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

I. Call to Order

D. Goss called the meeting to order at 12:23 p.m.

II. Call for Late Additions to the Agenda

A. Goncarovs added a discussion item about the feedback from the campaign dinner and an update on the Master Plan to the agenda.

III. Report from Chair

Chili Chat Report

D. Goss said the Chili Chat initiative last semester was designed to get feedback from employees around campus. They asked three questions: what motivates people at work, what obstacles do people face to taking vacation, and how do people leave work at work while they are away. They had over 400 people participate in total. They produced a report with recommendations based on the responses they got.

D. Skorton said this initiative is very important, and he will take it very seriously. He said he would appreciate if they would give him a timeline of the process from this point forward. He also said that in order to make anything happen, they will need to communicate with supervisors, administrators and trustees. He asked how people around campus would get a hold of the report.

P. Korolov said the report will be published online, sent out via list-serves, and advertised in the Pawprint. They are also planning to hold forums with supervisors next semester to go over their findings from the staff inputs. They also plan to ask the same type of questions they asked staff, just in reverse so they apply to supervisors.

D. Skorton asked if they are planning to include the non-faculty staff who serve on grants in the colleges. He asked if they are being considered supervisors.

P. Korolov said they have access to the report, but the focus of their efforts is on direct supervisors and managers of staff. In the future they might consider focusing on the staff members in the colleges.

D. Skorton said he is interested to see how many non-faculty staff work in the colleges. He suggested that a summary of the report be presented to the senior staff group in some way.

P. Korolov agreed with President Skorton’s recommendation. He said they would like the message to come from the President himself or Mary Opperman because supervisors will pay more attention if it comes from someone at the top.

D. Skorton said he is happy to do that for them. He said they should figure out a time with Mary to present the report to senior staff. Though he is inviting them, the senior staff set their own agenda, so they will decide when the best time will be.

P. Korolov mentioned that the Chili Chats, while very useful, were also very expensive. The EA is very limited in their budget, so it would be best if they could receive monetary contributions for the supervisor chats from HR or the President’s Office.

D. Skorton told them to speak with Mary Opperman. He asked what the expense for Chili Chats was.

P. Mahoney said the cost was in excess of $6,000 for all Chili Chats.

P. Korolov said that cost was mostly for food and refreshments.

D. Skorton said he is sure they can find a way to help cover costs.

D, Goss thanked the members who had worked on Chili Chats and congratulated them for the success of their hard work.

H. Hall said that it seems people enjoy work and the people they work with. The problem is the commitment they feel and guilt they feel when leaving work. Better communication and planning would be a huge improvement in many cases.

D. Goss said the amount of guilt people feel was a particularly interesting finding.

P. Korolov agreed that there is a lack of communication and planning.

D. Skorton said that one longer-term issue the EA should consider is continuing to do surveys of different aspects of employee climate. The surveys that have been done in the past tend to focus on regulatory, HR issues like sexual assault and other HR violations. However, there are many non-regulatory issues that affect the workplace; many of these are subtle, hard to define concepts, like guilt. He said they should consider working with Mary to see if there is a crisp, meaningful way to evaluate other aspects of campus climate for faculty and staff.

M. Opperman said that over half of non-exempt staff are in the colleges.

D. Skorton said it is important to consider the larger group of Cornell staff. He suggested looking at all the campuses Cornell has, including Weill Medical College, Rome, and Singapore.

M. Opperman said those groups are theoretically represented by the EA.

B. Vangasbeck said the staff seemed very excited to have an opportunity to speak, and they did not receive as much negative response as she expected. She expressed concern that students were not ranked high as a motivating factor for many staff members. She wondered if there is a way to increase that because student contact is the reason they are all here.

A. Goncarovs pointed out that mentioning students was a side detail, not the main focus of the actual questions. He said that topic might bear future investigation.

B. Bryant said part of the reason they got very little negative input was because of the talent and professionalism of Mary Opperman as the moderator. She handled the negative questions very well and didn’t let the tone carry into a further discussion.

M. Opperman said she agrees that certain messages — for instance, the message regarding taking time off — need to come from people that are higher-up. She said the idea that it is not ok to take time off seems to be driven by unspoken beliefs people develop; they see that the deans and administrators are always at work and feel obligated to do the same. She said she has been in contact with the senior Vice President of Clorox who has led her towards surveying employee’s engagement to the mission statement. This new design for surveys helps tease out the reasons some people engage in the primary mission of the organization and others don’t. This might address the issue of whether or not people really feel motivated by students.

P. Korolov mentioned receiving financial contributions for the supervisor chats from the President’s office and/or HR to Mary Opperman (who was not in the room during the original discussion).

D. Skorton confirmed that he had said they would find a way to help.

L. Lawrence said he recently attended a staff meeting with the dean in AAP regarding a report on Asian and Asian American students and mental health issues at Cornell. Based on that meeting, he suggested that inviting experts in to discuss information with staff and also to take advantage of already existing faculty and staff meetings to disseminate information instead of re-inventing another session to do so.

D. Skorton said at Iowa, once a year they held a meeting with the administrators, provosts, and incoming elected representatives. He recommended that the EA think about that to see if it would be a useful way to share information about issues.

D. Goss mentioned that they do hold a “leadership breakfast” regularly.

P. Beach explained that the “leadership breakfasts” are for senior administrators and the leaderships of all the assemblies.

A. Goncarovs said they have started a process of bonding between staff and the senior administration that they have always wanted to develop. This should strengthen what the EA does and improve relations with staff.

D. Goss said she and Hazel would meet with Mary to figure out a time to attend a senior staff meeting.

Dave Cameron said this assembly is setting a great precedent. He suggested that they consider finding a way to formalize the process of climate surveys and staff input to be sure that it continues with future assemblies.

D. Goss said an outgoing assembly doesn’t usually make requirements for incoming assemblies, though they can make recommendations. Also, only half the membership changes at a time, so members will still be there to carry on the process.

D. Cameron said he was thinking more long-term than just the new incoming assembly.

B. Vangasbeck said if the success of the Chili Chat initiative continues with the supervisor meeting, there is no reason to the EA would stop participating. They many change how they approach the initiative, but she thinks it will progress into an even better and more successful system. She said she would hate to see the EA mandate a process that might stagnate over time when it has the potential to be improved upon otherwise.

D. Goss commented that although the membership of the EA changes, they do have senior administrators like Mary who stay constant.

M. Opperman said if they do create a climate survey, it will be longitudinal. There would be no point in doing a climate survey without regular, repeated data for comparison.

A. Goncarovs said their success should be extended, and they should keep encouraging the organization to reach out and give employees interface with EA members and senior staff.

D. Goss said since she has been chair, the EA has shifted from being event-focused to issues-focused.

IV. Trustee’s Report

D. Goss said M. Esposito could not attend the meeting today, but will report at the next meeting.

V. Approval of Minutes

B. Vangasbeck asked if the minutes need to be so long and detailed. She said, in the past, the minutes were not as verbatim.

H. Hall said she personally likes the long minutes. People who were unable to attend the meeting can read them and know what went on.

M. Opperman said it is possible to strike comments before approving minutes if anyone has concerns.

A. Epstein said the minutes do go online and are accessible for the community. The leadership of each assembly varies in their expectation of the minutes, so there is some flexibility in how they are prepared. Also, for anyone that wants to listen to the meeting verbatim, the audio file is posted online.

A. Goncarovs asked if the audio file is posted online even without the assembly’s approval.

A. Epstein said yes, it is a public meeting.

A. Goncarovs expressed concern that the audio file is not approved; the minutes are subject to the EA’s approval before being posted.

P. Beach said the reason that the typed minutes are approved is because they are the interpretation of the meeting by one person. The audio file is exactly what went on in the meeting.

A. Goncarovs asked if other groups have minutes that are nine pages long or more.

P. Beach said yes, the other assemblies do have long minutes. In the past, the standard was to include even more detail. The goal of minutes is to get enough context to give people an idea of what happened at the meeting; therefore, they encourage more detail.

A. Goncarovs asked if there was a way to format the minutes differently so the resolutions and actions were published at the top for easy reference.

A. Epstein recommended that they look at the website because it is organized in that way.

L. Lawrence said he thinks nine pages are great. In his opinion, it is better to have a clerk write what’s out there instead of making a more subjective summary. His feeling is that nine pages is really not that many to read.

There was a motion to approve the minutes from September 20th with corrections by L. Lawrence via email. The motion was seconded, and there was no dissent. A vote was taken via voice, and the minutes were approved.

There was a motion to approve the minutes from October 4th with no amendments. It was seconded, and there was no dissent. A voice was taken via voice; the minutes were approved.

VI. Old Business

Financial Report

P. Mahoney said she has all the information she needs for this year’s budget. She has also met with Peggy, who shared information with her about how the other assemblies complete their budgets. They need to start preparing their budget for next year now, and she recommended that they use the format Peggy shared with her.

P. Beach said an SA member, Sarah Boxer, put the format together. It is useful for assemblies to think in advance about how they want to manage the money they have.

P. Mahoney said the level of detail they include is the most important part. Essentially, each line item has its own justification. For example, in a budget for a forum, there is a specific breakdown for costs of food, venue, etc. She will be working with Peggy and the EA members to prepare the budget for next year.

A. Goncarovs asked if she could provide a more specific chronology about when they need to submit budget proposals for next year.

P. Mahoney said they need to be working on it now.

P. Beach said that FY08 requests are going in now. By December, they should have an estimate of their projected expenses because if the assembly is going to ask for more money than they currently receive, she needs to include that in her budget for next year.

A. Goncarovs said for some expenses, such as satellite outreach meetings, they have no experience as to what they should expect for costs. He asked how they should move ahead on planning for next year’s budget already when they don’t know how to predict the expenses.

P. Mahoney said they need a general idea so they can move forward. This year’s budget request totaled over $17,000 - far exceeding their $9,400 budget. Therefore, many proposals will not be able to be funded. However, if they plan ahead for next year, they may be able to get more money and fund more of the proposals.

A. Goncarovs asked if, based on President Skorton’s confirmation that they will be receiving some money for the supervisor chats, they would have the money they would have spent left over in their budget to spend on other things.

P. Beach said yes, the money for the supervisor chats that comes from President Skorton would be in addition to their $9,400.

L. Lawrence said they have had the $9,400 budget for quite a while; it is time for an increase.

P. Mahoney said that six years ago they had a budget of $10,700. However, that budget was decreased because the assembly did less, therefore making it more difficult to justify that budget.

P. Beach said it is important to have an idea of how they want to spend their money so that it is not cut from their budget. It is easier to give a larger budget to the assembly if the expenses are justifiable. Also, if they have extra money, it will roll over.

P. Mahoney said she will be getting in touch with everyone to figure out budgets for next year.

A. Goncarovs asked if it is up to the assembly to divvy up the money once they have it.

P. Mahoney said they have some commitments every year that they have to spend money on. Any money that is left after those expenses, they can use. The goal is to be back at $0 by the end of the fiscal year.

A. Goncarovs said he wants to make sure the supervisor chat money does not come out of the EA’s budget.

P. Mahoney said it sounds like they have a firm commitment from the president.

Email Voting

A. Goncarovs said he would like to table this discussion until further notice. C. Brown was leading this initiative, but she is no longer a university employee.

D. Goss said the members should consider nominations for a new Parliamentarian.

A. Goncarovs said they do not need to take nominations right now.

D. Goss said she wanted to put the issue on the table so they can vote on a new Parliamentarian at the next meeting. She told the assembly to get nominations to A. Goncarovs by the next meeting.

A. Goncarovs said they also have an additional seat on the assembly to fill.

A. Epstein reminded the EA that they also need to talk about staffing a UA position, as well. The next UA meeting does not occur until after the next EA meeting, so they have time.

VII. New Business

Book Reading Project D. Stein said Ezra Cornell’s 200th birthday is coming up this January. Based on Leon’s idea to include staff in the new student reading project, he proposed using The Builder — a book about Ezra Cornell’s life — as the first staff reading project book. He said the book was recommended by Dave Cameron.

D. Cameron said this idea came up in discussions with a communications group that is talking about a larger celebration. He said the book is easy to read, but not an authoritative text on Ezra Cornell. It is not completely objective, but it is also not full of lies. The book gives you a good sense of who Ezra Cornell was as a person, though it is not considered scholarly. The other question is whether or not the book is still in print.

D. Stein said they would have a more detailed proposal later after they have worked out some more of the logistics. They are also looking for a partner to help with the funding. This is also not just for EA members, but a chance for staff as a whole to learn more about Ezra.

L. Lawrence said this sounds like a great book and a good idea.

A. Goncarovs said he thinks this is a great idea that fits well with the EA’s mission.

VIII. Adjournment

P. Mahoney suggested that they reserve the meeting room until 1;40 or 1:45 p.m. in the future so they are not under pressure to get out of the room immediately after the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:27 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Lisa Gilbertson, EA Clerk
Office of the Assemblies