A proposed plan for a new-look Employee Assembly developed by the EA Charter Review Committee

The new CU Employee Assembly would consist of 33 seats and a six-person executive committee. Each unit would call for nominations and conduct its own election, or barring lack of competition, fill its seat by appointment, though this is not preferred. Each seat would be for a two-year term.

The executive committee would make representative decisions for the EA in emergency situations, develop monthly agendas, annually review the charter, recommend motions, plan major community meetings, and select award recipients. Anyone on the EA could run for the Executive Committee, whose members will chair a major committee. These would also be two-year seats.

The proposed 33-seat Employee Assembly

Admissions & Financial Aid
Agriculture & Life Sciences
Alumni Affairs & Development
Architecture, Art & Planning
Arts & Sciences
Athletics
Business Services
Campus Life
College of Veterinary Medicine
Communications
Continuing Education & Summer Session
Cornell Co-op. Ext. of Tompkins Cty.
Dean of Students Office
Engineering
Facilities Services
Financial Affairs
Gannett Health Services
Geneva
Gov’t/Community Relations
Graduate School
Hotel School
Human Ecology
Industrial & Labor Relations
Johnson Graduate School of Mgmt
Law School
Libraries
Office of Human Resources
Office of Information Technology
Project Design and Construction
Risk Management & Public Safety
Student & Academic Services
Transportation and Mail Services
University Administration (President/provost offices, JA, Ombudsman, other “independents”)

The need

In its current structure, the EA consists of 13 members, and designed to have six employees each from endowed and statutory units, and one from Geneva’s Ag Experiment Station. In reality, that breakdown is rarely, if ever, achieved, and seats are often filled with exempt employees from endowed colleges or units.

Currently, a singular small college or department may have several representatives on the EA, providing a more limited pool of campus-wide connections and inputs, while potentially giving an unbalanced view of employee issues.

The proposed plan would create a fairer and more equitable representative system of employee governance, with inputs from every corner of our sprawling and diverse campus, plus Geneva. Similar-sized colleges and universities have a similar plan for their version of employee assemblies, and several of them have many more seats than our proposed 33-member plan.

In comparison to its peers, Cornell’s current system is small and often ineffectual.

Next steps

The EA chair and chair of the Charter Committee have met with the vice president of human resources to gauge her opinion on this concept. She had some reservations, but didn’t quash it. We would like her to seek feedback from senior staff and other related interests. It is essential that the President, senior staff, deans and top directors are behind this initiative, and see its value.

Barring strong objections from senior staff or the Employee Assembly, a working group should be established to address the logistics of this proposed initiative, and secure buy-in from other appropriate individuals and groups, before further forwarding this plan. It is suggested, if possible, that the 33-seat Assembly be elected in the spring of 2011. There are several current seats whose terms expire June 1, 2010. Those seats would be up for a one-year-term election in the spring of 2010, and at that point, all EA seat terms would end in June 2011.

In the new plan, the entire 33-seat Assembly would be up for election every two years. There would be no term limits for EA members, and executive committee members would be allowed to have two consecutive two-year terms on that committee. Each unit should call for nominations. If there was no interest, positions could be appointed, though it is not preferred.

Why are we doing this?

CU’s Employee Assembly should be a proactive, go-to body that is a key staff resource within Cornell’s democratic, layered system of governance. It is hard to make the case that the EA is making a substantial difference for staff, or that most staff even knows it exists. CU staff deserves a system that is broad, viable and effective, as is the case at other top universities and colleges.

This will be hard work. It will take the buy-in and efforts of many, including EA members, to help spread the word and make this a reality for future generations of Cornell staff. Finally a simple question: If not now, when?