University of Nebraska Kearney

UNK
Staff Senate
Random UNK images
Staff Senate

Staff Senate Minutes - July 17, 2001

Employee of the Month: Alan Colling, Custodian II, Facilities.

Present:
Directors -- Livingston, Roggasch
Managerial/Professional -- Danube, Kucera, McMullen
Office -- Ellingson, Jones, Mitchell
Service -- Hines, Lange, Wilson
Ex Officio -- Lakey

Absent:
Directors -- Roth
Managerial/Professional -- None
Office -- None
Service -- None

Guest: Dr. Charles Bicak

  1. Call to Order

  2. Adoption of Agenda
    1. Agenda Adopted (Roggasch/Danube)

  3. Minutes and Correspondence
    1. Ellingson read a thank-you note signed by everyone in Career Services for being selected June Department of the Month.

    2. Minutes of the June 19, 2001 meeting were approved as written. (Roggasch/Hines)

  4. Unfinished Business
    1. Staff Appreciation
      Livingston asked for any comments about what members especially liked or didn’t like about the recent Staff Appreciation Day. Livingston noted that first we needed to thank Hines for all the work she did. Hines noted there were about 83 people for lunch and the neat thing was after everyone was done with lunch they just stayed around and visited and listened to the Radliff family perform. Hines noted the tent really helped. Livingston asked members if they think the activity is still appropriate and do they want to continue it. Kucera noted that she still hears lots of complaints such as “if this is an appreciation event, why do we have to pay for our lunch?”. She suggested we just change the name of the event to something else. Hines said she tried to counteract those comments by telling them what all they got for lunch for their money. Hines noted we always have good food. Roggasch agreed that it was an excellent lunch, but she also agrees with those who complain it is not an appreciation event if they have to pay for lunch. She also favored changing the name of the event. Kucera asked about thank-you notes. Livingston noted Hines had already done that. Hines noted she also took pictures of the Radliff family and sent them also.

    2. Evaluations and Salary Notifications
      Lakey asked if anyone had comments about the recent evaluations and salary notifications or if anyone had heard comments that they would like to share. Hines noted that those who had visited with her found it hard to figure out what percentage the raise was. Lakey noted that supervisors had those percentages, so employees could ask them. Lakey stated the pool of money was 5%, but that could then vary from individual to individual. Roggasch noted that as a supervisor, she appreciated having some leeway that allowed her to do (within the pool limits) what she wanted for her employees.

  5. Committee and Search Reports
    1. Election Committee – no report

    2. Employee Recognition – although there was not report, numerous questions were addressed.
      Nominations for the SAFE Award were discussed. Kucera asked if everyone would be notified that they were at least nominated for this award. Livingston noted that was part of the process. Roggasch inquired if it still would be a surprise for those that get the award. Livingston said yes and stated that nominees are not notified until after the award has been presented at the fall convocation. Then they will be sent letters. Lakey said he thought we also send something to the nominator to let them know they can resubmit again in another year. Lakey stated we need to check some of our links online for the SAFE Award forms. Livingston stated the SAFE Award Committee would meet on Thursday and make recommendations to the Chancellor. She noted we could not make any announcement since we just forward recommendations to the Chancellor.

    3. Performance Management - Danube noted they should meet within the next week or two.

    4. Procedures Committee
      McMullen noted that the revised bylaws are now on the web.

    5. Professional Development Committee
      Ellingson stated the committee met June 20th and will meet again tomorrow. She stated that thanks to Kucera, there is something new that the committee is trying to get started. It is called “A Cause for Applause”. Ellingson passed out a brochure and short form that can be completed. She stated the committee proposes sending a brochure to all employees and then individuals (faculty, staff, or students) could fill out the short form if they would like to thank someone for something they have done. Individuals don’t have to nominate employees for an award; they just thank them right away with this thank-you form. The committee is trying to promote thanking our employees for what they do everyday. Ellingson noted she hopes everyone likes the idea. The problem will be the cost. To have Publications and Printing print the brochure as is (two color-blue and gold) it would cost $213 for 1,000. Then it would be an additional $72 dollars for 20 pads of 20 sheets of the appreciation notes. If they printed just a black and white brochure, it would cost $135. The pads would be put on posters and individuals could tear one off and write a note of appreciation and give it to an employee. Ellingson noted the committee was looking for a way to thank a lot of people who never get nominated for an award, but need to know they are appreciated for what they do.

      As to the Advanced Connections Program, Ellingson reported that nine individuals are already trained and when the training is completed we should have 19 trainers. She noted they would try and get the program started in October. There would be three 3-hour sessions (one session a week for three weeks). Ellingson stated the sessions would probably be in the morning. Another thing the committee is thinking of doing is to include workstudy students and GAs in the program. Ellingson stated she has already contacted both the Graduate Office and the Financial Aid Office and they are supportive of the idea. This would mean that we would also need to train some students to help with the program. We already have one faculty who has volunteered the communications students in her fall class to help with the program. This would also be of assistance to the program in that it would take less staff to run the program. The idea would be to have one student and one staff present each session, rather than two staff.

      The committee has also decided to try some different things for Let’s Have Lunch. It will still be held once a month, but there will be more special features. Part of the time, it will be just a get-together for lunch but the rest of the time there will be special programs planned by Staff Senate and other programs planned by the Wellness Committee. The schedule for the rest of the year is already planned and is as follows: August 8th, Randy Haack on Campus Vision; September 12th, program by the Wellness Committee; October 10th, Roger Davis on the Highlights of the History of Halloween; November 14th, Carol Hines on Holiday Cooking; and December 12th, a Christmas Cookie and Recipe Exchange. Ellingson stated the committee is also open to any suggestions for other topics/presentations to include.

      Ellingson stated she would like to again visit with Staff Senate about how we would fund “A Cause for Applause” since Staff Senate has no budget. She asked if members wanted to make a request to the Chancellor or what? Livingston asked if the estimate of costs for the brochures and pads was through the campus print shop. Ellingson said it was. Livingston wondered if we should get other quotes. The UNK quote was approximately $300 total. The question was raised as to what our options are for funding. Ellingson noted that VC Haack has been generous in the past and we could also see if Faculty Senate would like to help sponsor and help pay for the appreciation program. Ellingson noted the committee does need some ideas about funding this. We can’t promote something that we can not supply. Livingston stated we might have to do the brochures in black and white and xerox it. (Then the administration or some department would have to stand the xeroxing charges.)

      Livingston asked for the feeling of the members on the matter. Member felt we should ask the Chancellor first. Livingston noted that if we are going to ask for funding we need to prioritize; do we need money for this or money for speakers for “Making a Difference”, etc? Hines also noted that for the Employee Appreciation Picnic, there was no budget. Roggasch noted that Staff Senate really needs some kind of budget to assist with all the employee programs and projects that we sponsor/host. Livingston noted that we have requested a budget in the past, but have never been given one. Roggasch noted if we can not get funding through the Chancellor, maybe we could ask each vice chancellor and the deans to donate so much each year toward a budget for our projects. It would be a once a year donation and then we would have to live within the total funding we acquire. Lakey noted we used to get money from the VCs for the keynote speaker for “Making A Difference”. Lakey noted he didn’t like having to go back and continually ask for things. He agreed if we could just get those individuals to commit a set amount a year for our projects, then we would only have to ask once a year for funding. Lakey noted we should set up a proposed budget and then ask for funding. Since this committee reports to the Chancellor, our request for funding should go to her. Livingston noted it has been over a year since we requested a budget, so we could try again. Roggasch noted if we could get a set budget determined, then we could ask the Chancellor for a certain amount to pay for a specific project. Then we could continue on and ask the others mentioned to fund other projects. She noted we could also go to some of the directors – like HR, Financial Aid, etc. and get some additional funding. Ellingson asked if the consensus is for the Executive Committee to establish the budget needed to fund our projects and then try to get commitments? Roggasch noted that is what she would suggest; that way we have the commitments for the year. Livingston noted that is what we should do and have the budget expenses prioritized. In some cases, individuals might not be willing to support one thing, but would be willing to support another. Ellingson noted it would make things easier if we knew we had money coming from someone. Every year when we start planning events, we always wonder if we can do this, since we have no funding source. We need to start getting some support from someone. For example, Livingston noted we had no money to give any kind of honorarium for the Radliffs who sang for the Staff Appreciation Picnic. Hines bought them lunch out of her own pocket. It was decided to have the Executive Committee establish a budget that would cover our project expenses and then SS can try and find some support. That would mean we would have to hold off on “A Cause for Applause” for awhile. Mitchell noted she thought the project is a good one – to be able to give employees an instant thank-you. Ellingson noted she felt it would be great for morale. There are so many people that should be thanked, but aren’t.

    6. Office/Service Dependent Scholarship Committee
      Mitchell noted that the trailer is still at the Nebraskan if anyone forgot to bring the cans for recycling earlier. She noted she would report later on how much money was raised for scholarships.

    7. Making A Difference Sub-committee
      Ellingson noted that since Mitchell was not able to be at the last meeting, she would be doing the report. She noted that again it all comes down to money. Most of the meeting was trying to figure out who to get for a speaker. Most keynote speakers cost between $1,200 and $1,800. We have $700 maximum available for speakers from public sector funding. We have a list of four individuals whose information sounded like they would speak for less. Cheryl Bressington will be contacting those four -–Dr. Wesley Sime, Greg Miller, Joan Burney and Diane Wroblewski. Those individuals will be contacted before the next meeting. If none of them are within our budget or available on October 23rd, then it will be back to the drawing board. All the sub-committees have been set as to who is in charge of the breakout sessions, door prizes, promotion, registration, etc. She also noted all the breakout sessions are already planned and we have commitments for most of them. Ellingson again noted the event would be on Tuesday morning, October 23rd, in the Find Arts Building. Ellingson stated estimated attendance would be 200.

    8. Mentoring Sub-committee
      Ellingson stated the committee will meet tomorrow, but she does need to visit with members about a couple of things. She stated that Deb Schroeder had provided us with the services of Don Ray who prepared all the documents from the Mentor Advantage Program for online access. All that is done and just has to be proof read before that link will be activated. Staff Senate just needs to state if there is a preference as to how it is linked. Members stated Cheryl Bressington, Glenda Wilson, and Ellingson can make that decision.

      Ellingson noted the other item is to notify Staff Senate about the coordinators for the Mentor Advantage Program. There are two, Nicole Eltiste and Joni Weed. Weed has decided to step down so we are in need of appointing another coordinator. That will be one of the main items of business at the meeting tomorrow. The coordinators are the ones who do the matching of mentors and new hires and then keep tabs on things. This may not be an easy position to fill since there is some time involved.

    9. Information Technology
      Livingston noted the committee did meet and basically it was a planning session. Members discussed how the Student Tech fees might be allocated in the future. Members discussed how to determine the priorities and the assessment of the expenditure of funds.

    10. Strategic Planning – no report

  6. New Business
    1. Bylaws Regarding Chair of Sub-committees
      Livingston stated she has had discussions with both Mitchell and Ellingson concerning this matter. She reminded members that according to our bylaws, Staff Senate members must chair all committees and sub-committees. She stated that we are running into problems since not everyone is willing to do that. She noted that we might need to change our bylaws so that at least sub-committees do not have to have a Staff Senate member as chair. However she noted we need to be careful that we always have Senate members on the committees. Livingston noted the sub-committees were setup that way for communication so that Staff Senate knew what was going on in the committees. Hopefully Senate members would be more willing to be on committees if they didn’t have to be chair of the sub-committees. The communication would still be maintained, but it would freeup some of the workload. Livingston asked Mitchell and Ellingson if they had anything to add. Mitchell stated she agrees that this needs to be done. She noted that personally she feels very swamped with all the committee work. She noted that on one of the committees she chairs, she has only been able to attend one meeting. Brenda Jochum, vice chair, has taken on those responsibilities.

      Ellingson stated she felt we are overloading many Staff Senate members. Ellingson also noted that on two sub-committees, she has had to tell members that only Staff Senate members can serve as chair. She felt this was kind of an insult. You ask them to serve and give of their time, but tell them their services are limited. Ellingson noted many of them might not want to be chair, but she felt the opportunity should be there. She noted that if we are asking individuals to get involved, and we are, then they should also have the opportunity to be chair. Ellingson noted that in addition to that, if there are only one or two Staff Senate members on a sub-committee, then you have to say to the rest of the committee, you can only elect this person or that person. Ellingson noted she has had to do that this year, but she was real uncomfortable doing it.

      The question was raised as to how Staff Senate would keep abreast of what is going on if the chair is not a Staff Senate member. Livingston noted any Staff Senate member on the sub-committee could report to Staff Senate concerning the committee activities. It would not have to be the chair reporting. Livingston noted that part of the job of a Senate member is to bring back information to the whole Senate. Livingston clarified that we are talking about sub-committees and ad hoc committees only.

      Ellingson stated she would like to talk about the way we do standing committees also. Currently we require four Staff Senate members (one from each category) on each committee. She looked at Faculty Senate’s committee structure from the web. She stated she is not asking that we do what they do, she just wanted to see what they do concerning committees. She noted Faculty Senate has 12 committees listed in their bylaws. We have 10 in ours. However only a few of their committees have Faculty Senate members on them. Most of their committees are composed of either faculty elected to that particular committee or appointed to that committee. In comparison, most Staff Senate members serve on anywhere from two to four committees. Ellingson stated she is concerned that we are going to overwork our members to the point where they will not be willing to serve again. And if anyone inquires about Staff Senate, they might respond that being a Staff Senate member is a lot of work which would make it hard to recruit other people to serve. Ellingson stated she hopes she is not giving the wrong impression; she enjoys all the committee work that she does, but it is an overload of her time. Also if you are walking out of the office a lot for meetings, your boss is not going to appreciate that and it can become a real problem. Ellingson stated she just wanted Staff Senate to take another look at how things are structured so that we are encouraging people to get involved in Staff Senate, not discouraging them. She noted we still need to know what is happening, but if others on campus could help with the committee load, it would be very helpful.

      Roggasch noted she liked the idea of appointing people to serve on our committees. She noted a lot of people will not volunteer to be on committees, but will serve if asked. Ellingson stated that if they get a taste of what Staff Senate is doing, they might later agree to become a Staff Senate member themselves. Then we could increase our pool of employees willing to serve. If employees have never had anything to do with Staff Senate, they may not know if they want anything to do with it or not. Roggasch noted that as far as the control, each of the committees has to report back to Staff Senate and they are under our umbrella for advice. If there is a committee going down a road we don’t think they should, we could step in and say they need to slow down and rethink this. Livingston stated she does not disagree with anything being said, but we do need to have a Staff Senate member reporting on the committee, rather than depending on the chair or another member to keep us informed. In the past, that has not worked because they forget it is time to report. Then we really don’t know what is happening with the committee. Roggasch stated we could make it the responsibility of any Staff Senate member on the committee to report back to the whole Senate. Ellingson stated if there are written minutes, they should be required to send a copy to the secretary of Staff Senate to keep on file. Livingston asked if most committees have minutes. Ellingson stated that if she is on the committee they do. Kucera stated that she was always told to get as many people involved as possible in order to buy into a concept. She stated that currently we have a small minority of people involved. So the more people we could get involved on campus, the more there would be a better understanding of what we are trying to do. She noted she is in favor of appointing people to committees. She stated she is aware of many people in her office who would be willing to serve on committees, but do not feel they have the time to be on Staff Senate. Mitchell too stated she knows there are people out there who are willing to help out, but don’t want to make a three year commitment. Livingston asked how we find out who those people are? Roggasch stated we all have a circle of people we know on campus and we could start there. Part of our responsibility is to get out on campus and get to know more people; this would get us to enlarge our network of people. Danube stated trying to tap into other people to participate is great, but Livingston had mentioned the problem of getting information back. Danube stated we might be able to get them to come to our meeting if they could just come, report, and then leave. Livingston stated that would be a problem since Robert’s Rules does not let you do it that way and also all ten people reporting would want to be heard first. They would have to wait their turn and that could take some time. Roggasch stated we could invite the chairs to report to Staff Senate, but tell them that they, or the Staff Senate representative on the committee, would be the communication link to Staff Senate. Livingston stated she wanted to be sure that those who serve on Staff Senate understand that part of their obligation is committee work. Members not only need to attend the hour and a half meeting once a month but need to understand there are other parts to being a member of Staff Senate. Livingston noted she understands what Ellingson is saying that you can go too far and do too much. However part of a member’s role is committee work. Ellingson stated she agrees; we need to be involved. She was just suggesting we find a way to cut back a little on the load and let more people get involved. Staff Senate just needs to be sure individuals can be involved in Staff Senate and not jeopardize their jobs. Roggasch noted the bylaws state we have to have four Staff Senate members on each committee. She suggested we cut that back a little, but not give up the committee work. Roggasch suggested requiring only two Senate members from two different groups on each committee. Livingston suggested that the Procedures Committee meet and then make a recommendation to the Senate. McMullen briefly recapped the discussion to be sure he understood the charge to the committee.

      Livingston stated she would like to see Employee of the Month nomination requirements changed. That is not a bylaw issue, but she would like members to be thinking about it for discussion at a later meeting. Livingston is suggesting that we become a little more casual with the nominations. There are a lot of people who will not nominate individuals simply because they do not want to go through the formal process. However they would be willing to call the committee and nominate someone. Hines noted no one wants to fill our forms.

      Ellingson stated she had one other item concerning the bylaws. Under duties of the secretary, it states the secretary shall disseminate the agenda. She stated she has never done that; the president has always done that. Ellingson recommended that be moved and put under the president’s responsibilities since the president has always done that.

      Livingston stated just for members’ information, the chair of the “Making A Difference” Committee has asked to step down as chair because she does not have the time and also wants to be removed from the committee. Livingston noted that Brenda Jochum, vice chair, has been taking the lead on the committee in the chair’s absence. Livingston stated that until we get the bylaws changed, she is assuming that Jochum will continue leading the committee. Ellingson stated if not, then either she or Wilson would have to assume chair since they would be the only other Senate members on the committee. Consensus was if Jochum was willing to do it, just let her chair the committee. Ellingson stated she would talk to Jochum.

    2. Parking Permits
      Hines said she received a call from an individual who was wondering why he had to buy a second permit for a motorcycle. This person already paid $50 for a permit for a vehicle. However sometimes he likes to ride his motorcycle and he has to buy a second permit for $35. He complained that other employees can move their tag from vehicle to vehicle and it does not cost more. But if you change to a motorcycle, then you have to buy another permit. Livingston stated it is a different type of permit. McMullen noted it is different in that it is a sticker placed on the cycle. Roggasch asked if it is the same permit number. She was told no. The employee’s comment was he could only drive one at a time, so why does he have to have two different permits. Livingston stated the problem would be if he had a spouse or child driving another vehicle. Hines stated that does not apply in this case. Roggasch asked if motorcycles could park anywhere or just in a specific location. She was told they could park anywhere. Kucera asked if Hines had talked to Bill Davis and Hines indicated she had not. McMullen stated he would be happy to talk to Davis since he sees him frequently. Livingston noted she didn’t know what the answer is and can see both sides.

  7. Announcements
    1. Due to scheduling conflicts, there will be no meeting in August. The Employee of the Month will be honored at their office. Next meeting will be September 18th.

  8. Adjourn
    The meeting was adjourned (Kucera/Jones) at 11:40 a.m.