Employee Assembly Minutes
Wednesday, December 2, 1998
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: G.Brandt, T.Calvert, L.Clougherty, J.DeMarco, D.DiBene, M.Esposito, C.Hayes, T.Hoebbel, C.J.Lance-Duboscq, M.Overstrom, L.Russell, A.Vail, D.Howland, C.Gardner, J.Gordon

II. Open Forum

L. Russell announced a retirement party for Tony Fraboni to be held at WSH sometime in February; he encouraged people to involve themselves in the initial stages of this party. M.Esposito asked if T.Fraboni had completely retired, and L. Russell replied that he was no longer working, but it had not yet been decided if he would be on retirement or disability.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq added a discussion of the anti-hate resolution to Business of the Day.

C.J. thanked T.Hoebbel for the work that he did to bring the Arecibo campaign over its $10,000 goal. M.Esposito added he felt this positive action of the EA reflected well on the group. T.Hoebbel shared he had received feedback from employees which he would forward to EA members. L.Russell suggested a scrapbook should be created with articles and pictures about Arecibo in it like at the Expo last year. T.Hoebbel agreed, saying he had saved lots of pictures and articles.

T.Hoebbel wanted to set aside a time for the EA to look at the November PawPrint insert and critique it. He felt it needs feedback and he’d like to give it a good 15–20 minutes of scrutiny to really go through the insert and make suggestions for changes. He also distributed “Year 2000/No Hate” posters.

C.Gardner reminded the group that they had considered creating a specific endowment to help employees in need. G.Brandt suggested that the EA put a referenda before the employees during the spring election, to have a dollar deducted from each employee’s paycheck. He thought it would be a good time to move forward on this idea now that there has been a positive fundraising experience. T.Hoebbel thought it would be a good idea to put it on the ballot in the spring. D.DiBene felt creating a large endowment that would generate interest that could be used to benefit employees would be a good idea. T.Hoebbel noted that something should be drawn up for PawPrint. G.Brandt wondered if this would be under the purview of the budget committee, and suggested submitting a plan for review and discussion. C.Gardner asked the members to remember that referenda are good ways of increasing voter turnout, and encouraged the EA to think of other meaningful questions to include on the ballot.

T.Hoebbel asked if check deductions would be technologically possible? It was stated that the CRC had taken paycheck deductions, but that for this type of donation people would probably have to voluntarily contribute. People queried whether or not you could actually tax employees, even if a referenda passed.

III. Approval of Minutes

The November 18, 1998 minutes were unanimously approved, with the following changes:

• Section II, Open Forum: In line 1, names “J.DeMarco” and “M.Overstrom” should be exchanged.
• Section IV, Old Business
  • Part A: paragraph 3, line 1 should be added into the motion made by M.Overstrom.
  • Part B: paragraph 1, line 5, “He” should be changed to “She.”
  • Part C: paragraph 2, line 3, should read “M.Esposito thought the money was gained…” paragraph 3, line 7, $2,000 should read $1,000
• Section V, New Business
  • paragraph 3, line 2, “M.Overstrom” should be changed to “A question was raised…”
  • paragraph 6, line 1, “changes” refers to “full time v. part time parking permits”
  • page 5 paragraph 2, line 4 should read”…feasible, due to current computer systems.”

IV. Announcements and Reports

C.J.Lance-Duboscq asked how much money, in total, had been raised for the Arecibo effort? T.Hoebbel answered that the account was currently over $10,000, and that people were still donating.

M.Overstrom reported on the progress of the open forum planning committee and noted that she, L.Clougherty, and A.Vail, had exchanged emails and come up with two ideas for the forum - either employee development or transportation. They asked EA members to let them know what they would like to discuss at the meeting, and after accruing suggestions, the committee will sit down and discuss options with F.Rogers and M.Opperman. C.Gardner asked to be added to the committee to lend administrative support.

M.Esposito brought up the issue of recent events of campus harassment and noted that much of the Cornell community was concerned with this issue. M.Overstrom asked members to email other thoughts to her.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq reported that C.Gardner would send a letter to P.Kellogg inviting her to the January 20th meeting. She relayed that the officers and IOC met and expressed dismay that P.Kellogg had not been to meetings held in November; they agreed to give her another chance to show up. M.Overstrom asked C.J.Lance-Duboscq to clarify what the course of removal for a representative would be and why that course was not taken. C.J.Lance-Duboscq explained that C.Dunnam and P.Kellogg were appointed to the TAC in 1997 for two years. If the issue of representation arises, under EA requirements the representatives are to be given an opportunity to make an effort to change. Since TAC is a UA committee, the Committee on Committees of the UA is in charge of removal of members, so the EA would have to ask the UA to handle P.Kellogg’s removal. Since this is such a big task, the IOC officers decided to wait.

M.Esposito pointed out it was easy to get lost in the structure of the TAC committee and since this was such an important role, the EA should really pick some leaders for the positions. C.J.Lance-Duboscq agreed, saying that when the choice was made for TAC representatives, only two people applied. G.Brandt mentioned that a few enthusiastic people had signed up for information at the last Open Forum. Several people suggested that Kathleen Rourke might be a good choice for the committee and all agreed that the question was whether or not the EA was being adequately represented, and if not, what should the next step be.

M.Overstrom reported that the IOC had filled several open committee slots, and there were only 2 committees with spaces left open, the Information Technology Committee (SA) and the Committee on Committees (UA). There were 8–9 applicants who had not yet been staffed, and while they had not requested these specific committees, they were being contacted to see if they would accept appointments to them. M.Esposito suggested the IOC might want to look at last year’s committee members to see if they would continue their terms.

V. Business of the Day

a. Charter Amendments

C.J.Lance-Duboscq opened by relaying that C.Gardner suggested a Vice Chair of Public Relations be appointed to chair the Communications Committee. She reported that T.Hoebbel could use some relief from the massive amount of work he does, and clarified that his position of Vice Chair would still exist, and that the VCPR would be an added executive title.

M.Esposito wondered if the position of parliamentarian would be eliminated. C.J.Lance-Duboscq said no, they were just adding a position. C.Gardner said the only responsibility that would change for the Vice Chair would be the responsibility of communicating to the constituencies and chairing the Communications Committee. That responsibility would now be transferred to the VCPR. M.Esposito asked if a referenda vote would be needed, and C.Gardner said no. M.Esposito said that perhaps the existing Vice Chair should have a title and a more specific role. C.Gardner explained that the Student Assembly gets around that problem by designating each of its vice chairs specific roles, i.e. finance, public relations, internal operations, and having an executive vice chair. She explained that one of the reasons for doing this was to relieve large amounts of responsibility from what used to be two co-chairs who handled all assembly business.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq then suggested the EA create an Executive Vice Chair and a Vice Chair for Public Relations. L.Russell said he’d agree with that. M.Esposito noted it seems as though this year, the secretary/treasurer of the EA was going to have an increased workload, since she would have to be working a budget; if the EA decided to change some of the executive positions, maybe it should look at changing all of the executive positions. C.Gardner offered to work on these changes at a separate time (and determine title changes and responsibility additions), and bring back those changes to the next meeting. C.J.Lance-Duboscq asked EA members to email her suggestions and she will bring them to the IOC meetings and discuss them with everyone. T.Hoebbel clarified that he didn’t necessarily want to overhaul the entire executive board, he just wanted to make sure that the Communications Committee didn’t suffer because the Vice Chair had too much work overall; he wanted to make sure that the committee’s current responsibilities were upheld.

J.DeMarco thought that perhaps the position of Vice Chair could simply be eliminated and someone appointed chair of the Communications Committee, and C.J.Lance-Duboscq confirmed that idea had been the original suggestion. C.Gardner explained that just taking the responsibility away from T.Hoebbel wasn’t enough and recommended that someone else have the committee as a primary responsibility. M.Esposito brought up his belief that perhaps executive responsibilities hadn’t been divvied up in the best manner possible. C.Hayes agreed, saying that much of her specific charge (as per the charter) wasn’t really under her control; she specifically mentioned the taking of minutes and the preparation of the financial report.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq agreed to bring back a modified charter overhaul on December 16th, and she quickly read aloud each of the proposed amendments that were submitted with the agenda. M.Esposito raised a point about amendment 5.8, which was a proposed addition to the absence policy, noting that the change does not specify that EA members are only required to be at meetings during the regularly scheduled time. He felt that if a meeting ran over, the amendment as currently worded would mean that members would be marked absent if they left to attend to other duties; similarly, it made no provisions for what the specific meeting times were. The amendment was changed to reflect the currently scheduled meeting time.

G.Brandt thought the new provisions were somewhat arbitrary and said he wouldn’t be inclined to vote for them because of the arbitrary time limits that had been established. He brought up an incident whereby he was late to a meeting due to unavoidable circumstances, specifically an accident that occurred on Thurston Avenue on November 18 when he was on his way to the EA meeting at Balch. He worried that he would be marked absent under the new policy. C.J.Lance-Duboscq explained that the policy was not meant to be punitive, just to encourage members to attend meetings on time and submit excuses when necessary. T.Calvert expressed her belief that these changes were simply meant to get people to meetings. M.Esposito suggested that someone be designated the notification person for absences. D.DiBene clarified, through a question, that if a member had six absences, excused or unexcused, they would be removed from the EA. C.J.Lance-Duboscq confirmed this stipulation, stating that if someone was unwilling or unable to participate fully as a member of the EA, they should not serve, and these rules are meant to serve as a protection to the body. She encouraged people to look at the wording of the changes and email her any suggestions before the 16th.

J.DeMarco pointed out that old versions of the charter do not have the updated name of the Employee paper, PawPrint, written into the text.

L.Clougherty and C.Gardner agreed to review with the IOC the proposed amendments to the Charter and suggest changes based upon the recommendations made.

b. Planning for EA Goals

C.J.Lance-Duboscq reminded the group they had agreed to revisit the goals listed in PawPrint, and said she thought the EA should begin to work on action plans for the goals. She asked the EA to list things that had been done:

• 1. Address transportation issues and concerns:
  • ensuring that TAC representatives are responsive and representative;
  • suggestion as topic for the Open Forum
  • increased reporting from TAC representatives

T.Calvert noted that the EA had tabled the idea of creating an independent EA committee in favor of focusing on TAC as a worthwhile committee. T.Hoebbel agreed with this and said he’d like to pick one or two of the goals C.Dunnam listed at the last meeting and put them at the top of the TAC agenda so that the EA could advocate for them. He thought another way to increase participation would be to get lots of EA members at the meeting. T.Calvert said the list C.Dunnam mentioned was meaningless, because although those things are discussed, they are merely mentioned, not acted upon.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq replied that some things C.Dunnam said had been changed were not really in effect yet; she mentioned specifically bus schedules being present at each bus stop, something which had not yet happened. T.Calvert agreed, relaying that the student representative to TAC had taken Transportation to task on the issue. T.Hoebbel felt this would be an easy issue to make a priority, along with the issue of pro-rating parking permits for part-time employees. T.Calvert let the group know that C.Cohen, in response to the question of pro-rating permits, responded that it would adversely affect revenues and that is Transportation’s main reason for not instituting those changes.

M.Esposito raised the problem of the planned elimination of spaces on campus and in the surrounding area. Now that Collegetown was moving toward a permit parking system, Cornell has no incentive to keep its prices any lower. J.DeMarco said he had brought up that issue as well as the problems that would be arising on North Campus with the removal of a substantial amount of parking during and after construction. D.DiBene asked if the issue was one of proximity - did people just not want to walk from distant lots to their offices? T.Calvert said no, if an employee comes to work late, he or she has no spot to park in. She felt that if you pay $400 a year, you should be guaranteed a spot in the lot of your choice.

D.DiBene mentioned that students have no place to park either and when employees ask for parking, it might create a conflict between the two groups. He thought that maybe students and staff could work together to solve the problem. J.DeMarco said that might work and it might add clout in discussions with D.Lieb, who was thus far no help. L.Russell expressed the opinion that transportation was behaving like a schoolyard bully. T.Calvert agreed, asserting that the committee was merely a rubber stamp for transportation’s demands.

T.Hoebbel argued that these points should be reiterated to the TAC, and C.J.Lance-Duboscq encouraged people to attend meetings, the second Monday of each month at 11:30 AM. T.Hoebbel added to the list of questions he had for transportation the problem of decreased A-lot parking. He also brought up the problem of employees having to wait for two and even three buses to pass their stop in the evenings before there is space; he said that D.Leib was aware of that concern and was considering adding more buses to the route.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq postponed the rest of the goals discussion to the 16th and moved the group into discussion about the proposed resolution/task force on harassing behavior on campus.

c. Proposed Anti-racism Task Force

G.Brandt passed around a Daily Sun article that dealt with the efforts around campus to make improvements in security. T.Calvert drew people attention to the EA statement in the upcoming PawPrint which deals with similar issues. T.Hoebbel brought an article from yesterday’s Ithaca Journal that included a quote from Professor Mt. Pleasant regarding the recent university response to the issues of racial harassment on campus, the highlight of which was the idea that the University was proposing Band-Aid solutions.

D.DiBene asked people to recognize what it took for the University to finally act on this issue. Students had been dealing with this issue for months and it wasn’t until people were actually victimized that the administration responded. J.DeMarco added that the CU Police were doing safety walks at night and were sensitive to the student’s needs. He then asked where the resolution went when passed? T.Hoebbel responded that it was sent to the President, the other Assemblies, and other involved people on campus.

The resolution was revised by a committee of the whole and unanimously passed. It was decided that a Be It Further Resolved clause dealing with administrative responsibility was to be added after the meeting and adopted through an email exchange. The resolution, as passed during the meeting, states:

DRAFT #2\\ Employee Assembly Resolution, EA 98–03
Where any person, of any background, can work . . .

Whereas: the EA is the duly constituted and representative of staff and non-academics under the governance system at Cornell University, and

Whereas: the EA must always represent the vital employment, safety, and security interests of employees at Cornell University, and

Whereas: the EA is believes that Cornell’s non-discriminatory policies are right and just, and

Whereas: the EA is aware that recent events are causing concern, anxiety and fear at Cornell, and

Whereas: the EA wishes to continue to express our outrage at any and all cowardly attempts by anyone to harass, intimidate or threaten any member of the Cornell community, especially when such threats and coercion are based on someone’s race, ethnicity, religion, gender, age or sexual orientation,

Be It Therefore Resolved: that the EA will aggressively work with the other constituent Assemblies to expose and eliminate such acts of intimidation and coercion, and

Be It Finally Resolved: that the EA expressly celebrates the unique and diverse mix of staff and non-academics that comprise the Cornell work force and the EA further acknowledges the innate value and strength created by a work force of diverse backgrounds in assisting Cornell to achieve it’s mission of research, education and community service.

As passed unanimously by the EA (with one Be It Therefore Resolved Clause to be added with concurrence through email) on December 2.