get a better handle on the ways that alcohol is being used on campus, to ensure that event organizers know about applicable laws, and to let the Campus Police know about the event in advance in case extra staffing is needed. She noted that the committee is willing to increase the minimum number, and that currently an electronic UUP form is being designed. Also, group UUP forms can be done; if one knows that there will be so many group events, one can fill out and send one form for all of them, and list the dates.

In response to members’ questions, J.Adams stated that policies usually do not include penalties. Specifics are not included because they can easily change.

C.Gardner noted that there are also fines in place if one files the UUP form late, or if one doesn’t file it at all. Also, groups may not be allowed to register if they have enough violations, and so while not stated in this policy there are a progressive set of penalties.

J.Talbot stated that the next step is to take the feedback and revise the policy. The revisions will be shown to the policy committee, and then the University Assembly. It will also need to go to the Policy Advisory Group.

J.Adams stated that the policy may be used as an interim policy after the Assemblies approve it. It is placed on the Web and more feedback occurs. Afterwards, the PAG needs to approve it and finally, it goes to the Executive Policy Group.

In response to members’ questions, J.Talbot stated that the Cornell Daily Sun is a separate independent publication and it has its own advertisement policies.

M.Overstrom asked that members look at the policy before the next meeting, where feedback will be given.

b.Employee Development Policy -

L.Caswell stated that this draft incorporates suggested changes made be various groups. She stated that the purpose is to encourage supervisors and employees to get the necessary training to deal with the technological changes being made at Cornell. She noted that supervisors need to be encouraged to let employees take time off for training.

L.Caswell noted that originally information on committee participation was included but it was decided that was under the auspices of the Volunteerism Policy. Therefore, an emphasis on training was placed in this policy.

L.Caswell stated that the release time verbiage has once again been changed. When people originally heard about the 96 hours available for training, it worried them that employees would use the two weeks all at once. To alleviate such concerns, a forty hour cap was placed on the amount of training time an employee can take at one time. L.Caswell noted that there are no training programs or classes at Cornell that last more than forty hours in one week.

L.Caswell noted that people working on research grants may not be eligible for release time. Some grants are very specific on how many hours an employee can use for training , if any, and such guidelines will be followed.

L.Caswell stated that employees are not required to develop themselves, however, some training may be needed in order to keep up with technological changes.

M.Esposito suggested that HR representatives be included as people who counsel about development.

Anita Harris stated that the wording will be changed to include both.

Peter Tufford mentioned that he would like to see two changes made. Under Employee Responsibilities, he would like a requirement that employees finish the training program. Some employees may take advantage of the system, and take a training program just to get out of work, but not complete the program.

Members raised concerns about the verification of employees completing a training program as some do not have certificates. L.Caswell stated that a verification form can be included at the end of the policy. Employees would be required to have the person giving the training sign the form at the end of the program.

The other concern P.Tufford had was that financial concerns not be considered a reason for training to be refused.

L.Caswell stated that no such item was included because there is no way for an employee to verify whether or not there are funds for training. She noted that such problems have occurred in the past.

P.Tufford stated that in his department there is a limited amount of money available for training. Therefore, the department cannot afford to let all of its employees take paid training programs for 96 hours a year. He noted that perhaps supervisors should be required to let employees know about such limits in advance.

L.Caswell stated that on the denial form one can fill out lack of funds as a reason.

P.Tufford stated that unless the policy states that it can count as a reason for denial, employees may believe that it cannot be used.

A.Harris stated that she thinks that there would be no problems with listing financial constraints. Since a supervisor needs to fill out a form when denying a request for training, if an employee is denied systematically because of finances, the employee will have such behavior documented.

L.Clougherty noted that the department does not have to pay for the training, but they do have to approve and pay for their release time.

L.Caswell agreed, stating that this policy deals chiefly with release time.

P.Tufford suggested that the policy state someplace that the department is not required to pay for training.

T.Calvert stated that the policy should note that release time does not mean that the course will be paid for by the department. Such a statement is needed in order to clarify the issue.

C.Gardner noted that on page two, there is a definition of employee. She asked about the classification of employees such as librarians, lecturers, and researchers.

A.Harris stated that employees like librarians are considered non-academic. However, lecturers and researchers are academic. She noted that the definition should include the word “regular” after the word part-time.

P.Tufford asked why part-time employees have the same forty hour cap as full-time employees.

L.Caswell stated that there are some workshops that last 24 hours, and a twenty hour cap would not allow part-timers to participate in them.

P.Tufford suggested that the cap for part-time employees be changed to 25 hours, otherwise, they are getting two weeks of training, while full-time employees only receive one week.

A.Harris stated that the accrual of hours is still unclear to her. Usually, accrual is based on the total hours of work. She asked whether accrual is automatic, how it is monitored, and what happens when one takes time off? She noted that it will be hard to get it through PAG without more specifics.

Members suggested that COLTS be used in order to keep track of accrued training hours, since it has more fields available. The tracking form can also be placed on the system.

P.Tufford noted that the people in charge of COLTS should be asked about this suggestion before making the decision. He stated that it is not easy to make such changes to the system.

Members stated that the forty-hour cap is misleading since accrual does not stop. Also, they inquired as to whether or not training can be carried over.

L.Caswell stated that after forty hours have been accrued, one does not accrue any more time until some of that time has been used out.

Members stated that this needs to be made clear in the policy.

In response to members’ questions, L.Caswell noted that the time can also be used for lectures if that lecture will develop an employee’s skills or lead to personal development.

C.Gardner suggested that the definition of development be expanded. She noted that this appears to be rather narrow.

M.Overstrom reminded members that this policy will be brought up at the next Opperman/Rogers meeting.

V. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 1:31 p.m.