Employee Assembly Meeting
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
B12 Day Hall
Minutes

I. Call to Order

J. Seymour called the meeting to order at 12:26 p.m. He then noted the members that were present and absent.

Present-D. Brooks, L. Croll Howell, P. Dongtoe, T. Grove, L. Lawrence, N. LaCelle, A. Mittman, L. Morris, G. Osborne, T. Ostrander. C. Phillips, J. Seymour, G. Stewart, B. Heavner (GPSA liason) Absent-L. Lawrence, G. Stewart

II. Call for Late Additions to the Agenda

P. Dongtoe said she would like to have a meeting in January in Kennedy Hall for the Trillium Staff to talk about the EA.

III. Report from the Employee Elected Trustee

B. McKinney was unable to attend and did not submit a report.

IV. Faculty Senate Report

There was no meeting and consequently nothing to report.

V. Report from Chair

J. Seymour spoke about creating a new agenda setting method with Confluence, an Enterprise grade wiki. This would allow EA members to edit the agenda on a website within their own web browser. This could make it easier to add speakers to the agenda, etc., and can be used for a variety of EA issues and projects. The wiki can then be used for documentation and collaboration. The Executive Committee will have editing access to the website first, but after protocol is established, all EA members will have access.

VI. Approval of Minutes-

a. October 21, 2009

L. Lawrence proposed a change via email. After brief discussion, A. Mittman motioned to approve the minutes. N. LaCelle seconded, and the minutes passed.

VII. Committee Reports

a. Executive Committee

D. Brooks said the last Executive Committee meeting did not have much to report. J. Seymour noted that there were some questions about employee leave policy; he thought the EA should investigate the answers to these questions.

b. Staff Recognition & Awards

T. Grove asked if this committee would become part of the Executive Committee in future because the SRAC is fairly small; there are three members on the committee that are not in the EA. She also stated that there were a few applications for the George Peter Award and that they would be determining its recipient soon.

T. Grove and D. Brooks proposed “Pay it Forward” day where an employee is handed a post-it note with “Good job!” or something similar written on it. That employee must then write a comparable message on the top of the rest of the stack and hand the stack to another staff member. There was then discussion about greater staff recognition through awards. An “Employee of the Week” section could be added to PawPrint. C. Phillips suggested a program similar to the Laurels program in the local paper. J. Seymour asked if the EA should be increasing its awards, and there was a general consensus that it should.

N. LaCelle asked how the decision to recognize the Gannett staff was made. T. Grove said this decision was made by the Executive Committee. J. Seymour said the committee thought about giving an award to a group instead of a single individual, and immediately thought of Gannett. N. LaCelle suggested more regular group recognition as well. J. Seymour said that a separate body for awards could focus on and be prepared to give the big yearly awards; the Executive Committee might have too many agenda items to give adequate attention to the major staff awards. A. Mittman suggested creating more concrete criteria for the various awards given by the SRAC.

J. Seymour said that the SRAC should start to document criteria and information regarding the various awards; this is where Confluence could come in handy. He went on to explain that Confluence could even help with major EA events and that they could, for example, create a checklist of tasks for the President’s Address.

P. Dongtoe asked how many big awards the SRAC gives out every year. T. Grove replied that there is only one, the George Peter Award. There is another EA award, the Unsung Hero Award, but it belongs to the Executive Committee

c. Communications Committee

D. Brooks said that he has a list of seven confirmed members and received the go-ahead to have his meetings. He might have a meeting as soon as next week, but he still needs to talk to last year’s members. The first item on the agenda will be the security resolution, but he has some other agenda items in mind as well. J. Seymour suggested that the EA begin opening committees to all staff members to engage interest in the EA from university employees. If people become interested, then they can learn how to become a part of the EA.

C. Phillips asked if there is a difference between communications and publicity and what exactly is in the Communications Committee’s domain. D. Brooks said it has been all about communication so far. J. Seymour suggested, however, that committees needing publicity contact the Communications Committee to get some ideas about how to advertise their meetings. Though it will not necessarily directly advertise for these committees, the Communications Committee can serve as a helpful resource because of its expertise.

J. Seymour added that the Communications Committee should try to develop more effective communication in the future, like a Facebook group or a blog.

d. Emergency Grant Fund Committee

P. Mahoney has not met with G. Osborne about the Emergency Grant Fund, but G. Osborne now has access to the web funds. The funds are currently in a long-term investment pool, and there will not be a need to fundraise for quite some time. J. Seymour explained the controversial context of this particular committee. At the end of last year, there was a highly debated motion to move the Emergency Grant fund to HR. The motion appeared to pass but was the charter was under review and the charter change wasn’t approved.

J. Seymour asked if the Emergency Grant Fund should be under the EA’s authority. The grant money can go to faculty, as well, which poses problems because the EA does not include the faculty. He went on to ask if the EA should “be in the business” of running major programs that are complex and time-consuming. There is also the question of what signifies an emergency; if the “emergency” affects a Cornell employee directly or his/her spouse as well. Now, there is a lot of question about how to proceed. A. Mittman suggested moving the fund to HR but maintaining some of the EA’s name recognition over the fund by managing criteria for the grants.

L. Croll Howell mentioned that the Johnson School also runs a similar fund specifically for Johnson School employees. The EA fund is capped at $1000 grants per person, while the Johnson’s is capped at $5000. She expressed her concern that some people might try to apply for grants from the Johnson and the EA. This, in turn, could pose compliance or auditing issues. She stated, however, that HR should be reminded about the existence of the fund and A. Mittman said the EA should try to find out if anyone wants to take control of the fund.

J. Seymour suggested that L. Croll Howell try to find as much historic material on the Emergency Grant Fund as possible and noted that there were still many questions to be answered. A. Mittman stated that a member of the EA could attend the HR quarterly meeting and that Kathy Sullivan should be contacted to make this happen. L. Croll Howell added that an EA member should be on a committee governing the fund if it is moved to HR.

e. Emergency Grant Fund Committee

G. Osborne was not present but had no report. A. Mittman asked if the Emergency Funds had been disposed of. J. Seymour said he did not think so, but would ask G. Osborne later.

f. Personnel Policy

P. Dongtoe said that meetings would take place at Trillium, but she was not sure of the time or date. L. Croll Howell said that one of her goals is to pass a resolution about flexible work policy; she is interested in looking at how this would affect the bargaining unit and hourly staff. A meeting will be planned for after Thanksgiving.

J. Seymour said that the EA could formally review university policies and officially suggest changes to the president, who is then obligated to reply. A. Mittman stated that the president himself cannot dictate policy changes because the different policies “belong” to different university offices. He went on to explain that large-scale change must go through stricter channels including the “stakeholder process” and formal review by university committees. J. Seymour replied that the EA should find out how changes happen, but that the current charter says that the EA must go through the president.

g. Internal Operations Committee

T. Grove said she sent an email today; she will fill in any remaining vacancies as they come up.

h. University Benefits Committee

There was nothing to report; this committee is on hiatus due to the financial crisis.

i. Employee Education Committee

C. Phillips said that she scheduled a meeting, but no one could make it and she will try to schedule a different meeting time. Also, she has been speaking informally to other employees about their concerns for educational benefits. She said that there have been questions about whether part-time employees are eligible for reimbursement, flex time, and other benefits. L. C. Howell said that Cornell has lost two employees to the University of Rochester and Syracuse University because they allow employees’ spouses to take university classes.

j. “Ad Hoc” Charter Review

J. Seymour said that this committee is in the process of creating a model to expand the EA to thirty or so seats and to have representation by units. This proposal has been sent to Mary Opperman, who will meet with the EA to polish the plan. M. Opperman, however, cautioned that massive amounts of change are currently occurring at the university, and that this might not necessarily be the right time to change the EA model. There are also questions of how to implement this change, including ageing out the existing seats.

VIII. Report from the Finance Chair

A. Mittman said he is still waiting on the final President’s Address budget.

IX. Old Business

There was no old business.

X. New Business

There were no New Business items.

XI. Open Forum

There was no Open Forum Discussion.

What’s New?

Members did a quick round of what’s new with them.

XII. Adjournment

A. Mittman motioned to adjourn the meeting. D. Brooks seconded. J. Seymour adjourned the meeting at 1:36 p.m.