Employee Assembly Minutes
Wednesday, May 5, 1999
G08 Uris Hall
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: G.Brandt, T.Calvert, L.Clougherty, J.DeMarco, D.DiBene, C.Dunnam, M.Esposito, C.Gardner, B.Goodell, J.Gordon, E.Hallstead,T.Hoebbel, D.Howland, P.Kellogg, C.J.Lance-Duboscq, M.Overstrom, M.Moschella, A.Vail, C.Woodward, J.Worden

II. TAC Committee Member Applicants

B.Goodell stated he had a lot of interest in the TAC committee, especially since he is in the Transportation Department. He noted the bus garage was not located on central campus but he sees what goes on at Cornell and gets input from his interactions with people on his bus routes. In his line of work, he hears plenty of complaints and sees the confusion people have with bus schedules. He is familiar with the department, an asset that can help the EA. B.Goodell explained when he worked on campus he had the same concerns as other employees regarding parking spaces and fees. As a new employee, he didn’t know the EA existed. Now that he’s found a vehicle for employee voices, he’s not going to spend time asking “why this,” “why that” questions, but will instead get up and do things. He contends that his familiarity with Transportation and Mail services as well as his personal beliefs about parking and transportation will make him a good representative.

L.Clougherty wondered if B.Goodell’s job would be jeopardized if he spoke out against Transportation?

B.Goodell explained he had the union backing him, so his job was pretty secure. He said he was accustomed to wearing different “hats” in his line of work.

G.Brandt noted that at times, the TAC committee deals with issues regarding department operation and new criteria for Transportation employees. He wondered how B.Goodell would be able to maintain his objectivity at such times?

B.Goodell contended he wanted to represent all of the Cornell employees, and he feels he can do that with this position.

G.Brandt asked if B.Goodell would be comfortable excusing himself from a meeting or abstaining from a vote if a conflict arose?

B.Goodell asserted he would not vote if there is a conflict; he sees his role as negotiating with other employees, not for or against specific policies.

T.Calvert wanted to know if B.Goodell had an interest in campus parking issues, because that is where employees seem to need an advocate the most.

B.Goodell said he was concerned with and highly aware of the issues, especially because he hears complaints all the time from passengers.

J.Worden stated one of the reasons she was interested in TAC was to become a better representative of the Employee Assembly and constituents in TAC meetings. She has the ability to recognize strengths in a group and to channel that group’s energy into productive work. J.Worden desires to bring ideas discussed to fruition and to be responsive to the public when they have concerns. She wants to have a sense of campus issues, and feels that her work at Cornell for the past few years will aid her in this goal. She explains she does not feel attached to the parking issue, which would make her an objective leader and participant in discussions, but she does understand employee concerns. She describes herself as an issues person, and likes to discern the reality of issues and discover the mission of a group. J.Worden has been at the University and worked with administration, and she recognizes the challenge of being a TAC representative. She wants to use her experience and the expertise of group members to increase the effectiveness of TAC.

M.Esposito said that while experiential qualifications were important, having a vision was an even bigger part of being a TAC representative. He wondered what J.Worden’s vision for TAC was.

J.Worden responded she has heard all the complaints regarding parking permits and fees, and wants to re-examine the structure of policies. Another vision of hers is to create a committee where Transportation employees and constituents can work together to discover issues and be made aware of parking changes early on in campus planning stages.

M.Overstrom reminded the EA there had recently been a concern the committee was not working as a whole. She asked J.Worden how, as a member of TAC or even as a potential chair, she would bring the committee together and get them to work as a whole.

J.Worden asserted her belief there needs to be increased delegation and representation of employees in planning for meetings. She suggested that people who would like to bring forward different issues and needs be allowed to speak at meetings. J.Worden recognizes that while people have different personalities and agendas, the most important things will ultimately be open communication, involvement of all members, equal access to information, and appreciation of TAC members and their efforts.

P.Kellogg explained she has been a member of the TAC for two years, and is serving as a co-chair of the committee this year. At first she didn’t know much about the committee, but she was interested in the position and developed a web page that changes monthly so the public can tune into campus plans. Over the last few months, the committee has worked towards creating a more workable charge in their bylaws. She has some concerns about the overall committee, noting TAC is down by half of its members, making it difficult to work as a committee. She acknowledges the employees will not be able to get free parking, but perhaps could have fees reduced. P.Kellogg pointed out Cornell builds each year and decreases the amount of parking on campus; a vision of hers is to try to get more park-and-ride places established. She said that everyone wants to be able to drive their car, but that isn’t realistic, instead efforts should focus on improving bus services. The University needs to chip in more money, so the few employees and faculty with permits can pay a smaller share of the expenses. TAC is an advisory committee, and there is some confusion over who makes the bottom line decisions — is the group’s purpose to advise the UA, or take concerns directly to Transportation?

M.Esposito asked how P.Kellogg viewed the current working relationship between members of the TAC and Transportation?

P.Kellogg responded she hadn’t received much feedback regarding meetings, but was open to suggestions about how to improve relationships between the two groups.

C.Dunnam let the EA know he worked in the Department of Chemistry in Baker Lab on central campus, and was therefore aware of many traffic and parking concerns. He has spent two terms on the TAC, and is both interested in the committee and has experience. C.Dunnam has made a number of observations about the committee. Initially, he found issues that came before the committee and were presented by Transportation were merely rubber-stamped by TAC. During his first two years, he worked on minor issues. When TAC made recommendations to Transportation, often their suggestions were not taken into account or adopted, and controversial plans were put into policy by Transportation. His concern is that because TAC is not in a position to formulate policy, often, good suggestions are rejected. When there was a proposal to delete S permits and move to MT permits, many people disagreed and more planning needed to take place, but approval of the policy was railroaded through the committee. His impression is that TAC is not as effective as possible, especially because it receives very small feedback from the employee community. He has since worked on improving communication, and wanted a survey distributed — an idea that was discouraged by Transportation. C.Dunnam believes the committee needs to improve contact and to restructure its bylaws to focus more on current policy issues, and to eliminate the historical “rubber stamp” use of the committee. He would like to see TAC change and become more effective on a large scale.

B.Goodell wondered how C.Dunnam envisioned changes?

C.Dunnam replied that TAC needs to have better communication with employees so they can see patterns of complaints and create a laundry list of items to be taken care of.

M.Overstrom asked what C.Dunnam wanted to survey employees about?

C.Dunnam responded he wanted to create a very short survey and would ask who has concerns, what problems they have with public transportation, what problems they have with parking and traffic regulation.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq asked C.Dunnam to clarify what he meant by a “laundry list of problems” — issues for the whole community, or employee issues?

C.Dunnam explained there were issues that affected employees and other community members. One issue he wanted to work on was changing the fees for part time vs. full time employees.

E.Hallstead said he was a 1986 Cornell graduate, and worked in Public Safety as a student when they were in charge of parking, and so had dealt with that issue on a professional level. Now he pays to park and often deals with issues of locating parking for business guests outside of his Stocking Hall lab. In talking to people in his department, he has determined some of the pros and cons of the Cornell campus, and often, the biggest con is parking. In addition, communication between the TAC and employees can be improved, since there are some really good ideas out there which don’t come to fruition because of faulty communication.

B.Goodell noted E.Hallstead didn’t mention issues regarding mass transportation.

E.Hallstead replied he wasn’t familiar with the system, but had heard people were happy with the buses.

T.Hoebbel explained TAC has serious organizational problems, and he hoped two employees would be able to help the committee and straighten out their problems. He wondered what visions E.Hallstead had for TAC.

E.Hallstead responded he ran a large department on campus and deals with people across the industry, local clients, and the campus. He has become an expert in trying to coordinate people’s schedules and issues. E.Hallstead belongs to several community service organizations, is president of a local sports club which lobbies around environmental laws, and he hopes to focus his leadership skills and strengths to get work done.

M.Overstrom asked if E.Hallstead would have an issue with reporting information to the EA, or using the EA as a resource?

E.Hallstead replied he would have no problem communicating with the EA, and would have thought that role would be obvious.

M.Overstrom explained that the EA would be making a decision about the newest TAC representative by the next meeting.

The EA agreed, as a whole, to decide who would be the EA representative to TAC, and then to throw the other candidate back into the pool to determine who would be the second representative.

III. Approval of Minutes

The Minutes of April 21, 1999 were approved as amended.

Section I, Call to Order, J.Worden was not present.

Section IV, Announcements and Reports, M.Esposito is not a member of the Employee Education Committee.

Section VI, Committee Reports, Campus Climate Committee report should read:

• “T.Hoebbel reported the committee was instituting Phase I of their program which is the pilot Dialogue on Difference. There will also be a presentation of “Cornell ‘69, Then and Now,” a faculty forum rescheduled to May 3rd, 4:30–6:30 p.m. in Alumni Auditorium in Kennedy Hall.

B.Goodell’s letter, attached to the minutes, should be amended so the last sentence reads “�I believe that this document should NOT be approved�.”

IV. Open Forum

M.Esposito let EA members know he would be on vacation from May 13th to the 27th, and asked to please be excused from Assembly duties for this period of time.

M.Esposito reminded the EA there was a UA organizational meeting Wednesday afternoon. He noted there were only three EA members appointed to five EA spots, and urged interested representatives to join the UA. He also asked that the IOC meet soon to discuss existing vacancies for the Employee Assembly.

T.Hoebbel has a photo exhibit coming up which will be held from May 17th to 22nd in Sibley’s Hartell Gallery. A reception will be held Friday, May 21st, at 3:30 p.m.

G.Brandt asked who is the Faculty Senate Liaison next year?

C.J.Lance-Duboscq explained because nobody volunteered for the position, G.Brandt was left in that role; in addition, the EA felt his monthly email and verbal reports regarding the Faculty Senate meetings were very helpful.

G.Brandt announced he would let the EA know whether or not he would continue on as the Faculty Senate Liaison at the next meeting.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq asked if any EA members would like to comment on the Cornell ‘69 Faculty Forum?

M.Esposito shared his opinion the forum was non-constructive, consisting mostly of critical comments directed toward D.Downs, who was presenting his book at the event.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq agreed, noting that although there was a large and diverse panel, the conversation revolved around panelists’ and audience members’ differing views of history.

T.Hoebbel felt this forum was a missed opportunity to discuss changes in Cornell from 1969 to the present, rather than focusing on the past.

C.J.Lance-Duboscq mentioned there are obviously still many open wounds to be healed regarding race relations on campus.

G.Brandt explained the criticisms were largely attacking the scholarship of the book, however D.Downs had allowed for differences in the way events were perceived at the beginning of his presentation. Issues of academic freedom and license were heavily discussed. G.Brandt thought D.Downs could have explained a bit more about the context in which he was writing the book from the perspective of his position at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

C.Gardner remembered that Professor Harris questioned Downs’ analysis of the Africana Studies and Research Center as it stands today, since the book, presumably, was supposed to deal with past events. D.Downs contended the pursuit of truth and the political nature of universities cannot coexist; while this might be true at a place like the University of Wisconsin, that has gone through some severe civil rights struggles in recent history, it’s not necessarily true at Cornell University today.

At this time, the EA began to conduct interviews for TAC representatives, recorded in Part II. TAC Committee Member Applicants.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Julia R. Gordon