Employee Assembly Meeting Minutes
316 Day Hall
Wednesday, October 4, 2006
12:15 — 1:30 p.m.

I. Call to Order

D. Goss called the meeting to order at 12:22 p.m.

Discussion with Mary Opperman about an expanded staff group M. Opperman wanted to talk about having an expanded staff group, something President Skorton has asked her to get together. The president is looking for a way to reach beyond HR and the leadership to meet as many staff as possible. There was a luncheon with the president that included a variety of people from around campus, which was where the idea for the larger staff group originated. At the president’s request, she is going to pull together this group of people, but feels it wouldn’t be useful for that group to meet with the president without the presence of the EA; without EA involvement, she will be the only consistency between the two groups. Her idea is for the EA to invite that group in on an occasional basis so they entire EA is present for the meetings. Instead of open conversations, they would use EA imperatives to frame the discussions. She also suggested trying the concept for this year and then evaluating it.

P. Korolov asked what the function of this larger group would be.

M. Opperman answered that it is for the president to meet as many staff as possible during the first year. He is a much more visible president who is used to a large staff representative group.

L. Lawrence asked who might be in the group and if the group would be consistent.

M. Opperman said the group would only meet with the president a couple times this year, and at the end of the year, they will evaluate if it’s useful or not. It will be a set of folks who were at the luncheon with the president and others who have expressed interest to her.

B. Vangasbeck asked if the group included “lower-level” staff as well.

M. Opperman said there is representation of different band levels, but it is based on those who have expressed interest. She said she wanted to get an idea of if the EA was interested in being involved, which it seems that they aren’t. She doesn’t want them to feel uncomfortable or forced into this situation; she just wanted to offer the EA a constant place in the meetings.

I. Mahler said it would be a great opportunity to meet with other groups of people.

M. Esposito said the EA should see this as an amazing opportunity and a vehicle to elevate the EA’s visibility on campus; the EA gets to drive the agenda. He suggested that they take Mary up on her offer because offers like this don’t come around during every presidency.

L. Lawrence asked if the people in the group would be willing to work on committees and actively participate in implementing ideas instead of just generating them.

M. Opperman said the way these meetings go is up to the EA. She recommended using them as a listening post. People on campus already feel stretched, so asking them to take on more work may not be feasible. The real reasons for this group are: first, the president wants to get people together to meet with, and second, the EA will be able to elevate themselves, get feedback, and have responses to their initiatives and priorities. Maybe there will be some interest in running for the EA or joining committees, but that is not the reason behind the group.

L. Lawrence commented that if the group came with a laundry list of things for the EA to do, they should be willing to help instead of just expecting the EA to do them.

M. Opperman said the way they approach the EA will depend on what the assembly asks them to do. If you ask them to talk about the EA’s priorities, that’s what they’ll talk about.

T. Jacobs asked if EA members would be picking people for the group.

M. Opperman said she has a list of interested people; the EA can add to that list if they want.

A. Goncarovs asked how many times this group would meet.

M. Opperman said they would meet 2–3 times with the president. At that point, they can all sit down and decide whether or not to continue meetings with the group.

A. Goncarovs explained that some of the resistance they are encountering is due to the fact the EA members didn’t have much information about what this group was or why it was formed. The EA has been establishing their role and leadership on campus, so the concept of another group to meet with caused them some concern. The problem is just a lack of information.

M. Opperman explained that the president requested to have a luncheon with a large group of people. At that luncheon, he said he wanted to meet with those people on a regular basis. The group was not planned; it was a spontaneous creation in response to the president’s comment. He followed up with Mary about another meeting, so she has been setting up this group.

A. Goncarovs said they are trying to get a sense of how much planning has been done already.

M. Opperman said no planning has taken place because she wanted to come to the EA first and establish what the assembly wants its relationship to be with this group. Then they will decide who’s on the list, what to call the group, and what the group should do and talk about.

A. Goncarovs said the EA has been looking to have better outreach to staff in general, including taking their meetings out to different areas of campus. He said it might be a good idea to have one of their meetings in a different area; they could invite all staff and the expanded group.

M. Opperman said that wouldn’t be particularly effective for the purpose of this group. Open forums are a great idea, but not for this specific type of meeting. You can’t have an invitation to a meeting that’s also an open meeting.

A. Goncarovs said all EA meetings are technically open meetings.

M. Opperman said she is simply reacting to the idea of inviting a group specifically and them publicizing the same meeting as an open meeting. The whole idea for this expanded group was generated by the president’s desire to be as open as possible to as many people as possible. She is responding to his directive, but also thought of this as a great opportunity to enhance the EA’s visibility. She will be organizing the group regardless of if the EA wants to be involved because it’s a great idea, and it’s great to have a president who doesn’t see staff as invisible. The EA shouldn’t feel forced into working with the group; she just wanted to offer it to them.

L. Lawrence agreed it is a great idea with the option of assessing the need for the group at the end of the year.

M. Opperman said it is also possible that the EA decides they really like it and want to recruit more people for the group, or they many want fewer people. She wants to make sure they take advantage of the fact that President Skorton really wants to hear issues from staff. This group won’t frame issues; they will add, refine, and/or support the EA’s initiatives. Once the staff is vocal and listening, the members will have so much more power as their representatives.

I. Mahler said she thinks this will help the EA find out what their priorities are.

M. Opperman said it will complicate things, but it should be productive. The goal is to make people pay attention to staff. She doesn’t know how long the president will be able to be so accessible. However, this is the first president to remember staff in the honeymoon phase. He is serious about staff issues and wants to hear opinions, so we should let him hear.

L. Lawrence asked how many people are currently on the list.

M. Opperman said there are about 15 currently.

L. Lawrence commented that they might need a bigger space for those meetings.

P. Mahoney expressed concern that the group members will be hand picked and suggested having representation of all areas of campus.

M. Opperman pointed out that this group is not being brought in to be representatives; the EA are the elected representational leaders. To treat this group as representational would dilute the EA. These are simply people from around campus being introduced to the president; they don’t represent anyone but themselves.

J. Miles commented that this will be a great opportunity to get the EA’s name out.

L. Lawrence asked if Mary could email the list of names to the assembly.

M. Opperman explained that she is not trying to hide the names at all. She simply wanted their input before moving forward on specifics such as who should be invited. She has a mandate to get this group together and will send out invites herself if the EA does not want a part in it.

B. Vangasbeck commented on the fact that last year they couldn’t have an election for the EA because there was no interest, and now they have 15 interested people all of the sudden.

M. Opperman said these interested people know nothing about the EA; these are people who are responding to the president wanting to see them. They are not reacting to the idea of partnering with the EA or anyone else. This is not a new body of people willing to commit to issues the way the leadership team does, but it is a chance for a team of people to be a voice to the leadership teams. The fact that members of this group can’t volunteer more time doesn’t mean they can’t have visibility. These people aren’t the enemy, they are who we are here to represent. She sympathized with the members’ frustrations, mentioning all the time and energy they invest.

P. Beach said it seems some people are worried about the expanded group taking away from the assembly somehow. While there is a risk involved, it is minimal. She thinks it’s great the EA has been invited to be a part of this and recommended that they try it out for the year.

M. Opperman reminded the assembly they will continue to have meetings with the president by themselves in addition to these expanded group meetings.

D. Goss said they would be able to base the meetings around the goals they set at the retreat.

I. Mahler made a motion to have extended staff luncheons with the president for one year.

A. Goncarovs asked to extend the motion to include ten more minutes of discussion. The motion was seconded.

J. Miles commented (to Mary) that the resistance has been based on the fact that this is your group and your list. The assembly should be looking at it in terms of we: we can revamp and add to it.

J. DeMarco said this is a great opportunity. He observed that the EA functions better when they have something to work with and focus on.

B. Bryant said just because someone comes to the EA meetings, doesn’t mean they are a member; they are invited guests. They will probably generate ideas for the EA; we can bring those things back to our meetings to put goals together and work on.

B. Vangasbeck said she understood it as a chance to take their goals and initiatives to the group and get their feedback on them.

M. Opperman said the way they choose to use the group is open and up to them. They should also remember that the president tends to drive the conversation when he’s in the room.

P. Mahoney said they shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking they truly represent all people on campus. This is an important chance for their constituents to come and give them more information on what they see as problems and what needs to be addressed. It is a win-win situation. It is the assembly’s decision how to run the meeting and which topics to address; there should be nothing to resist or be concerned with. She asked if it would be possible to get another Geneva person involved.

M. Opperman said that is a great idea.

P. Korolov expressed the concern that having another staff group will take away form the name they’ve established by trying to reach out and have more influence on campus.

M. Opperman said part of the reason she invited the EA to be involved is to prevent just that from happening. She will hold the meetings by her own invitation, but that is riskier for the EA in her opinion. She said they should exploit the president’s willingness to meet with staff, and they should leverage their power by affiliating themselves with him. They will become the group that allowed staff member to meet and eat with President Skorton. She said she would never have suggested this to them if she thought it would hurt their visibility on campus.

A. Goncarovs said this seems to fit very well with their mission, and everyone is more comfortable with it. He restated that, prior to the meeting, there was a lot of uncertainty and a lack of information about this group.

M. Opperman commented that had the president not extended his invitation to the group at the luncheon, the idea of an expanded group wouldn’t have come up. When you work with a very accessible president, you can’t control where things go.

I. Mahler restated the motion to have an expanded staff lunch with the president 2–3 times this academic year. It was seconded. A vote was taken via hands. With a vote of 9–0−1, the motion passed.

D. Goss said they should start thinking about how they want to structure the group.

J. DeMarco asked if they should send recommendations for group members to Mary.

M. Opperman said she would send them the list she has. They can talk about it and add to it if anyone has approached them with interest. She asked that they keep the list completely confidential since nobody has officially been invited yet.

I. Mahler asked if there is a room with a table large enough for everyone to sit at.

M. Opperman suggested finalizing a list first, deciding what to focus on, and then choosing a room.

B. Vangasbeck suggested limiting the number of people so they don’t have too many.

M. Opperman said if they plan to use the group as a sounding board, they would want it to be bigger. However, they also don’t want a group that’s too small because then it might seem to be more representational. They will have to try it out and see how things go.

I. Mahler asked what Mary suggested as the format for the meetings.

M. Opperman recommended using the first meeting to test the recommendations from the Chili Chats.

P. Korolov said he would email the recommendations from the Chili Chats out by the end of the week.

I. Mahler said supervisors need to hear the recommendations. However, if their managers do not agree with them, they may not get very far.

M. Opperman said change needs to start at the top of the organization. When the leadership acts as if no hour is too late and doesn’t take days off, it cascades down.

D. Goss brought up the Master Plan as another of the goals they outlined at the retreat.

M. Opperman commented that the expanded group is probably not the best forum for discussing the Master Plan.

A. Goncarovs suggested using the expanded group to get ideas for their outreach goals.

D. Goss said things will also come up during the year, so they don’t need to plan all of the meetings now.

L. Lawrence pointed out that they also don’t want to have too many things for the group to tackle.

I. Mahler said discussing the three questions from Chili Chats is probably broad enough for the first meeting.

M. Opperman said the plan is to review their recommendations with the president at the next EA meeting. They will then revise those and bring them to the first expanded group luncheon, framing the discussion as the problems the leadership sees and their plans to address them. She said another topic that may emerge through the year is well-being. This could become an issue, for instance, with the potential of a pandemic flu. Also there is an enormous issue in the student population with mental health. They might think about the pressures that puts on staff.

A. Goncarovs said health is defined as within their scope in the charter.

M. Opperman said that a lot of people are stressed, which can lead to depression and anxiety. Work is harder, personal lives are harder, and the national circumstance is harder; all of these things wear people down.

T. Jacobs said they will also need to use some time in the first meeting to get to know each other.

D. Goss suggested that they try to address one topic per meeting.

A. Goncarovs reminded the members they will have opportunities to discuss other concerns with the president in their private meetings with him.

M. Opperman said she hopes the time set aside on the president’s calendar for the EA and EA+ stays there. She recommended having the last meeting with the EA+ group before Donna’s meeting with the trustees in May. She also recommended that the EA meet with the president alone once before and after each meeting with the EA+ group.

L. Lawrence asked when the first meeting with the expanded group would be.

M. Opperman said they should have one this semester in November. They can hold two next semester if they plan well.

P. Mahoney asked if they are still planning to hold one EA meeting with the president in Geneva.

M. Opperman said yes. She asked the EA to plan carefully and let her know when they’d like to do that as soon as possible. She recommended making the trip to Geneva soon.

I. Mahler asked if they will be ready to present their Chili Chat recommendations to the president at the next meeting.

P. Korolov replied yes, they will be ready.

D. Goss asked everyone to review the recommendations on their own and email any suggestions before their next meeting. The president has a hold on the 18th to meet with the EA.

P. Mahoney asked if they could have the Geneva meeting in November and the expanded group luncheon in December.

M. Esposito said they may not have enough time to organize that meeting in time. The meeting in Geneva may have to wait until the spring.

II. Announcements

A. Goncarovs announced that Mina Amundsen from the planner’s office has asked the EA to do the first outreach for the Master Plan toward the end of October. She would like to have EA members involved in workshops. They will also need about 20 staff members from across campus to participate. It will be a half-day event discussing the options that have been presented and getting feedback.

D. Goss asked if this was one way they could use the expanded group.

B. Vangasbeck commented that Mary didn’t feel the expanded group was appropriate for discussing the Master Plan.

A. Goncarovs said this would be slightly different. The university just wants some feedback about what the staff thinks. It would be good to use the expanded group and meet some of those people during the workshops.

L. Lawrence asked if they wanted a cross representation of all staff at the workshops; it sounds like the expanded group is mostly higher level staff.

D. Goss suggested waiting for discussion until they see the list of expanded group members.

A. Goncarovs said the EA will need to nominate 35–40 people for the workshops; they will invite the top 20. They will eventually be holding forums open to all staff, also.

L. Lawrence emphasized the need to have a true representation of all the bands of staff at the Master Plan workshops because it will affect everyone.

A. Goncarovs asked the members to email him recommendations.

III. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 1:32 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Lisa Gilbertson, EA Clerk
Office of Assemblies