Employee Assembly Minutes
Wednesday, March 3, 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 12:20 p.m.

Present: C.J.Lance-Duboscq, M.Esposito, L.Clougherty, T.Calvert, J.DeMarco, D.Howland, D.DiBene, L.Russell, G.Brandt, D.Stein, C.Woodward, B.Goodell, T.Hoebbel, J.Worden, J.Gordon

Excused: A. Vail

II. Approval of Minutes

The Minutes of February 17, 1999, were approved as amended:

• D.DiBene should be marked “Excused” for January 6 and January 20
• M.Esposito should be marked “Excused” for February 17

II.Open Forum

L.Clougherty urged members of the EA to check out the Employee Assembly Website, which includes a listing of candidates names and information about the election.

J.Worden wondered whether all of the names listed on the agenda under committee reports were supposed to be representative of all the committee members?

C.J.Lance-Duboscq explained those lists were the EA members who served on each committee, not the entire membership of the committees.

J.Worden noted she and A.Vail should have their names added to the lists for the Employee Education and Communication committees.

J.DeMarco shared an issue that had arisen at the PawPrint board meeting. Several of the parking lots on campus have been re-labeled and are now restricted to permit parking 24 hours a day. Due to this change, late workers are being ticketed in parking lots they used to be able to move their cars to after regular business hours. He wondered how to deal with this issue, since the signs went up without warning from University Transportation Services.

G.Brandt said the change happened in lots used heavily by employees, which made it even more necessary for the community to be informed of the change.

M.Esposito added that any changes to parking policy needed to be approved by the University Assembly, and were generally presented to that body at the end of a year in preparation for changes the following year. M.Esposito asked the group to be sure the issue was followed up on at the next TAC meeting.

T.Hoebbel relayed that he had told the EA representative to the TAC about this, explaining it would be a valuable topic of discussion to bring up at a TAC meeting.

D.Stein stated he had received a ticket due to the changes in policy for a lot he was used to parking in after 5 p.m., and he may appeal the ticket.

G.Brandt suggested the EA co-sponsor D.Stein’s appeal of his parking ticket to help establish case law decisions about parking tickets and to determine the rationale for the change in policy.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq thought that perhaps some changes were made to the parking policy in order to protect administrator’s spots, which were often used by non-permit parkers after 5 p.m.

M.Esposito asked the group to be sure the issue was followed upon at the next TAC meeting.

D.Stein recognized T.Hoebbel for a photo of his which was selected for showing at the State of the Art Gallery.

T.Calvert expressed her appreciation for EA members showing up at the last TAC meeting, and hoped they had an opportunity to view the painful slowness with which the committee has been operating. She expressed her hopes that EA members would continue to participate in TAC meetings if possible. She recalled a point of contention at the meeting was the proposed change to the Helen Newman parking lot, and asked if anything had been drafted in terms of a resolution?

J.Worden said she spoke with the chair of TAC who notified her that the proposed changes had been rescinded, and the chair felt that because campus planning said there would be no parking alterations, the resolution wasn’t of dire importance. J.Worden then asked that the resolution be ready by Monday, March 7, although there might be a question of quorum with regard to voting on the resolution.

D.DiBene reminded the EA he was on the Campus Planning Committee and he had heard nothing about a recent decision regarding Helen Newman Hall parking.

M.Esposito had heard that 300 spaces would be removed from North parking, 150 would be added, and that the added parking would be farther north of campus by the Pleasant Grove apartment complex.

L.Russell noted that parking lot plans seem to change a lot, and if the committee thinks there are no complaints to proposed projects, they will move ahead and eliminate parking. To that end, some people have started a petition to save the parking at HNH.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq clarified the petition was begun by HNH employees.

T.Calvert asked that the EA be more active in general. She pointed out that law school employees had received a renewal form for their parking spots which quoted an increased price per spot A friend of hers noted that for over $400/spot, a person with a parking permit should be guaranteed a place to park. She pointed out this was a good item for the EA to take a leadership role in speaking out at TAC meetings.

M.Esposito expressed his belief TAC had been ineffective for a very long time.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq queried if the EA would like to remove the current representatives from TAC, perhaps replacing them with J.Worden and K.Rourke, who had shown interest in the positions?

D.DiBene wondered if P.Kellogg was the EA appointee, what stopped the group from removing her if she was ineffective?

C.J.Lance-Duboscq explained that to remove her the EA would have to go through the Committee on Committees of the UA, and would need to provide documentation for why removing her would be the best option.

M.Esposito noted it might be awkward to actively remove P.Kellogg; a solution might be to ask her to step down instead.

T.Hoebbel thought that since two people were interested in TAC, and new EA appointments would be made in May, those interested people should attend meetings now and express themselves.

T.Calvert agreed, pointing out that when the EA was developing a Transportation Oversight ad-hoc committee, TAC was very unnerved.

IV. Announcements and Reports

A. C.J.Lance-Duboscq said the June 7 date for the Annual Presidential Address to Employees was almost definite.

B. T.Hoebbel informed the EA there would be a presentation of a George Peter Award for Dedicated Service on Friday from 1:30–2:30 at Emerson Hall; he encouraged everyone to attend.

C. T.Hoebbel announced there would be a reception for all GPADS nominees on March 31, and asked that people try to make the ceremony.

D. The next date for the Assemblies Leadership Meeting will be on Tuesday, March 10; there will be a joint Assemblies brunch on Tuesday March 16.

E.The next TAC meeting will be Monday, March 7.

V. Business of the Day

C.J.Lance-Duboscq explained that in a meeting with the other Assemblies, the group drafted a letter to the administration regarding Assemblies’ participation in administrative decision making and appointments to committees.

M.Esposito expounded on this, informing the group that constituent assemblies feel left out by administrative decisions, such as the move of all freshmen to North Campus, the changes in the Division of Biological Sciences, etc. The administration seems to get around constituent representation by appointing students and employees to their committees, yet not interfacing with the Assemblies, so there is no communication between the campus governance structure and campus officials. In response to this problem, the joint Assemblies have written a statement saying they need to be involved with who is appointed to committees and that there needs to be a formalized reporting structure.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq said she would send out the statement when it was complete.

T.Hoebbel thought this issue would be the topic of conversation at Tuesday’s leadership meeting, and he hoped to have something in writing by then.

M.Esposito added that after the letter was sent, each assembly would have to make charter changes to reflect a new reporting structure.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq expressed the idea that the text was meant to prod the administration into developing a process that would let the assemblies know the administration’s future plans and have members of each assembly involved in decision making. Even if these committee representatives aren’t hand picked by each assembly, they will be required to report to their constituent assemblies.

D.DiBene clarified that statement by saying the administration should either notify the EA before each appointment, or notify them of their rationale for appointments when they have been made.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq said the letter wasn’t even asking for a rationale but simply asking that if there was a need to place an employee on a committee, the EA was consulted prior to and after that decision.

L.Clougherty provided an example of this problem, explaining that for the Slope Day Planning Committee, several students were escorted out of a meeting they were scheduled to be attending.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq noted that during the Leadership Meeting regarding Biological Sciences, the GPSA issued a complaint about not being represented in the decision. Vice President Dullea responded there were graduate students on the committee, but the GPSA had never been informed.

D.DiBene thought perhaps the EA should ask that each person appointed by the administration should be required both to report to their constituent Assembly and meet with the Assembly beforehand to establish expectations and a working relationship.

D.Stein encouraged the EA to push for having total control over employee appointments to committees. He explained his view that the administration subverts the self-governance system quite often and the EA needs to have a definite power over appointments.

D.DiBene thought perhaps the Assemblies could be allowed to approve administrative appointments if provided with a rationale.

G.Brandt relayed a meeting he had with a law professor and L.Clougherty a while ago where the three discussed establishing a reporting structure.

T.Hoebbel reminded the EA that Food Services had recently signed a five-year deal with Pepsi, and nine employees lost their jobs.

J.DeMarco clarified those employees were successfully relocated.

B.Goodell explained several employees were worried that with new vendors, they would eventually lose their jobs altogether, because companies want to use their own staff. Pepsi came in with incentive offers which employees refused; they were subsequently moved to other positions. People are very nervous because these sorts of changes can happen anywhere.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq said that with Union employees, the EA walks a fine line because they are unsure how far to go with active support, since there are several sources of advocacy.

L.Clougherty agreed that entire University units could be contracted to outside vendors.

B.Goodell added there was a plan to start a mini-market eatery on North Campus that wouldn’t include campus vendors.

T.Hoebbel concluded by saying there would be a final draft of the letter to the administration available soon, and he’d send it out to everyone as soon as possible.

• Campus Climate

T.Hoebbel reported that at the last Campus Climate meeting, a group of people from ILR came to discuss how to facilitate large-scale campus dialogue from an organizational point of view. They also discussed how to incorporate interactive theatre into presentations. The new plan of action is to attempt to do pilot programs with some departments and academic units in the spring, and hold full-scale programs in the fall. The group barely discussed changes in the orientation process for new students or staff.

D.Stein pointed out there was no standardized new employee orientation.

T.Hoebbel said that in a smaller committee meeting that included M.Opperman and C.J.Lance-Duboscq, specific employee issues were discussed. The group was concerned that since the materials presented for the campus climate discussion are being written by professors and other academic persons, they may not be enjoyable or accessible for all campus employees.

D.DiBene noted that a question which must be asked of the Faculty Senate, which is taking charge of this dialogue, is who exactly they want to include — the entire campus, or only faculty and students.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq expressed her belief that M.Opperman was not willing to let the subject of staff involvement in this process drop; she explained she had met with M.Opperman the other day, when the two outlined some ways to make non-academic staff part of this campus program in some way.

T.Hoebbel wondered, again, how this program would work, with so many scattered departments participating in the program, each of which have different needs.

B.Goodell thought the employees who could most benefit from this program would probably be the ones who were the most disinterested, and would need to be actively sought for participation.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq replied that the hope of the planners of this event was that if a large number of campus people were trained and changed their views, the sentiment behind the program would spread to those people who hadn’t taken direct part in the dialogue.

T.Hoebbel pointed out the dialogue was not meant to be the end of a discussion but the beginning, and as such people must realize change can’t be accomplished immediately.

D.Stein wondered what effort was being made to include people of color on the planning committee?

C.J.Lance-Duboscq reported the main committee did include people of color.

D.DiBene queried if any LGB-identified persons were on the committee, and suggested incorporating the director of the LGBT center.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq explained that Dean Cooke had done a very good job to pull a large cross section of people into the committee.

G.Brandt added the Faculty Forum would be March 17, tickets were required, and he felt the event would be very interesting to employees.

B.Goodell shared an experience the UAW had when an employee found sexually explicit and offensive material in the workplace. The UAW ran a sexual discrimination program for employees, since there was no other way to respond to the issue

VI.Committee Reports

Student Assembly — D.DiBene reported the SA was working on issues of campus diversity, and was attempting to get RA’s to do hall programs regarding harassment at the beginning of each semester.

Faculty Senate — G.Brandt reiterated there would be a Faculty Senate meeting on March 17, and said he was planning to ask Dean Cooke if some sort of live broadcast of the meeting could be seen through distance learning rooms.

University Assembly — M.Esposito explained that the UA met with Dean Cooke who presented the Athletic Reorganization program as well as information about the Campus Climate discussion, and asked for input on both. The UA passed a resolution requesting more money for CAPS, the University’s psychological service division, so that the 2–3 week wait that currently exists to see a counselor would be reduced. The UA is currently revitalizing the Free Speech and Campus Codes Committee. He noted the group needed to fill L.Russell’s seat.

Communications Committee — T.Hoebbel said that J.DeMarco had been made co-chair of the committee; the large group had created a sub-committee to work on the GPADS and ensure it was awarded regularly. Their target for the next PawPrint insert is June 3.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Julia Gordon 3/16/99